Content uploaded by Michael Loadenthal
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michael Loadenthal on Sep 10, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
[ features ]
The Earth Liberation Front:
A Social Movement Analysis
MICHAEL LOADENTHAL1
ABSTRACT
The Earth Liberation Front is a radical environmental movement
that developed from the ideological factionalization of the British
Earth First! movement of the 1990s. Its ideological underpinnings
are based in deep ecology, anti-authoritarian anarchism highlighting
a critique of capitalism, a commitment to non-violence, a collective
defense of the Earth, and a warranted feeling of persecution by
State forces. In its current form, the Earth Liberation Front is a
transnational, decentralized network of clandestine, autonomous,
cells that utilize illegal methods of protest by sabotaging and van-
dalizing property. The small unit cells are self-contained entities
that can operate without the support of external entities such as fi-
nanciers or weapons procurers. Tactical and operational knowledge
is developed and shared through commercially available books
written by the broader environmental movement throughout the last
four decades, as well as inter-movement publications produced by
the cells and distributed through numerous sympathetic websites.
Membership can be understood as occurring on two levels, the
covert cell level and the public support level, both of which operate
1 Michael Loadenthal is a doctoral candidate and adjunct professor who
finds himself stranded between Cincinnati and Washington, DC,
multi-tasking as a father, conspirator and writer. Over the past 15
years he has organized amongst a variety of global direct action
movements and at present is conducting top secret research for The
Revolution. He can be reached at michael.loadenthal@gmail.com and
mloadenthal.wordpress.com.
15
16 RADICAL CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN 1929-7904)
in tandem to produce and publicize acts of property destruction. At
the cell level, individuals conduct pre-operational reconnaissance
and surveillance, develop and construct weapons systems, carry out
orchestrated attacks, and announce their actions to support groups
and media while maintaining internal security and anonymity. At
the aboveground level, support entities help to publicize attacks car-
ried out by cells, respond to media inquiries and other public en-
gagements, identify and coordinate aid to imprisoned cell members,
and develop and distribute sympathetic propaganda produced by,
and in support of affiliated individuals. This case study uses the
history of the Earth Liberation Front’s United States attacks as its
unit of analysis, and seeks to outline the ideology, structure, context
and membership factors that constitute the movement.
INTRODUCTION
October 14 is Columbus Day, a national holiday in the Unit-
ed States when citizens are reminded of their colonial roots. On
this day in 1996, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) leapt into ac-
tion in the US state of Oregon. In one night, individuals carried
out three simultaneous attacks targeting a Chevron station, a
public relations office and a McDonald’s restaurant. All three
targets had their locks glued and their property painted with po-
litical messages including a three letter calling card, E.L.F.
(Molland 2006, 55). For the US, this was the first salvo from
the ELF, a clandestine, decentralized network of autonomous
cells using sabotage and vandalism to cause financial hardship
to targets thought to be abusing the Earth. From this small ac-
tion, less than ten years later, the US would declare the ELF
“the most active criminal extremist element in the United
States” (Lewis 2004) and the “number one domestic terrorist
threat”2 (Schuster 2005). While such rhetoric was mobilized
with great strength in the decade following the millennium, the
ELF remains active, transitory and for the most part, resistant to
discovery and arrest.
2A lengthy analysis of the post-9/11 rhetoric of terrorism deployed against
environmental and animal liberation activists is the subject of an article recent
published by this author (Loadenthal 2013) entitled “Deconstructing ‘Eco-
Terrorism’: Rhetoric, Framing and Statecraft as Seen Through the Insight
Approach,” appearing in the journal Critical Studies on Terrorism, Vol. 6,
Issue 1.
LOADENTHAL: THE EARTH LIBERATION FRONT 17
The ELF is often discussed in tandem alongside other envi-
ronmental and animal liberation/rights-focused movements as
the main actors engaging in “eco-terrorism,” defined as:
The use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against
innocent victims or property by an environmentally orientated sub -
national group for environmental-political reasons, aimed at an au -
dience beyond the target, and often of a symbolic nature. (Eagan
1996, 2)
Broadly, this definition fails to define the ELF as it does not
employ violence against “innocent victims.” In the framing of
“innocent victims” versus “property” noted above, one pre-
sumes that victims refers to humans, and as such, the ELF de-
fies this definitional description as it has sought to damage
property, not humans, and has managed to avoid injuring indi-
viduals accidentally. (Borum and Tilby 2005, 212; Leader and
Probst 2003, 44; Taylor 1998, 3, 8) As one scholar familiar
with the “eco-terrorist” history writes, “While the ELF has
caused millions of dollars worth of property damage, it has not
yet intentionally (or even unintentionally) brought harm to any -
one”. (Ackerman 2003, 162) Such a casualty-free history
should be noted as with nearly 300 attacks3 claimed globally
from 1996-2009 (Loadenthal 2010, 81), not a single human has
been killed or injured (Loadenthal 2010, 98). In its 290 attacks
claimed at the ELF, and its 69 attacks (Loadenthal 2010, 81)
claimed jointly with the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the
target has always been property.
What follows is a case study analysis of the ELF movement
as it operated (1996-2009) in North America. The majority of
evidence presented is taken from centrist, state-affiliated, secu-
rity-themed sources4 whose purpose is to identify, locate and
3 All quantitate data of this variety are taken from a previously completed
study (Loadenthal 2010) of the larger field of “eco-terrorism” completed in
2010 as part of the author’s MLitt dissertation completed while studying at
the Centre For the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at the University
of St Andrews. This research included an incident-based, quantitate analysis
of 27,136 incidents of “eco-terrorism” occurring in over 40 countries from
1972-2010. Each incident was passed through a decision tree, and if included
in the data set, coded for 22 variables and analyzed with the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software program.
