Monday, March 24, 2008

EU, UN & Greens Target U.S. Industrial Agriculture For Structural Reform: Seek Regulation & Taxation to Lessen Global Warming & Other Enviro Impacts

Livestock’s long shadow Environmental issues and options

LEAD (Livestock, Environment And Development) (a multi-institutional initiative of United Nations FAO - formed to promote ecologically sustainable livestock production systems)

By H. Steinfeld, P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar, V. Castel, M. Rosales, C. de Haan - (2006)

The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity. Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale

Executive Summary

"...A general conclusion is that improving the resource use efficiency of livestock production can reduce environmental impacts. While regulating about scale, inputs, wastes and so on can help, a crucial element in achieving greater efficiency is the correct pricing of natural resources such as land, water and use of waste sinks. Most frequently natural resources are free or underpriced, which leads to overexploitation and pollution. Often perverse subsidies directly encourage livestock producers to engage in environmentally damaging activities. A top priority is to achieve prices and fees that reflect the full economic and environmental costs, including all externalities. One requirement for prices to influence behaviour is that there should be secure and if possible tradable rights to water, land, use of common land and waste sinks. Damaging subsidies should be removed, and economic and environmental externalities should be built into prices by selective taxing of and/or fees for resource use, inputs and wastes. In some cases direct incentives may be needed."

...An important general lesson is that the livestock sector has such deep and wide-ranging environmental impacts that it should rank as one of the leading focuses for environmental policy...there is an urgent need to develop suitable institutional and policy frameworks, at local, national and international levels, for the suggested changes to occur. This will require strong political commitment, and increased knowledge and awareness of the environmental risks of continuing “business as usual” and the environmental benefits of actions in the livestock sector.

(p.4) Introduction:

"Livestock have a substantial impact on the world's water, land and biodiversity resources and contribute significantly to climate change...[T]he livestock sector occupies about 30% of the ice-free terrestrial surface on the planet. In many situations, livestock are a major source of land-based pollution emitting nutrients and organic matter, pathogens and drug residues into rivers, lakes and coastal seas.

Animals and their wastes emit gases, some of which contribute to climate change, as do other land-use changes caused by demand for feed grains and grazing land. Livestock shape entire landscapes and their demands on land for pasture and feed crop production modify and reduce natural habitats."

(p. xxii)

"...Policy measures that would help in reducing water use and pollution include full cost pricing of water [to cover supply costs, as well as, economic and environmental externalities], regulatory frameworks for limiting inputs and scale, specifying required equipment and discharge levels, zoning regulations and taxes to discourage large-scale concentrations close to cities, as well as development of secure water rights and water markets, and partipating management of watersheds."

(p. 248)

"...Practices that lead to the provision of environmental services, such as improved water quantity and quality, can be encouraged through payments to providers. Schemes of payment for environmental services [PES] rely on the development of a market for environmental services that have previously not been priced.

...Usually, PES schemes rely on external financial resources; however, the long-term sustainability of the mechanisms is often uncertain. Furthermore, the level of payment is often politically imposed and does not correspond to effective demand for services.

A few countries have specific legal frameworks for PES at the national or regional levels. Most of the existing PES schemes, however, operate without a specific legal framework. Some service providers take advantage of this legal gap to establish property rights for land and natural resources."





[While the report speaks of environmental damage caused by overgrazing and deforestation, it also speaks of the environmental damage encouraged by agricultural subsidy and liberal trade policies. Yet, what is really at work is a hidden agenda of attacking American industrial agriculture, including crop farming, livestock farming and ranching, as 'UN'sustainable. This has been one of the main arguments of Environmental Nongovernmental Organizations (ENGOs) in Europe for a long while. Unfortunately, it will drive most small U.S. farmers in the livestock industry out of business and increase the U.S. unemployment rate, AND DIMINISH THE GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS OF U.S. AGRICULTURE . U.S. policymakers and the incoming U.S. President must NOT fall prey to these economically & socially destructive ideas].

[Interestingly, on page 224, the Report refers to Europe's Precautionary Principle, as "a principle used to link environmental concerns to decision-making [. It] calls for action to reduce environmental impact even before conclusive evidence of the exact nature and extent of such damage exists. The precautionary principle stresses that corrective action should not be postponed if there is a serious risk of irreversible damage, even though full scientific evidence may still be lacking. However, there is considerable debate about the usefulness of this principle among policy-makers; a common understanding is still missing." ]

[On page 50, the Report notes how, "Responding to consumer concerns, the EU has required that products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) be labeled so that consumers can identify them. In addition, the EU is pushing for GMO soybeans to be separated from other varieties so that those purchasing them for feed or as ingredients can make a choice".]

[Actually, to the extent this Report recognizes the debate over the Precautionary Principle, it is accurate. However, the Report fails to mention how Europe has used the Precautionary Principle both as a disguised trade barrier and also AS A MEANS TO UNDERMINE AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE:

“EU officials have frequently referred to the precautionary principle as a necessary “framework for learning in the face of uncertainty” and arguably have embraced it as a metaphor for protecting the European ‘way of life’ against the ‘Americanization’ of
European commercial and agricultural practices.12

12... The most recent of three workshops previously organized by the German Marshall Fund’s U.S.-European Biotechnology Initiative to discuss U.S. and EU views toward biotechnology explains a great deal about EU reliance upon the precautionary principle. An interpretative summary of this last dialogue (prepared by a European) is extremely revealing. “The EC official stressed that the political purpose of the European rules [about GMOs] was indeed to restore consumer confidence…‘Anything less than the regulations now being proposed would not restore consumer confidence and GM crops in Europe could fail’…One NGO representative was quoted as saying that, ‘Why can’t the Americans understand that this is not specifically about health and safety and labels and traceability; it’s a rebellion against industrial agriculture. We need to be talking about the emergence of new ways of farming which take social and environmental concerns into account, not just GMOs’…An important factor often omitted from the U.S. interpretation of the European conundrum is concern over the Americanization of European agricultural practices and food habits. This concern embodies dislike and fear of globalization in general…As one European…said, ‘There is a difference in what we want our countries to look like, not only with food but with all that goes with it.’ This ‘way of life’ statement echoed similar thoughts…one European said, ‘GM food was a concrete thing that gave us the feeling that the world was going to change radically with respect to food, control of food, and ultimately democracy’…The European consumer attitude to GMOs has evolved, not out of one or two big events such as growth hormones or ‘mad cow’ disease, but for many reasons that traverse the interdisciplinary spectrum of politics, science, economics, culture and social ethics.’” Peter Pringle, “The U.S.-European Biotechnology Initiative”, Workshop 3: Segregation, Traceability and Labeling of GM Crops – An Interpretative Summary of a Transatlantic Conservation About Biotechnology and Agriculture”, The German Marshall Fund of the United States (April 29, 2002), at pp. 3-8.

See Lawrence A. Kogan, “EU Regulation, Standardization and the Precautionary Principle: The Art of Crafting a Three- Dimensional Trade Strategy That Ignores Sound Science”, National Foreign Trade Council (Aug. 2003), at pp. 6-7. This document is accessible on the World Trade Organization website at: . ]


"Further developments in agri-environmental policy in both the United States and
the EU will likely depend at least in part on outcomes from ongoing multilateral
agricultural trade negotiations. If these negotiations result in further restrictions on
trade-distorting domestic commodity support, farmers, ranchers, and policymakers
may view increased funding for green payments as an attractive alternative for
providing support to agriculture. If further restrictions are required, it seems more
likely that the United States and the EU will look at the other’s policies and
experiences more closely. If such an examination demonstrates that historic and
current differences are extensive and difficult to overcome, it may be that a broad and
imprecise definition of green payments will serve the interests of diverse parties who
participate in farm policy debates.

For U.S. policy, the status of these negotiations in early 2007, when crafting the
next farm bill is likely to start in earnest, will be particularly important because
designers of this legislation and interest groups will likely give the status and
direction of these negotiations strong consideration as they contemplate farm bill
options. If the outcome of the negotiations is uncertain while the farm bill is being
debated, this uncertainty will compound the intensity of the debate, and possibly
result in the inclusion of language in legislation giving the Department greater
flexibility in implementation.

Congressional discussion of green payments may become contentious for other
reasons as well. One source of that contention may be the translation of the concept
into policies and programs. Most interests involved in farm policy who have
expressed an opinion support the general concept of green payments. But as the
discussions become more specific, participants may find that they have different
views about program design, funding allocations, administrative responsibilities and
similar questions, making it difficult to hold together coalitions of supporters.

Among the most difficult of these questions may be deciding whether such a program
should include a significant income support component and contribute to the “bottom
line” of each participant, or should it be limited to covering costs to install and
maintain conservation practices.
A related question may be deciding what is to be accomplished through a green payment approach. Some may view it as meeting
international obligations, and seek a minimal program with limited impact to current domestic efforts, while others may view it is a major new and positive direction in farm policy, and seek to make it large and far-reaching.
One aspect of discussing these options may be over whether payments should be based on cost-sharing for individual practices, which has a long history in agri-environmental policies, or on
the level of improved environmental performance that results from installing

Consideration of green payments may also include a debate over questions of
scale. To this point, all conservation programs are implemented at the scale of an
individual farm. Green payments could include additional incentives for coordinated
and collective action that have much larger cumulative benefits than actions on
individual farms are likely to result in. Such programs could be designed around the
magnitude of the benefits that the group provides, and grow or shrink for all members of the group as the participation, and therefore the benefits, change.

Differences between the United States and the EU in how green payments have been defined and translated into policy and programs may make consideration of EU agri-environmental policy as a model or source of ideas problematic.

Some aspects of EU policy, e.g., compulsory cross-compliance with agri-environmental measures as a condition for receiving price and income support, differ substantially from historical U.S. practice, in which cross-compliance has been far more sparingly

Spending on agri-environmental programs in the United States has been relatively less than in the EU, both as a portion of total federal spending for agriculture and as an amount spent.

Identifying sources of increased funding for agrienvironmental programs, even in the context of possible new WTO restrictions on other forms of farm support, might still be difficult given projected budget deficits. Even with new multilateral restrictions on farm subsidies, agri-environmental programs might compete unfavorably with the more conventional forms of farm support or with other WTO-compatible programs.

Apart from funding considerations, a consensus for linking agri-environment and rural development with more traditional farm program measures has not emerged in the United States as it apparently has in the EU. So the extent to which EU agri-environmental policy could serve as a model or source of ideas for U.S. agri-environmental policy remains to be seen. See Congressional Research Service Report RL32624 "Green Payments in U.S. and European Union Agricultural Policy" at CRS-19-20, at:


Wednesday, March 12, 2008

The French Reap What They Sow - Animal Group Madness & Soft Economic Sabotage

EU refuses bid to lift ban on animal cosmetics testing


The Advocate General of the European Court of Justice has slammed moves by the French government to partially lift the ban on the testing of cosmetic products on animals.

The court advisors said that the proposed deletion of Article 4 (1)(i) of the EU Cosmetic Directive 76/678, wanted the marketing of animal-tested cosmetic products to be unconditionally permitted throughout the European Community.

The French government is seeking the annulment of the Directive's ban on animal testing of cosmetics and the sale of animal-tested products. The court's opinion followed the original hearing in the case brought by France on 18 January, and was rejected by the courts last week.