4 See for example (109th Congress 2005; Ackerman 2003; Anti-Defamation
League 2005; Borum and Tilby 2005; Chalk 2001; FBI Counterterrorism and
18 RADICAL CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN 1929-7904)
capture activists. While many of these sources make specious
claims regarding activists’ behaviors, they remain the most of-
ten quoted, ‘authoritative’ sources on the subject. For this rea-
son the majority of the facts established herein will be adopted
from such security-industry forces as to produce a descriptive
social movement account that is both informed by a radical
analysis, and triangulated with facts established by the State
and its largess of resources and affiliated institutions.
Whereas the ELF is a global movement, with cells active in
more than twenty countries, for the purpose of this analysis,
cases will be limited to their North American attacks, the vast
majority of which occurred in the continental US. Other affili-
ated radical networks and movements, such as the ALF and
Earth First! (EF!) will be discussed as they relate to the history
and developmental context of the ELF. This study is an attempt
to paint a holistic picture of the ELF as a social movement, ex-
amining its ideology, structure, context, and multi-tiered mem-
bership that collectively constitute its ranks.
This study seeks neither to prove nor dispel a testable hy-
pothesis, but rather to develop a detailed picture of the ELF’s
praxis as developed via its US activity. The study utilizes the
US ELF movement as its unit of analysis (Yin 2008, 22–23),
and seeks to explore the movement’s philosophical underpin-
nings, networks, the context leading to its development, and the
characteristics of its membership. The evidence presented
herein is a synthesis of open source documentation, archival
records and academic journals as well as numerous inter-move -
ment publications authored by pro-ELF organizations. When-
ever possible triangulation of data has been achieved and
demonstrated through the multi-sourcing of findings via schol-
arly studies, government reports and inter-movement publica-
tions. (Yin 2008, 91–92)
A BRIEF HISTORY
Beginning in the 1960s, a political movement emerged advanc-
ing a radically new critique of environmental and animal use
Cyber Divisions 2004; Helios Global, Inc. 2008; Immergut et al. 2007;
Jackson and Frelinger 2008; Jarboe 2002; Taylor 2003; Trujillo 2005)
LOADENTHAL: THE EARTH LIBERATION FRONT 19
practices. These new ideological tendencies were characterized
by not only a shift in philosophical outlook, but also in lan-
guage and collective practice. This time period is often associ-
ated with the founding of the deep ecology framework, au-
thored by Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss in 1972 (Eagan
1996, 3), replacing the environmental protectionism of past, as
well as ideas of animal liberation, inspired by a 1975 book of
the same title by Peter Singer. Just as Singer’s notion of libera
tion replaced previously popular notions of animal welfare or
rights, the groups which formed during this time replaced pre-
viously dominant strategies of collective popular protest with
that of self-guided, autonomous units. These new revolutionary
frameworks were quickly adopted by emergent groups, which
began to utilize sabotage, vandalism and arson.
1963 saw the formation of the Hunt Saboteurs Association,
dedicated to physically disrupting hunting expeditions, often
taking the form of sabotage and provocation. After working
with a group of hunt saboteurs in the early 1970s, several ac-
tivists decided to shift their tactical focus. In 1972, the Band of
Mercy (BOM) formed in England as the outgrowth of desire for
a new praxis that prioritized taking animals out of harm’s way,
as well as financially sabotaging companies and institutions
contributing to animal exploitation. Within three years of its
founding, the BOM morphed into what has historically been the
most active, clandestine, direct action group, the ALF. Since its
founding in England in 1976, the ALF has carried out thou-
sands of attacks globally. Several years after the formation of
the ALF, the movement witnessed a factionalization into small-
er, more violence-prone splinter cells and experienced deterrito-
rialization to over forty countries. By 1994, the ALF inspired
the formation of an organizationally and tactically similar
movement targeting institutions of ecological exploitation
through methods of sabotage and vandalism—the ELF.
Throughout thirty-eight years under examination, the BOM,
ALF and ELF have further deterritorialized and led to the for-
mation of at least three hundred similarly-styled groups. This
global movement of movements which opposes violence (to-
ward animals and the environment) has garnered the label ‘eco-
terrorism’ from governments, media, and elements of the aca-
demic community.
20 RADICAL CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN 1929-7904)
POLITICAL-PHILOSOPHICAL IDEOLOGY
In establishing the ELF’s ideology, we examine movement lit-
erature produced through aboveground support networks, such
as the North American ELF Press Office5 (NAELFPO). In a
2001 pamphlet, the NAELFPO states that “if an individual be -
lieves in the ideology and follows a certain set of guidelines she
or he can perform actions and become a part of the ELF”
(North American Earth Liberation Front Press Office 2001, 3).
In a similar fashion to the ALF, these “guidelines” are estab-
lished by unknown persons and distributed through movement
literature thus creating a discursive reality for subsequent ac-
tion. While there is no central authority that then judges actions
to be in agreement with or in violation of the guideline, move-
ment debate and discussion serves as a vetting process. Ac-
cording to the NAELFPO pamphlet, “Frequently Asked Ques-
tion About the Earth Liberation Front,” (2001) the group’s
guidelines are:
1) To cause as much economic damage as possible to a given entity
that is profiting off the destruction of the natural environment and
life for selfish greed and profit,
2) To educate the public on the atrocities committed against the en-
vironment and life,
3) To take all necessary precautions against harming life.
Such broad-based guidelines serve a functional purpose allow-
ing for great tactical and strategic diversity while avoiding the
factionalizing function (Joosse 2007) of public debate regarding
the legitimacy of every action taken under the ELF moniker.
Thus is an action is carried out, it is up to the activists to decide
to either adopt the ELF name or not.