Currently France has one of the biggest cosmetics industries in Europe, with names such as L'Oreal and Clarence and Clinique proffering some of the most successful and well-known brand names.

The French government has been claiming that the current Directive against animal testing violated the principle of legal certainty because its scope was not adequately defined.

A lifting of the ban would have met with significant animosity from animal rights group and the general public, which has proved to be staunch supporters of moves to ban all cosmetics testing on animals in the past.

Sonja Van Tichelen, director of Eurogroup Animal Welfare Organisation said that the move to quash the French government's demands had the support of the EU citizens.

Furthermore Van Tichelen drew attention to the self interest motivating the French government's move, emphasizing the significance of the country's existing cosmetic industry as well as the fact that it currently has the largest amount of animal testing for cosmetic products.


The final hearing for the French government's demands will be given by the EU Courts, but it seems likely that, following the recommendations of the Advocate General, it will be faced with a tough battle.

Thursday, March 6, 2008

FBI Testified Before US Senate Committee During 2005 About Transatlantic Animal Terrorist Threats to Life, Limb & Property

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
Hearing Statements
Date: 10/26/2005

Statement of John Lewis
Deputy Assistant Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation

Good morning Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Jeffords, and members of the Committee. I am pleased to be here again to discuss the threat posed by animal rights activists, and by the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, or the SHAC movement in particular.

I am here today to speak to you about how members of the animal rights extremist movement advance their cause by using so-called direct action against individuals or companies. “Direct action” is criminal activity designed to cause economic loss or to destroy property or operations. I see disturbing signs of success in what they are doing and legitimate business is suffering. I will also touch on the limitations of existing statutes.

It is critical to recognize the distinctions between constitutionally protected advocacy and violent, criminal activity. It is one thing to write concerned letters or hold peaceful demonstrations. It is another thing entirely, to construct and use improvised explosive or incendiary devices, to harass and intimidate innocent victims by damaging or destroying property, or other threatening acts. Law enforcement should only be concerned with those individuals who pursue their animal rights agenda through force, violence, or criminal activity. Unfortunately, the FBI sees a significant amount of such criminal activity across our investigations.

Let me begin with a brief overview of the domestic terrorism threats that come from special interest extremist movements such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign. Members of these movements aim to resolve their issues by using criminal “direct action” against individuals or companies believed to be exploiting or abusing animals, as well as other companies believed to be doing business with the target of their direct actions.

The extremists’ efforts have broadened to include a multi-national campaign of harassment, intimidation and coercion against animal testing companies and any companies or individuals doing business with those targeted companies.

This “secondary” or “tertiary” targeting of companies that have business or financial relationships with the principal target generally takes the form of fanatical harassment of employees and interference with normal business operations, using the threat of escalating tactics or violence.

The best example of this trend is the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty campaign, known as SHAC. Since its inception in 1999, SHAC has conducted a relentless campaign of terror and intimidation specifically targeting Huntingdon Life Sciences, an animal research laboratory. SHAC’s overriding goal is to put HLS out of business, by whatever means necessary — even by violent means.

SHAC has targeted not just HLS, but companies that are affiliated with it. SHAC’s website publishes lists of these companies, ranging from pharmaceutical companies to builders to investors. SHAC has used a variety of tactics to harass and intimidate these affiliate companies, their employees, and family members, including bombings, death threats, vandalism, office invasions, phone blockades, and denial-of-service attacks on their computer systems.

Unfortunately, this strategy has been quite effective. Over 100 companies — many of them in the U.S. — have severed ties with HLS, including Aetna Insurance, Citibank, Deloitte & Touche, Johnson and Johnson, and Merck. SHAC’s current target list includes GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Novartis, UPS, and multiple financial institutional investors. SHAC has targeted not only the facilities of these companies, but also their employees and family members.

However, when these companies or individuals are threatened or attacked, it is not necessarily the work of SHAC itself. There may be overlap in membership in extremist movements, which can make it difficult to identify the actual perpetrators. Also, in the past 18 months, a number of SHAC splinter groups have been created, which use SHAC tactics and focus on SHAC targets. This is most likely an attempt by animal rights extremists to continue the SHAC campaign while appearing to distance themselves from the SHAC organization. However, while the SHAC organization attempts to portray itself merely as an information service or media outlet, it is closely aligned with these groups, as well as with the Animal Liberation Front. Many of the ALF’s criminal activities are directed against companies and individuals selected as targets by SHAC and posted on SHAC’s website.

Let me give you several examples. In August 2003, two improvised explosive devices detonated at the Chiron Corporation. A month later, an improvised explosive device wrapped in nails exploded at the headquarters of the Shaklee Corporation in California. The companies were targeted because they have ties to HLS. The previously unknown “Revolutionary Cells of the Animal Liberation Brigade” claimed responsibility via an anonymous communique, which stated: “We gave all of the customers the chance, the choice, to withdraw their business from HLS. Now you will reap what you have sown. All customers and their families are considered legitimate more will all the killing be done by the oppressors, now the oppressed will strike back.” Following this attack, the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force in San Francisco identified and charged known activist Daniel San Diego in connection with the bombings. He is currently a fugitive from justice.

In another example, last month an incendiary device was left on the front porch of a senior executive at GlaxoSmithKline in England. The executive was not home when the bomb detonated, but his wife and daughter were inside. Fortunately, no one was hurt. GlaxoSmithKline is one of SHAC’s main targets, yet it was the ALF that claimed responsibility for the attack. In a message posted on the Internet, activists wrote: “We realize that this may not be enough to make you stop using HLS but this is just the beginning. We have identified and tracked down many of your senior executives and also junior staff, as well as those from other HLS customers. Drop HLS or you will face the consequences.”