The “ideology” of the ELF contains thematic trends collec -
tively constituting a shared ethos. Firstly, “deep ecology”, of-
ten termed biocentrism, that teaches all living entities, human
and non-human, have equal worth and value and an inherent
5 The NAELFPO has at times gone silent for larger periods. After being
established in 1999, it maintained an active web presence for years before
going offline, and the reestablishing itself in 2008. At present, in 2013, the
site is once again offline.
LOADENTHAL: THE EARTH LIBERATION FRONT 21
right to exist and prosper. It is through this lens that the ELF
understands its position visàvis those understood to be de-
stroying the Earth. Some of this influence comes from the
ELF’s historical development alongside anarchism, and specifi-
cally its anti-civilization tendencies often termed Green anar-
chism, anarcho-primitivism or simply, Primitivism. (Taylor
2003, 181) At this juncture, the greening of anarchism extends
its typically anthropocentric analysis towards deep ecology.
(Ackerman 2003, 147; The Green Anarchy Collective 2009)6
Green anarchism advocates the creation of a collectivized, pre-
industrial, “wild” civilization of loosely affiliated, village-sized
communities, devoid of modern industry and technology. (Ea-
gan 1996, 3–4; Helios Global, Inc. 2008, 4–5; Leader and Prob-
st 2003, 40) The ELF ideology borrows heavily from anar-
chism, and as such, a great number of anarchists fill the ranks
of the movement. (Borum and Tilby 2005, 208; Leader and
Probst 2003, 40; Taylor 2003, 181) The philosophical teach-
ings of anarchism and the ELF concur that all forms of oppres-
sion are inherently incompatible with human society and must
be replaced with non-hierarchical, non-coercive methods of or-
ganization and collective responsibility. (Ackerman 2003, 147;
Leader and Probst 2003, 40) This philosophical understanding
opposing hierarchal structures, is reflected in the ELF’s organi-
zational methods. (Chalk 2001; Eagan 1996, 2; Trujillo 2005,
146) Closely linked, the ELF shares a great deal with the broad
leftist movements often termed, “anti-corporate/globalization,”
or “anti-capitalist” (Ackerman 2003, 153; Leader and Probst
2003, 40; Trujillo 2005, 159). Radical environmentalists share
ideology with these movements arguing that modern capitalism
“represents the single most important threat to the…environ-
ment,” (Helios Global, Inc. 2008, 5) and that Western-led indi-
vidualism is predicated on the exploitation of the natural re-
sources of the Earth. (Ackerman 2003, 146; Helios Global, Inc.
2008, 4)
Secondly, the ELF claims to act as the “voice of the voice-
less,” the “defender of the defenseless,” arguing that the planet
is the victim of attacks perpetuated by mankind, for which it
6 The politics and philosophy of anarcho-primitivism have been developed
and popularized by writers such as John Zerzan, Kevin Tucker, Bob Black,
John Moore, Derrick Jenson, and infamously by Theodore Kaczynski, better
known as the “Unabomber.”
22 RADICAL CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN 1929-7904)
cannot respond in voice nor action (Ackerman 2003, 146–147;
Helios Global, Inc. 2008, 4). The inability of the Earth to speak
for itself empowers the ELF to speak and act in its defense
(North American Earth Liberation Front Press Office 2001, 4)
despite such a anthropocentric protectionism being challenged7
by critical activists. Thirdly, the ELF advocates non-violence
as it relates to all forms of life, simultaneously denying that
non-living entities such as the property of eco-offenders, corpo-
rations, governments, etc. also have an inherent protection from
violence (Eagan 1996, 9; Leader and Probst 2003, 41; North
American Earth Liberation Front Press Office 2001, 27–28).
This understanding and consistent injury-free practice allows
the ELF to frame its acts of property destruction as non-violent
sabotage, as such actions fail to target living creatures. (jones
2006, 324)
Lastly, ELF ideology is tinged with accusations of unjusti-
fied attack by law enforcement. (Ackerman 2003, 146; Eagan
1996, 13) This theme is commonly cited in communiqués from
ELF cells as many believe they are being maliciously persecut-
ed by governments. Such accusatory posturing by the ELF in
their criticism of the State is certainly deserved. Since the US
began its Domestic War on Terrorism following the attacks of
September 11, 2001, environmental and animal liberation ac-
tivists have become the target of increased State repression
(Loadenthal 2013; Lovitz 2010; Potter 2011; Slater 2011) in
what activists have termed the Green Scare. Within this pursue
to produce arrests, the State has utilized a host of repressive
methods not typically deployed amongst non-violence social
movements. Included in its arsenal targeting direct action ani -
mal and earth liberationists is the use of state8 and federal-level
legislation (e.g. Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, Ag-Gag leg-
islation), the placement of police informants and provocateurs
(such as the case of Eric McDavid and Marie Mason), home
raids and other militarized forms of overt policing, increased
electronic surveillance, use of Grand Juries to coerce informa-
7 See for example (Loadenthal 2012) wherein this author challenges the
human-centric notion of protectionism offered by animal/earth liberation
activists who claim to be speaking for the oppressed non-human animals and
‘natural’ world.
8 Such as Pennsylvania’s “Ecoterrorism - 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3311”
LOADENTHAL: THE EARTH LIBERATION FRONT 23
tion, and the use of anti-terrorist prison facilities to house in-
mates (such as the case of Daniel McGowan, Andrew Stepani-
an, Stanislas Meyerhoff and Walter Bond)9. The largess of the
State’s targeted repression of such activists has been well estab-
lished in activist scholarship and as such is not the focus of this
investigation.
TACTICAL IDEOLOGY
The ELF extends its framework establishing tactical methodol-
ogy melding philosophy with practice, creating a radical, an -
ti-State, anti-capitalist, environmental praxis. This praxis advo-
cates “direct action,” (Helios Global, Inc. 2008, 12) to “remove
the profit motive from killing the Earth” (North American Earth
Liberation Front Press Office 2001, 28). Direct action, a key
component of the anarchist tradition, is seen as the only way to
achieve the ELF aims as traditional methods of politicking and
lobbying have failed to achieve rapid success (Trujillo 2005,
146). For the ELF, direct action constitutes the use of illegal
means of political protest such as sabotage, arson and other
manners of property destruction to economically damage enti-
ties established as its enemies. In this sense, the ELF’s goal is
the financially insolvency of its targets using economic sabo-
tage. To this end, the ELF advocates the use of methods
(termed ‘weapon technologies’ in the Terrorism/Security Stud-
ies literature) that cause financial harm while avoiding harming
humans, animals and the environment. The weapons socio-po-
litical groups choose provide insight into their politics, as “the
specific weapons technologies groups choose…[and]…define
the scale and scope of their violence” (Jackson and Frelinger
2008, 583). For the ELF there is a focuses on improvised incen-
diaries (Jackson and Frelinger 2008, 597–598) self-manufac-
tured from modified, off-the-shelf items (Helios Global, Inc.
2008, 26), guided by instruction from movement publications
distributed mainly through the internet. (109th Congress 2005,
44; Joosse 2007, 354) The decision to use incendiaries, as op-
9 A detailed exploration of the methods employed in the Green Scare is the
subject of a book chapter written by the author to be published in late 2013
entitled “The ‘Green Scare’ & ‘Eco-Terrorism’: The Development of US
Counter-Terrorism Strategy Targeting Direct Action Activists.” Published in
The Law Against Animals: A Challenge to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism
Act. Eds. Jason Del Gandio, Et al. Forthcoming. Lantern Press, 2013.
24 RADICAL CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN 1929-7904)
posed to firearms or projectiles, reflects ELF’s desire to damage
property while avoiding causalities. (Jackson and Frelinger
2008, 598)
The ELF’s targeting ideology reflects its desire to cause fi-
nancial hardship whilst avoiding causalities and generally,
chooses target such as “facilities and companies involved in
logging, genetic engineering, home building, automobile sales,
energy production and distribution” (Leader and Probst 2003,
43). Targets chosen by cells are understood to be directly dam-
aging the environment. Also contributing to the ELF’s target-
ing decisions is the amount of security their targets employ.
The ELF tends to attack targets that are not hardened against at-
tack such as those affiliated with commercial business, Univer -
sity research and residential housing as opposed to more heavi-
ly protected targets such as military sites, government facilities
or heavy industrial or manufacturing facilities. Therefore
homes under construction are targeted, not realtors. (North
American Earth Liberation Front Press Office 2009b)10 Pri-
vately owned vehicles are targeted, not car manufacturers.
(North American Earth Liberation Front Press Office 2009c)11
Genetically engineered organisms (GMO) are pulled from the
ground, and research centers destroyed with fire. (North Ameri-
can Earth Liberation Front Press Office 2009a)12 In these ex-
amples, the targeting reflects the desire to directly target the
perceived ills, not to remedy them through attacking intermedi-
ary or secondary target. When examined through a global inci-
dent-based, quantitative analysis, one discovers that the ELF’s
main target types are construction and industrial equipment
(14%), model homes and homes under construction (13%),
10 September 19, 2003, an ELF cell burned down four luxury homes and
damaged three others in San Diego, California’s Carmel Valley
neighborhood. A banner was left at the scene of the arson that read,
“Development destruction. Stop raping nature. The ELFs are angry.”
11 May 17, 2006 an ELF cell damaged six SUVs in Fair Oaks, California by
slashing the vehicles’ tires and using spray paint to write “ELF” on the
vehicles.
12 December 31, 1999 an ELF cell severely damaged a research center at
Michigan State University’s Lansing campus because the University was
conducting genetic engineering research in conjunction with GE-advocate
Monsanto and the United States Agency for International Development. The
fire causes $900,000 in damages.
LOADENTHAL: THE EARTH LIBERATION FRONT 25
business properties (12%) and automobiles most often sport
utility vehicles (10)%. (Loadenthal 2010) Other target types in-
clude (in descending order of frequency) phone booths, private
business vehicles, farms, ranches and breeders, GMU crops and
government property including vehicles.
STRUCTURE—ORGANIZATIONAL NETWORK
The ELF functions as a networked movement, not as an organi-
zation. It is a decentralized collection of autonomously operat-
ing, small unit, clandestine cells without organizational hierar-
chy or command and control structure.(Helios Global, Inc.
2008, 1, 8, 11) Thus, “ELF” is a name given to the sum total of
attacks carried out by disconnected cells and ‘lone wolf’ attack-
ers. It is an adoptable moniker for whomever wishes to use it.
Whereas ELF cells may share a basic philosophical-political
critique, generally cells have no communication or cooperation
amongst themselves. In some isolated cases, operation coordi-
nation, or at least communication has likely occurred between
cells. For example, on May 21, 2001, two ELF cells carried out
simultaneous arsons targeting the Jefferson Poplar Farms in
Clatskaine, Oregon and the horticulture research laboratory of
the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington. Accord -
ing to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), both ELF cell
responsible for the arsons were part of a twenty person multi-
cell unit of the ELF known as “the family.” Eleven members of
“the family” were arrested by the FBI during “Operation Back-
fire” in late 2005 and early 2006, and linked to seventeen at-
tacks in Oregon, Wyoming, Washington, California, and Col-
orado. From open source information, it is impossible to deter-
mine how common such multi-cell entities are within the
greater milieu of the ELF movement. Law enforcement have
found cells extremely difficult to infiltrate (Helios Global, Inc.