That same week, British newspapers reported that a chain of children’s nursery schools had become a target of SHAC. Leapfrog Day Nurseries, a major provider of childcare in Great Britain, had a program that offered childcare vouchers to HLS employees. A spokesman announced that Leapfrog Nurseries had received letters from animal rights activists threatening physical force. One news account quoted a letter as saying: “Not only you but your family is a target. Sever your links with HLS within two weeks or get ready for your life and the lives of those you love to become a living hell.” In order to ensure the safety of the children and their employees, Leapfrog Nurseries cut ties with HLS. Again, an extremist group other than SHAC is believed to be responsible for the victory — but by extension, it is also a victory for the SHAC campaign.

And most recently, last month Carr Securities began marketing the Huntingdon Life Sciences stock. The next day, the Manhasset Bay Yacht Club, to which certain Carr executives reportedly belong, was vandalized by animal rights activists. The extremists sent a claim of responsibility to the SHAC website, and three days after the incident, Carr terminated its business relationship with HLS. These are just some of the examples of SHAC’s use of threats and violence to financially strangle HLS and permanently mar its public image. These examples demonstrate some of the difficulties law enforcement faces in combating acts of extremism and domestic terrorism. Extremists are very knowledgeable about the letter of the law and the limits of law enforcement. The SHAC website has a page devoted to instructing activists on how to behave toward law enforcement officers, how to deal with interrogations, and what to say — and not say — if they are arrested.

Extremists also adhere to strict security measures in both their communications and their operations. The SHAC website advises activists to “NEVER discuss illegal activity indoors, over the phone, or email...keep the discussion of illegal activity on a need to know basis only. This means working only with people you know and trust and discussing your action with the people you are carrying it out with and no one else.”

Despite the challenges posed by the cellular, autonomous nature of extremists and their high operational security, the FBI and its law enforcement partners have worked steadily to investigate and deter extremist activity. Our job is to protect all citizens from crime and terrorism, whether international or domestic in origin. We now have 103 Joint Terrorism Task Forces nationwide, which investigate and protect our communities from domestic and international terrorists. We have used a wide variety of techniques to investigate criminal activity conducted by SHAC, and have collected vital intelligence and evidence. And we are making progress.

In one example of a recent success, last May the FBI helped secure criminal indictments in New Jersey against the SHAC organization and seven of its national leaders, charging them with Animal Enterprise Terrorism, Conspiracy, and Interstate Stalking. They are known among animal rights activists as the “SHAC 7.” Last September, a federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment against the SHAC 7, charging them with Harassing Interstate Communications because of the posting of “target” information on the SHAC website, which continues to result in vandalism, harassment and intimidation of victim companies and their employees. Their trial is set for February 2006.

But despite successes such as this, the FBI’s efforts to target these movements in order to prevent and disrupt criminal activity have been hindered by a lack of applicable federal criminal statutes. This is particularly frustrating as we attempt to dismantle organized, multi-state campaigns of intimidation, vandalism, threats and coercion designed to interfere with legitimate interstate commerce, as exhibited by SHAC. While it is a relatively simple matter to prosecute extremists who have committed arson or detonated explosive devices, under existing federal statutes it is difficult, if not impossible, to address a campaign of low-level criminal activity like that of SHAC.

In order to address SHAC’s crusade to shut down legitimate business enterprises through direct action, the FBI initiated a coordinated investigative approach, beginning in 2001. FBI field offices that had experienced SHAC activity worked closely with U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the Justice Department, and FBI Headquarters to explore strategies for investigation and prosecution. First, we examined the idea of using the existing Animal Enterprise Terrorism statute, as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 43, which provides a framework for prosecuting individuals involved in animal rights extremism. In practice, however, the statute does not cover many of the criminal activities SHAC routinely engages in on its mission to shut down HLS. The current version of the section 43 only applies when there is “physical disruption” to the functioning of an animal enterprise that results in damage or loss of property. But, as you have heard me describe, HLS has been economically harmed by threats and coercion that did not ultimately cause property damage.

For example, in 2004, SHAC targeted Seaboard Securities, a company that provided financial services to HLS. SHAC posted the phone numbers and addresses for Seaboard Securities’ offices on its website, and also provided detailed recommendations on how to harass the company. The SHAC campaign against Seaboard included phone blockades, office invasions and damage to property belonging to Seaboard Securities and its employees. In the wake of this pressure, Seaboard Securities severed its relationship with HLS in January 2005.

Much of this activity cannot be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 43 nor are there other federal criminal statutes that provide effective prosecutorial remedies. Moreover, even when section 43 does apply, the current penalty of up to 3 years in prison has failed to deter a tremendous amount of criminal conduct. The activities of SHAC frequently fall outside the scope of the statute, and because members are well-versed in the limits of the statute, they have tended to engage in conduct that, while criminal, would not result in a significant federal prosecution.

As we continued to examine these legislative challenges, another option we considered was prosecution under the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951). Under this legal theory, prosecution was based on the premise that the subjects were engaged in an extortion scheme against companies engaged in, or doing business with, animal-based research. Victims were subjected to criminal acts such as vandalism, arson, property damage, physical attacks, or the fear of such attacks, until they discontinued their research or terminated their association with or investment in animal-based research companies such as HLS.

However, the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Scheidler v. National Organization for Women removed the Hobbs Act as an option. The decision states that such conduct by activists does not constitute extortion as defined under the Hobbs Act unless the activists seek to obtain or convert the victims’ property for their own use.

The FBI would support changes to the statutes that will address the issue of secondary and tertiary targeting by organizations like SHAC. We will continue to work with our Department of Justice colleagues and the Congress to refine and amend existing statutes so that we may have more effective tools to address this growing crime problem.

Investigating and preventing animal rights extremism is one of the FBI’s highest domestic terrorism priorities. We are committed to working with our partners to disrupt and dismantle these movements, to protect our fellow citizens, and to bring to justice those who commit crime and terrorism in the name of animal rights.

Chairman Inhofe and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the challenges we face in this area of our work. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

There Are Lesser Forms of Economic Sabotage: See What Happens When Farmers Negotiate With Enviro-Extremists Which Politicians Can't Control?

Environmental group pulls out of Klamath River agreement

By David Whitney

McClatchy Newspapers

Posted on Monday, March 3, 2008

WASHINGTON — In a setback to efforts to end fighting over Klamath River water along the California-Oregon border, the area's leading environmental group announced Monday that it cannot support a proposed $1 billion deal because it doesn’t provide enough help for salmon.

The Northcoast Environmental Center said that the agreement, still in flux, guarantees water for up-river farmers in Oregon but gives no such assurances for endangered salmon trying to make their way up the 260-mile river to spawn. The deal had been touted as benefiting both fish and farming when announced in January because it would compliment separate negotiations for a deal in which Portland-based PacifiCorp would remove a series of dams impeding fish passage.

“This agreement would lock us in to supporting water allocations for agriculture that could result in stream flows so low as to cause extinction,” said Greg King, the center’s executive director. He said his group wants to reopen the water allocation talks, one of the stickiest parts of the deal.

The Arcata, Calif.-based NEC’s opposition, based on scientific studies [??] it commissioned, will complicate, if not kill, the chances of a deal getting to Congress in time for enactment this year.


“It’s disappointing,” said Craig Tucker of California’s Karuk Tribe, a leading advocate of the agreement. “It’s a big deal for congressmen like Mike Thompson.”

Thompson, a Democrat, represents most of the river in Northern California. Tucker said it would be difficult for him to back a deal opposed by his district’s leading environmental organization.
Thompson could not be reached for comment.

The NEC announcement will put pressure on the 26 groups involved in the talks to amend key principles that have taken more than two years to draft. Talks resume Wednesday.

Glen Spain, who represents commercial fishermen in the talks, said his group agrees that fish-friendly changes will have to be made.


“Clearly there are uncertainties about what the fish in the Lower Klamath River get out of this in the long term,” he said.

On the other side of the bargaining table, interest is waning in re-examining the down-river concerns.


Greg Addington, executive director of the Klamath Water Users Association, which relies on the federal irrigation water, said his bigger concern now is trying to shore up support among irrigators.

“I can’t spend more time on that,” Addington said of the NEC’s concerns. “I’ve got to spend time in my own backyard at this point.”

Time may be the bigger factor. Advocates of the deal are trying to get it wrapped up in the next month or so in order to get it through Congress and signed by President Bush before he leaves office next January.

King said it would be work for balance, not speed.

“We want those dams down,” he said. “But we also want to make sure that there is enough water for fish. We don’t want to sacrifice fish for an expedient agreement.”
McClatchy Newspapers 2008

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

NYSE Finally Musters Courage to Defend Economic Freedom and Defy Animal Extremists
NYSE Defies Animal Extremists


Published: Dec. 29, 2006 at 1:32 PM


UPI Homeland and National Security Editor

WASHINGTON, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- The decision by the New York Stock Exchange to list a medical research company targeted by animal rights protestors on a new electronic market where shares can be traded anonymously is being hailed as a victory by animal researchers.

Life Sciences Research, Inc., a Princeton, N.J.-based medical research firm that specializes in animal experiments announced just before Christmas that it had settled a dispute with the NYSE, and would be listed on the exchange's new all-electronic trading platform called Arca.

"We're thrilled," the company's Chief Financial Officer Richard Michaelson told United Press International. "It is a totally anonymous trading environment," he said of the new electronic exchange. "In our situation that is a big advantage."Life Sciences Research, Inc., is the parent of U.K.-based Huntingdon Life Sciences, and has been targeted on both sides of the Atlantic by animal rights activists organized under the name Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, or SHAC.

The protests, which included sometimes violent campaigns of harassment against individual employees of the company and other firms that did business with it, were so successful that NYSE pulled a planned listing on its main exchange last year, after market-makers and other financial service providers were threatened by activists.

As part of the agreement for the listing on Arca, Life Sciences Research, Inc., agreed to drop their case against the NYSE about the listing being pulled, Michaelson said.

The firm's share price rose 40 percent in the first day's trading, to more than $14, and closed Thursday at $13.75.

Journalist and animal rights sympathizer Will Potter told UPI that targeting the market-makers -- financial middlemen who promise to buy a company's shares at the prevailing price and make real-time trading possible on the pre-electronic NYSE big board -- had been a big step forward for SHAC campaigners, and was what had enabled them to scotch the planned listing.

"That was what got the (animal research) industry really freaked out," said Potter, "once the activists started to understand how important the market makers were... how the stock market actually worked... It was a real turning point.

"Campaigners also targeted firms that provided financial, technical and other services to Life Sciences Research, and threatened to mount protests against the NYSE -- a tactic known as tertiary targeting.

In the UK, animal rights activists using similar tactics have successfully forced the closure of two businesses breeding animals for research."That business savvy is the greatest threat they pose," Potter said of the animal rights movement, adding that the anonymity Arca provided would close off some of those options for campaigners.

A new law giving federal law enforcement additional powers to surveil and prosecute campaigners using harassment against animal researchers and companies that do business with them was signed by President Bush at the end of November, but the consensus among industry observers was that it was too early to tell how much difference it would make.

Jerry Vlasak, spokesman for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, told UPI in a recent interview he believes the new law will lead to more "underground activity," such as vandalizing laboratories and releasing research animals.

"It's not going to make this thing go away," he said, "I don't think you're going to find anybody deterred." Indeed, he said, protestors who had stuck to legal tactics were now worried about being prosecuted under the new law and were leaning towards more militant forms of protest.