2008, 11) reporting that most possess “sophisticated organiza-
tion and operational security,” (Ackerman 2003, 151) includ-
ing knowledge of forensics, signals intelligence, computer se-
curity, cryptography and police surveillance. (109th Congress
2005, 44; FBI Counterterrorism and Cyber Divisions 2004, 2–
4; Immergut et al. 2007, 5, 35, 102, 117, 123, 134; Leader and
Probst 2003, 42; Trujillo 2005, 154–155, 163) Cells operate
with no known external support structure, existing self-suffi-
26 RADICAL CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN 1929-7904)
ciently, fulfilling their logistical, funding, intelligence and
weapons acquisition needs. Unlike traditional terrorist organi-
zations and violent non-State actors, there is no need for ELF
cells to receive financial support from nation-states or smuggle
weapons through secretive networks. Attacks are self-funded
from the cell members as their cost is low. (Helios Global, Inc.
2008, 27) Additional tasks traditionally assigned to externals
are self-managed including pre-operational surveillance and re-
connaissance, training and weapons acquisition. (Leader and
Probst 2003, 42)
Beyond the level of the cell, the ELF is understood as a
movement of “leaderless resistance,” a style of decentralization
popularized by Louis Beam (1992), an American white suprem-
acist, who describes a leaderless resistance model as:
…A fundamental departure in theories of organization…[wherein]
all individuals and groups operate independently of each other, and
never report to a central headquarters or single leader for direction
or instruction, as would those who belong to a typical pyramid or-
ganization. (1992)
This leaderless resistance, with no centralized authority or com-
mand and control, is seen in the workings of the ELF. The
structure has great advantages for resisting infiltration by law
enforcement, and provides a simple means of cell replication.
The decentralized, autonomous, non-hierarchical network struc-
ture is also familiar to new members as it is the common orga -
nizational method within anarchist movements where many
ELF members are active. (Borum and Tilby 2005, 212; Chalk
2001) Due to the autonomy of the ELF cells, cells are not
aware of others, and existing cells cannot be joined. (Dishman
2005, 243) Because of their self-contained nature, new recruits
are encouraged to form their own cell. (Joosse 2007, 354) This
advice is given plainly in a NAELFPO (2001) pamphlet, where-
in the author states:
Individuals interested in becoming active in the ELF need to follow
the above guidelines and create their own close knit anonymous cell
made up of trustworthy and sincere people. Remember the ELF
and each cell within it are anonymous not only to one another but
also to the general public. So there is not a realistic chance of be -
coming active in an already existing cell. Take initiative, form your
own cell and do what needs to be done to protect all life on the
planet! (2001, 15)
LOADENTHAL: THE EARTH LIBERATION FRONT 27
The leaderless resistance structure provides the ELF with a
number of benefits, besides operational security, most notably,
the ability to avoid protracted ideological debate leading to
stagnation and factionalization. Paul Joosse (2007) addresses
this, writing:
Leaderless resistance allows the ELF to avoid ideological cleavages
by eliminating all ideology extraneous to the very specific cause of
halting the degradation of nature…leaderless resistance creates an
‘overlapping consensus’ among those with vastly different ideolog -
ical orientations, mobilizing a mass of adherents that would never
been able to find unanimity of purpose in an organization character -
ized by a traditional, hierarchical, authority structure…[individuals
can]…‘believe what they will,’ while mobilizing them to commit
‘direct actions’. (2007, 352)
Leaderless resistance prevents factionalization, allowing diver-
gent activists to appear unified despite ideological differences.
The independence of leaderless resistance contains the po-
tentiality to damage the movement if cells act outside of stated
policy. For example “a particularly militant splinter cell, a pe-
ripheral individual or…ad-hoc group” could carry out an attack
attributed to the ELF but via means breaking from group tradi-
tion. (Ackerman 2003, 153) The ELF movement lacks the abil-
ity to prevent cells from committing lethal actions and claiming
them in the movement’s name, (Leader and Probst 2003, 42)
other than arguing that its guidelines call for the taking of “nec-
essary precautions against harming life”. Such a tension is of
growing relevance with a sudden surge in eco-affiliated, primi-
tivist-themed attacks in countries such as Mexico, where net-
works such as Individuals Tending Toward the Wild have re-
portedly killed and injured targets attacked do to their role in
biotechnology and the larger “Techno-Industrial System.” This
potential conflict for the ELF has yet to be tested, but provides
a challenge for the network in preserving its records of avoiding
human causalities. Despite this risk, the ELF’s structure allows
cells and individuals to act independently to set the agenda for
the larger transnational movement (Joosse 2007, 356), thus the
global ELF campaign is simply the collection of attacks carried
out by autonomous entities.
28 RADICAL CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN 1929-7904)
STRUCTURE—ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING
Due to the tendency for cells to act without support, the move-
ment must uniquely develop tactical and operational skill sets.
The ELF has addressed this, facilitating organizational learning
through print text and internet. Many texts were the product of
radical environmentalist movements led by EF! preceding the
ELF’s founding. (Leader and Probst 2003, 38) From 1970-
1980, numerous skills-based instructive texts, such as Ecode-
fense13, emerged wherein readers were taught tactics utilized by
the modern ELF including sabotage, arson, and internal securi -
ty. (Eagan 1996, 8; FBI Counterterrorism and Cyber Divisions
2004, 2–4; Laqueur 2000, 203)14 Following an increase in in-
ternet access, the focus was shifted to online resources for cata-
loging technical and training material. In his report for RAND,
Horacio Trujillo (2005) writes:
Operational learning has been facilitated by…the movement’s use
of published material, first in print and now via the Internet, to dis-
seminate and store knowledge…Advances in information technolo-
gy, particularly the Internet, have significantly increased the reach
of these organizations’ materials and have provided the ELF with
the ability to disseminate training and logistics information. (2005,
153)
The ELF’s main (now defunct) aboveground website, NAELF-
PO,15 formerly acted as a clearinghouse for individuals looking
13 A complete copy of the 3rd edition of Dave Foreman’s book Ecodefense: A
Field Guide to Monkeywrenching, is available online at
http://www.omnipresence.mahost.org/inttxt.htm. In establishing the themes
of this book, as discussed in the study, the text was accessed online, without
page numbers, making item specific referencing impossible. The complete
citation for the book can be found below:
Foreman, Dave. Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching. 3rd
edition. Chico: Abbzug Press, 1993.
14 These skills-based texts of the time include Ecodefense: A Field Guide to
Monkeywrenching, where readers are taught tactics utilized by the modern
ELF including tree spiking, sabotage, arson, and internal security. Additional
books also emerged at this time serving as guides to potential saboteurs
including The Black Cat Sabotage Handbook, EF! Direct Action Manual,
Earthforce! An Earth Warrior’s Guide to Strategy and Road Raging: Top
Tips for Wrecking Roadbuilding. A complete version of Road Raging is
available at: http://www.eco-action.org/rr/
15 Available at: http://www.elfpressoffice.org/
LOADENTHAL: THE EARTH LIBERATION FRONT 29
for links to sympathetic sites that host training materials. The
NAELPO’s site has been offline often for extended periods of
time, but when active, receives a great deal of traffic partially
due to heavy referencing in media accounts of attacks. Brigitte
Nacos’s (2006) discussion of terrorist groups’ use of the inter -
net makes this claim stating:
Overblown media reports about arson attacks on new housing de-
velopments or gas-guzzling sports utility vehicles by the Earth Lib-
eration Front familiarized the American public with the motives of
this by and large negligible ‘eco-terrorist’ movement… the main -
stream media helped interested persons to find the group’s Internet
site that serves as a recruitment tool and a how-to-commit-terrorism
resource. (2006, 43)
As of the time of writing, the NAELFPO website has been
down for some time, but despite this barrier, movement
communiqués can still be viewed at affiliated English language
sites such as Bite Back Magazine16, the North American
Animal Liberation Press Office17, and a host of direct
action/insurrectionary anarchist themed websites such as 32518,
War on Society19, Act For Freedom Now! and Contra Info20.
Through these websites and others in a host of foreign
languages, individuals can access semi-centralized resources
for publicizing attacks, reading communiqués from previous
attacks, and learning operational skills such as security,21
sabotage22 and weapons production.23
16 http://www.directaction.info/
17 http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/index.htm
18 http://325.nostate.net/
19 http://waronsociety.noblogs.org/
20 http://en.contrainfo.espiv.net/
21 For an example see Activist Security v2.7, published June 2008 by
www.ActivistSecurity.org. The NAELFPO website maintain an entire page
on security (http://www.elfpressoffice.org/security.html) wherein they
provide links to nearly 50 separate guides to issues of security including
encryption, forensic, criminal investigation techniques and electronic
surveillance.
22For an example, see Ozymandias Sabotage Handbook, available at
http://www.reachoutpub.com/osh/ via the NAELFPO “resource” page.
23 For example see ArsonAround with Auntie ALF: Your Guide to Putting
Heat on Animal Abusers Everywhere or Setting Fires With Electrical Timers:
30 RADICAL CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN 1929-7904)
The weapons technology of the ELF, consists of of-
f-the-shelf materials with dual usage24 used to construct incen-
diaries. (Helios Global, Inc. 2008, 1, 26) Typical designs for
improvised incendiary devices utilize widely available items
such as alkaline batteries, kitchen/egg timers, basic electrical
components, matches, road flares, model rocket igniters, fila-
ment light bulbs, alligator clips, granulated sugar, liquid hydro-
carbon fuels (gasoline, diesel, oil, kerosene, etc.), paraffin, saw-
dust, incense sticks, sponges, tampons, plastic jugs, cigarette
lighters, solder and insulated wire. Through the guidance pro-
vided by online guides25 the ELF can develop organizational
knowledge, distribute member instruction, and adapt new tech-
nologies as developments improves.26 Beyond technical train-
ing and development, the internet also serves a variety of func-
tions to establish a collectively crafted history of attacks, analy-
sis and critique. This trend is not unique to the ELF as it is in-
creasingly common for political movements to utilize the inter-
net as a source of intelligence and training. (Weimann 2006,
123–124)
CONTEXT
The ELF’s development was the product of philosophical shifts
in the environmental movement, and practical issues that
emerged throughout EF! leading to its factionalization. While
An Earth Liberation Front Guide. These guides are available on numerous
websites and file sharing services.
24 See for example (Auntie ALF, Uncle ELF and the Anti-Copyright gang
2003, 1–20; Fireant Collective 2001, 1–37; Frontline Information Service
n.d., 1998, 8–13; Someone n.d., 1–21)
25 See for example the guides discussed (109th Congress 2005, 44, 75–76;
Anti-Defamation League 2005, 10; Immergut et al. 2007, 134). The two most
widely cited arson guides produced by the ELF and ALF respectively are
Setting Fires With Electrical Timers: An Earth Liberation Front Guide and
ArsonAround with Auntie ALF: Your Guide to Putting Heat on Animal
Abusers Everywhere
26 It is interesting to note that the referenced ELF and ALF-produced
incendiary guides are nearly entirely devoid of ideological or philosophical
discussion or even the mention of animal rights. In his discussion of
leaderless resistance in the ELF, author Paul Joosse (2007) writes that, “by
not explicitly stating ideological precepts, the manual lends itself to use by
anyone, regardless of the person’s ideological orientation” (2007, 361).