The new law strengthens existing federal legislation, which protects animal researchers and other businesses using animals from "physical disruption." The act expands federal offenses under the law to cover campaigns of threats and intimidation that might financially cripple a company without any "physical disruption;" and increases penalties.

It also expands the law to cover so-called secondary and tertiary targets -- companies who do business with animal enterprises -- and individual employees, neither of which were protected by the existing 1992 law. Federal law enforcement officials say the new powers will enable them to launch investigations, including electronic surveillance of telephones, web sites and e-mail, against small groups of militants who are exploiting loopholes in the existing legislation.

© 2006 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.This material may not be reproduced, redistributed, or manipulated in any form.

NYSE Failed to Defend Capitalism Against Threats By Animal Activists

NYSE 'caved in' on lab firm float

The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) has been accused of caving into threats from animal rights activists.

The claim came from Life Sciences, the US parent firm of animal testing group Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), at a US Senate hearing on "eco terrorism".

The company focused on the effect of the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty campaign (SHAC) on businesses.

Life Sciences said it was "patently clear" the SHAC campaign had led the NYSE to postpone its share listing.


During the hearing, Life Sciences and the NYSE were questioned about the decision to postpone the company's listing minutes before its debut.

It was patently clear to me that the only reason the NYSE postponed our listing was because of concerns about the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty campaig Mark Bibi, Life Sciences' general counsel.

NYSE representative Richard P Bernard apologised for the timing of the postponement, saying: "We got our cart before the horse."

However, he added that the reasons behind the decision were "confidential" but also pointed out that the exchange had the right and said that under SEC rules the exchange could "bring in other factors to determine a listing".

The exchange was still looking into the listing of Life Sciences, he said.

But Life Sciences' general counsel Mark Bibi told the hearing that when he met NYSE officials on 7 September - the day of its planned listing - they only spoke about a planned campaign by animal rights activists.

"It was patently clear to me that the only reason the NYSE postponed our listing was because of concerns about the SHAC campaign," Mr Bibi said.

Threat pressure

He added that the decision to postpone Life Sciences' listing only 45 minutes before its shares were due to begin trading had affected its stock price.

Its shares had stood at $17.50 on 6 September on the Nasdaq bulletin board, but since the postponement they have traded as low as $8. On Wednesday they closed at $12.25.

Huntingdon Life Sciences has been targeted for years by animal rights activists. Senior executives have been physically attacked while others with links to the company have been subjected to serious intimidation - developments which led to the firm moving its headquarters from the UK to the US.

However, the aggressive campaign of harassment has continued across the Atlantic, according to reports.

Traders buying and selling their shares were targeted and when Life Sciences applied for a listing on the NYSE, the exchange itself reportedly became the focus of animal rights activism.

Pathetic PETA Publication Promotes Outdoorsmen Protest

PETA attacks on outdoorsmen offensive

The war on parents who have introduced their children to the outdoors, be it fishing, hunting or trapping, continues unabated.

One group in particular, PETA, has published "comic" books aimed at kids that depict a crazed-looking, knife-wielding woman hacking into a bunny under the title "Your mommy kills animals."

It's hard to believe this kind of approach exists.

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals think that hunting, fishing or trapping are shocking things for folks to do. So, PETA is opposed to trapping and feels it's OK with portraying your fur-wearing mother as a murderer.

It's a safe guess that outdoorsmen are not opposed to the following:

People who want to eat vegetables and not meat. You like carrots and beets instead of a good venison steak? Good for you.

People who do not want to hunt, fish or trap. It's not for everybody.

People who want to stop domestic animal cruelty. No hunter, angler, or trapper I know wants to see a domestic animal, such as a dog or cat, handled in a cruel way.

Outdoorsmen, however, are opposed to:

People who go to unbelievable and shocking ways to get their point across. Case in point: the PETA comic. Even if you don't like fishing or trapping, you'd have to find this method of swaying kids offensive.

People who are trying to legislate fishing, hunting or trapping out of existence.

People who are intolerant of other viewpoints and traditions. I know plenty of people who don't hunt, trap or fish. We respect that. However, they wouldn't think of imposing their own views on those that do.

People who are prepared to use domestic terrorism to enforce their anti- (you fill in the blank) position. Ever hear of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) or the Environmental Liberation Front (ELF)? The FBI and state police have.

A person who thinks its OK to throw paint on someone's fur coat. You want to march against fur coats? Fine, but don't go to the extreme and cause harm to some else's property.

Outdoorsmen need to be aware of what groups like PETA are doing as they press their attacks forward. The "mommy kills" campaign is just a part of an ongoing barrage conducted by those who want to arrest your right to hunt, fish and trap.

Fire ELFs Attack Homes Under Construction in Washington State

Seattle Times staff reporter

The Earth Liberation Front has its roots in the militant opposition to logging of old-growth forests. Beginning in 1996, an underground group launched more than a dozen arsons against targets that included the U.S. Forest Service, timber companies, a horse slaughterhouse, a car dealership and a University of Washington researcher believed to be genetically engineering poplar trees.

But in recent years, new housing developments popping up on the urban fringes have become the most high-profile targets claimed by the ELF.

Those attacks include a 2002 arson that destroyed a San Diego apartment complex and caused $50 million in damage, and a 2000 torching of a luxury housing development in Mount Sinai, N.Y. "If you build it, we will burn it," was the graffiti left at the scene of the New York fire, according to The New York Times.

Other arsons claimed by ELF include fires that destroyed two houses under construction in a Snohomish County subdivision in 2004 and the torching of a house in Sammamish in 2005, according to Fred Gutt, an FBI special agent in Seattle. Those cases remain unsolved.

The early Monday morning arsons that destroyed three multimillion-dollar houses in Snohomish County appear to fit the pattern of targeting housing developments. A banner bearing ELF initials left at the scene attacked "McMansions" in rural areas.

Federal investigators believe that these house arsons, like an earlier wave started in the 1990s, are carried out by small, secretive and very elusive cells.

"Unlike a traditional crime family, there is a lack of hierarchy to penetrate," said Fred Gutt, an FBI special agent in Seattle.

In the late 1990s, the first ELF cell sounded downright cocky as they issued news release after news release claiming responsibility for attacks and explaining the perceived sins of the targets.
After a March 2001 arson that burned 35 SUVs at a Chevrolet dealership in Eugene, Ore., an ELF communique announced the arrival of a new, more militant era, when the sins of the "rich who parade around in their armored existence" would no longer go unchallenged.

The FBI had few solid clues in these arsons until 2004, when they were able to pressure Jacob Ferguson, a key member of the early cell, to wear a recording wire to his meetings with other activists.

That investigation, known as "Operation Backfire," eventually resulted in the indictments of 18 individuals. An alleged ringleader of that group was Bill "Avalon" Rodgers, who committed suicide in Arizona after being taken into custody.

Rodgers was also a committed animal-rights militant, and carried out some of his actions on behalf of the Animal Liberation Front. The ALF in recent years has become much more visible and carried out several attacks against companies and individuals.

On Feb. 3, an incendiary device was left at the house of Edythe London, a UCLA scientist involved in primate research. An ALF message warned her, "We won't back down, ever."
Jerry Vlasek, who speaks on behalf of the ALF, said his group's actions have been on the upswing in recent years.

The ELF's tactics have drawn criticism from more established environmental organizations.

"These people aren't environmentalists. They're criminals," said Trevor Kaul, director of the Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club.

In 2003, after ELF attacks on a car delaership and construction site in Southern California, the Sierra Club's national executive director Carl Pope, said his organization "condemns all acts of violence in the name of the environment." He pointed out that the Sierra Club contributed to a reward fund to help track down those who set fire to a Forest Service building in the Willamette National Forest.

Hal Bernton: 206-464-2581 or
Material from The Associated Press was used in this report.

Tree Hugging Terrorism Arises From Frustrations, Experts Say

Environmentalists Turn To Violence

Once Benign 'Tree-Huggers' Now Practice Economic Sabotage

(CBS) It's been guerrilla warfare all summer out west, reports CBS News Correspondent Bill Whitaker.

The extremist Earth Liberation Front, or ELF, has claimed responsibility for a rash of fires in California, including a $50-million development in San Diego.

"The organization has never harmed a single person," said former ELF spokesman Craig Rosebraugh.

But, he says, property destruction is a necessary tactic. The goal is economic sabotage, to try and inflict maximum damage to the entities that are destroying the natural environment.

And it's not just environmental extremists. Equally stealthy animal radicals also are turning up the heat with an escalating rampage of destruction.

In all, these extremists claim more than $100 million of destruction across the country.

Animal rights activists bombed a Bay Area genetics lab and released 10,000 mink in Washington.

Now, environmental extremists are taking aim at a new target: SUVs. Hummers were torched near L.A., peppered with BBs in Houston and tagged in Santa Fe. "They're not making a point, they're just making people angry," a Santa Fe car dealer told Whitaker. "Driving a hummer, a $50,000 GM tool for the rich, getting 10 miles to the gallon -- that is violence.

Going in and torching those and getting rid of those is an act of liberation and should be applauded," Rosebraugh says. Rosebraugh says years of peaceful protests failed to save the earth. He now considers the property attacks a better advertisement than a recruitment video he produced telling people to "take initiative, form your own cell and do what needs to be done to protect all life on this planet."

San Francisco chef Laurent Manrique felt his family threatened when animal rights radicals defaced his shop and sent video of his wife and infant with the words, "we're watching" -- all because he serves goose liver. "It was like it was back in Alabama in 1935, 1940," he said.

"What's going on?" The FBI says what's going on is pure and simple terrorism. "Those who've committed those crimes will find in the end they will be spending the rest of their productive lives in prison," warned Assistant FBI Director Ron Iden. The FBI, using surveillance video from the L.A. Hummer fire, says it's confident of an arrest. Rosebraugh says the underground cells are so diffuse, a few arrests won't stop them.

"There's definitely going to be more actions, because that frustration level continues to grow." Clearly frustration is growing on both sides.

©MMIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved

Economic Sabotage IS Free Speech In The UK; Is It Now Also Free Speech In the US?

Economic sabotage a form of free speech?

Date: 6/28/2005 11:23:15 AM

On June 10, AFP Greenpeace was fined 4,000 Euros Under a new Danish Anti-Terror Law for using an anti-GMO protest as a means of public intimidation. Some, including the author of this piece, Lawrence A. Kogan, believe other countries should follow Denmark’s example to discourage what UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s previous government called 'economic sabotage'.

The UK government has been desperately trying to keep life science and biotechnology company jobs and investments in the UK.

The five-year plan released earlier this year by the UK Department of Trade and Investment (DTI) suggests two possible reasons why such companies may be considering relocation - over-regulation and economic sabotage. According to UK trade and industry secretary Patricia Hewitt, the single biggest threat to the UK's "position as number two in the world on biotechnology is the threat of animal rights extremists, animal rights terrorists". And, a spokesman for the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) previously remarked how extremist campaigns were having an increasingly negative impact on R&D
investment in the UK and thereby ruining the industry.