LOADENTHAL: THE EARTH LIBERATION FRONT 31
direct action, similarly-styled animal liberation networks such
as the BOM and the ALF began in the UK in the early 1970s,
the environmental militancy found its focus a bit later. In 1992,
following direct actions in England, EF! hosted a national meet-
ing in Brighton. (Leader and Probst 2003, 38) At this meeting,
segments of EF! expressed a desire for the movement to halt its
use of illegal tactics, and it was decided that as EF!, the move -
ment would refocus on demonstrations, in effect creating the
ELF as a new entity to continue producing illegal actions. The
ELF name was intentionally chosen because of its similarity to
that of the ALF, as the new Earth movement hoped to borrow
ALF structure, guidelines and tactics. (Molland 2006, 49)
The emergence of the ELF from EF!’s factionalization al-
lowed it to embrace leadless resistance, while avoiding further
ideological splits. It was understood as important to avoid
EF!’s mistakes wherein, “factionalization progressed…[and]…
energy was diverted towards debates about ideology and away
from performing the direct actions…envisioned as being Earth
First!’s forte” (Joosse 2007, 358). Four years after the ELF
emerged in England, it became active in the US, which would
quickly become the focal point of the movement’s attacks.
(Trujillo 2005, 151) On October 31, 1996, the ELF carried out
arson, its first major US action after four years of carrying out
small vandalisms.27
The ELF’s emergence was made possible via the broader
context of a growing radical environmental movement in West-
ern Europe and North America. (Walton and Widay 2006, 97–
99) Thus the emergence of the ELF can be seen as a reac-
tionary movement combating issues such as deforestation and a
loss of biodiversity at a time when government policies were
seen as disregarding or ignoring the problem. (Ackerman 2003,
155) Following global acknowledgment of such issues, knowl-
edge of GMO agriculture and climate change grew in promi-
nence as well, leading the ELF to execute a number of attacks
on GMO crops and research. (Leader and Probst 2003, 46)
Similarly, the 1990s saw the emergence of a “sprawl” critique,
27 Between 1992-1996 numerous attacks were carried out that shared tactical
and thematic traits with ELF actions. The attacks were carried out in
England, Holland, Australia, Germany and New Zealand. (Molland 2006, 52–
53)
32 RADICAL CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN 1929-7904)
criticizing the surge in construction of low-density, car-depen-
dent, luxury, urban/suburban housing developments. (Sally and
Peter 2006, 415–416) These larger conversations provided the
context for an arson campaign targeting luxury home develop-
ments, and other large land uses including ski resorts and golf
courses. (Ackerman 2003, 153) Following the arson of a “luxu-
ry home” under construction28 an ELF communiqué addressing
“sprawl” was released:
Greetings from the front, The Earth Liberation Front claims respon-
sibility for the torching of a luxury home under construction in
Miller Place, Long Island on December 19th. Anti-urban sprawl
messages were spraypainted on the walls, then accelerants were
poured over the house and lighted…This is the latest in a string of
actions in the war against urban sprawl. Urban sprawl not only de-
stroys the green spaces of our planet, but also leads directly to
added runoff of pollutants into our waterways, increased traffic that
causes congestion and air pollution, and a less pleasing landscape…
Unregulated population growth is also a direct product of urban
sprawl. There are over 6 billion people on this planet of which al-
most a third are either starving or living in poverty. Building
homes for the wealthy should not even be a priority. (Earth Libera -
tion Front 2000)
The growing global environmental consciousness, with its cri-
tique of GMO-technology and sprawl, provided the context for
the popularization of radical activism that drew support from
the upsurge in complementary leftist movements that occurred
in the late 1990s-2000s, following demonstrations opposing the
World Trade Organization in Seattle. (Ackerman 2003, 154;
starr 2006, 375; Trujillo 2005, 159)
Similarly the anti-globalization initiates of the Zapatista
Army for National Liberation (EZLN) in the Mexican state of
Chiapas, which peaked in 1994 with the passage of the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), served to inspire
leftist radicals globally as the movement spoke out strongly
against Western capitalism and promoted a collective initiate
towards environmental protection and sustainability. (Becker
2006, 76–77; Garland 2006, 68)29 Within this tradition, the
28 The arson occurred on December 19, 2000 in Long Island, New York and
was claimed via a communiqué sent to the ELF Press Offices.
29 In at least two ELF communiqués the Zapatista movement was referenced
as a source of inspiration. The first, issued in 1997 under the title, “Beltane,
1997” (Best and Nocella, 408-9) and the second, issued on 28 June 1998, and
LOADENTHAL: THE EARTH LIBERATION FRONT 33
ELF can be said to be enacting a form of revolutionarily defen-
sive environmentalism advocated by the ELZN. For example,
the establishment of the 1978 Montes Azules Biosphere Re-
serve by Mexican President Jose Lopez Portillo, expropriated
940,000 acres of the Lacandon Jungle from largely indigenous
communities, and led to the radicalization and militarization of
the EZLN. Self-defense structures were established when the
State attempted to move these individuals and in 1989, a ban on
wood cutting and the establishment of a State-aligned security
force to implement such measures led to one of the first offen-
sive strikes by the EZLN. In this incident in March 1993,
EZLN fighters killed two members of the Mexican security
forces who had come upon a clandestine sawmill located near
the city of San Cristobal. Less than one year later, when the
EZLN led a largely bloodless uprising following the passage of
NAFTA, one of their first achievements was to expel thousands
of oil workers employed by PEMEX, US Western Oil and Ge-
ofisica Corporation. For both the ELF and EZLN, the active
defense of the ecological realm is not a matter of long-term
campaigning, but immediate, reactionary, needs-based maneu-
vers. Both movements act within the logic of an ever-shorten-
ing timeline for appropriate measures and resultantly, shun re-
formist methods that offer State-involvement, compromised ne-
gotiations and further entanglement with the legislative process.