According to ABPI figures, more than 100 abusive or threatening phone calls and other communications were made to companies engaged in animal research last year, almost three times the 38 for 2003. There were 177 cases of damage to company, personal and private property in 2004, up from 146 the previous year. A recent report appearing in the Daily Mail
further corroborates this trend. It found that, during the three months ended October 2004, forty-eight attacks were committed on property belonging to pharmaceutical companies and their employees, along with countless acts of abuse and intimidation (e.g., blockades) against these companies' suppliers. In addition, such groups have engaged in personal harassment of life sciences company investors, including threats to publish their names and home addresses on the web unless they sell their shares. In fact, "abuse from animal rights militants has prompted almost 5000 directors of medical research firms and their customers to seek Government protection."

Unfortunately, as a recent BBC radio broadcast has revealed, illegal vigilante acts such as these increasingly reflect the modus operandi as well as the raison d'etre of political pressure groups once more “sophisticated” attempts at legal or public “persuasion” have failed. As emphasised by one animal rights group protestor, "You don't pick a company unless you can close it down because otherwise you just make those companies stronger. So when they are chosen - they are finished."

What is most disturbing about these activities, however, is that they do not reflect the aberrant behavior of only a small band of miscreants, as UK officials and the UK media would have the world believe. It is common knowledge that ideological extremism and criminal conduct are not entirely the province of animal rights advocates. Environmental extremism is also particularly well entrenched in UK and European daily life, where it has historically been the mainstay of such internationally recognised environmental groups as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, World Wildlife Fund and other more locally focused groups. Environmental extremists within these groups have widely disseminated misinformation to induce consumer fears and distrust of European regulators to gain credibility with the broader European public. They have employed strong lobbying pressure to shape national and regional precautionary principle-based environmental policies. And they have threatened business and personal reputations, engaged in personal harassment and physical intimidation and caused destruction of personal and business property in order to influence industry conduct. Each of the acts within this latter category of
wrongs arguably constitutes a type of criminally actionable economic sabotage or economic terrorism no less severe than the acts committed by the animal rights extremists and targeted by Tony Blair's proposed criminal legislation. That UK Ministers are still debating whether the offence should cover all extremists, not just the animal rights activists who are its principal
target, is nothing less than an acknowledgement of this sad but true fact.

A good example of the type of economic sabotage engaged in by environmental extremists in the UK during the past five years involves genetically modified (GM) food, feed and seed. Extremist efforts have focused, since at least 1999, on terrorizing and causing economic loss to industry (biotech and pharmaceutical companies), farmers and scientists that dared to go forward with outdoor government-planned GM trials. Their ultimate goal was to stop the trials altogether, hamper government GM research efforts, and to block industry's development and distribution of GM products to British supermarkets and retail stores. The intended effect of such conduct was to deny the British public a potentially useful, and perhaps, essential new technology. The UK government had planned to conduct trials in 55 fields by the end of 2000 - 25 fields for maize and oilseed rape and 30 fields for either sugar or fodder beets. Additional farmscale trials were planned for 2001 and 2002. While government estimates had suggested that a total of 75 participating farms were needed to conduct a viable study, mounting Greenpeace pressure during this three year period made it difficult to recruit enough farms. As the Guardian reported in September 2000, of the 31 English and Scottish farms that had originally signed up for the trials, 26 were placed on a Greenpeace hit list, and two others pulled out due to local pressure.

The trials had been facilitated by the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops (SCIMAC), an industry group drawn from the plant breeding, agrochemical and farming sectors, whose objective was to ensure that the commercial introduction of GM crops in the UK is managed openly and responsibly. SCIMAC had drawn up a code of practice on the transfer of information about GM products along the supply chain and guidelines on the management of herbicide tolerant crops. While the UK government (DEFRA) initially welcomed this 4-year initiative, it did not, for political reasons, endorse outright SCIMAC's risk management guidelines.

Greenpeace-driven economic sabotage was catapulted into the public limelight following the non-guilty jury verdict rendered on September 20, 2000, at the criminal trial of Greenpeace UK executive director, Peter Melchett. Melchett and 27 other members of Greenpeace had been criminally charged on July 26, 1999, with raiding (trespass), damaging (vandalism) and trying to remove (theft) six acres of a GM maize crop that were being grown by local Norfolk farmers for seed company Agr-Evo Ltd (now the agrochemical company Aventis). At trial, Melchett successfully invoked the subjective facts-intensive defense known in Britain as “the Tommy Archer defense” which, as the Independent wrote, "relied on the jury accepting that the defendant genuinely believed that the action would prevent greater damage being done."

In other words, the group's otherwise illegal actions were justified because the group “honestly” believed that it was responding to an even greater potential threat posed to the environment by the pollination of GM crops. As a result, environmental extremists believed they were given the green light to destroy the UK's GM crop research program, and along with it the crops themselves. This mindset was reflected in the remarks of Charles Secrett, director of Friends of the Earth UK: "As far as I can see this throws the door open for people to legitimately destroy GM crops that are about to go to pollen".

A number of additional attacks against GM crop trials followed the issuance of this verdict. The irony of these events was plain for all to see. Individual farmers had willingly participated in UK government planned GM crop trials facilitated by a cautious industry, which were intended to provide more information to the public about the potential scientific risks and benefits associated with herbicide-resistant crops. This was precisely the kind of information environmental extremists such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth had demanded all along but chose to ignore for political reasons.

These environmental extremists, however, were not satisfied until they could also disrupt and destroy the business relationships that existed along the British food supply chain. As early as the fall of 2000, the US Department of Agriculture had noted how Greenpeace-induced "hysteria surrounding genetically engineered (GE) food" had prompted pledges from a number of British supermarkets to phase out meat, eggs and dairy products from animals fed GM crops. In other words, Greenpeace was able to successfully shape consumer demand for GM products as well as influence producer and retailer supply of such products. This was achieved by promoting consumer misinformation and fear and by engaging in guerilla-type military tactics against companies, their employees and their suppliers. The goal was plainly and simply economic sabotage, at both a micro and macro level.