MEMBERSHIP: CLANDESTINE
Establishing membership is a difficult endeavor amongst a
movement that does not have members, and as individuals do
not join the ELF, membership status is tricky to discern. (Helios
Global, Inc. 2008, 9) There is a lack of open source material,
provided by security services documenting or estimating num-
bers of ELF cells. (Helios Global, Inc. 2008, 3) The only
known ELF members or cells are the relatively few that have
been identified and arrested. (Ackerman 2003, 151) NAELFPO
(2001) addressed the question, writing that “it is next to impos -
sible to estimate the number of ELF members internationally or
even country by country.” The closest discernable figures con-
cerning the size of the ELF may come from a 2001 estimate, re -
porting that the ALF, a similarly structured movement, has an
(available at http://www.elfpressoffice.org/comm062898.swf)
34 RADICAL CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN 1929-7904)
estimated “100 hardcore members” (Helios Global, Inc. 2008,
2). Such a figure appears arbitrary and most likely erroneous.
What is known however is that as activity has waned in the US
in the latter part of the 2000s, it has resultantly risen in other
countries such as Mexico, Russia, the UK and many parts of
Western Europe and South America (Loadenthal 2010).
Despite the fact that the number of ELF members is un-
known, a membership profile exists. From these records, the
profile of the most typical ELF activist emerges indicating the
individual is likely male, well educated, possessing a high tech-
nical capability (Ackerman 2003, 148, 151), under the age of
twenty-five, Caucasian, middle to upper-middle-class, from an
industrialized Western nation (Helios Global, Inc. 2008, 3),
supportive of environmentalism and animal rights (Walton and
Widay 2006, 99), active in larger activist movements (Acker-
man 2003, 145), and disenfranchised with mainstream environ-
mental protest (Joosse 2007, 356). Sporadic arrests over the
last ten years have shown these findings to be generalizable de-
spite the arrest of numerous females and individuals acting in a
host of non-Western countries from Indonesia to Bolivia. Re -
cruitment and incitement propaganda produced by ELF-affiliat-
ed entities may also consciously attempt to engage youth sub-
cultures through a positive portrayal of the movements as ‘insti-
gators of violent action’ (Joosse 2007, 360).
This characterization is not surprising as Gary Perlstein
(2003) writes that the ELF receives “a great deal of moral and
perhaps even financial support from politically liberal urban…
[and] academic settings” (2003, 171–172). Thus US universi-
ties may be a ‘recruitment’ setting as many attendees would
share demographics characteristics. Thus if a movement seeks
to ‘recruit’ twenty-one year old, privileged, well educated, po-
litically liberal individuals from the industrialized West, the
university setting is ideal. This ‘supportive’ university environ-
ment can also be seen in events held on campus supporting rad-
ical environmentalism generally, and the ELF specifically. (He-
lios Global, Inc. 2008, 26; Jarboe 2002) For example, pro-ELF
and ALF speakers have given presentations at numerous leftist
conferences and gatherings including the National Conference
on Organized Resistance, the animal Animal Rights conference,
the Liberation Now tour, as well as the Primate Freedom Tour
LOADENTHAL: THE EARTH LIBERATION FRONT 35
which featured former ELF spokesmen, Craig Rosebraugh. In
1998, Rosenbraugh, and ELF arsonist Jonathan Paul, presented
at the National Animal Rights Conference being held at the
University of Oregon, urging unity between the ELF and the
ALF.
From the available information, the most typical member-
ship in the clandestine elements of the ELF would likely be
filled by a Caucasian male between the ages of 18 and 25, from
a middle/upper-middle class background, living in the US. He
would likely be attending, or have graduated from post-sec-
ondary education, identify with anti-authoritarian leftist poli-
tics, and be involved in public, aboveground social change
movements possibly related to environmentalism, animal rights
or anti-globalization. Other indicators such as proficiency with
computers or dietary choices may be instructive but are largely
anecdotal.
MEMBERSHIP: ABOVEGROUND
Membership in the ELF is not limited to clandestine cells. A
multinational, aboveground support structure exists to dissemi-
nate propaganda, support prisoners, publicize actions, provide
legal support, and allow pro-ELF persons a venue to promote
the aims of radical environmentalism. At present, there exists a
host of explicitly pro-ELF print and online magazines in nation-
al distribution throughout the US. Two examples are Bite Back
magazine,30 (in print 2001-present) and No Compromise maga-
zine,31 (in print 1989-2006). Both magazines focus on the ac-
30 Bite Back magazine is published irregularly since 2001 and available at:
http://www.directaction.info/
31 No Compromise is published biannually since 1989. According to
the No Compromise magazine website, the publication is “the
militant, direct action publication of grassroots animal liberationists
and their supporters,” with the aim of “unifying grassroots animal
liberationists by providing a forum where activists can exchange
information, share strategy, discuss important issues within the
movement, network with each other in an open and respectful
environment and strengthen the grassroots.“ Website available at:
http://www.nocompromise.org/ with a full archive made available at
http://thetalonconspiracy.com/category/periodicals/nocomp/
36 RADICAL CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN 1929-7904)
tions of the ALF but also provide coverage of ELF attacks and
prisoners.
Bite Back and No Compromise deal primarily with the ALF,
addressing the ELF as a supportive ally, but in 2009, an explic-
itly pro-ELF magazine was created entitled Resistance: Journal
of the Earth Liberation Movement. Currently in its third issue,
Resistance (2009) plans to publish four issues a year with the
stated goal of providing “a vehicle to inform, inspire, and ener-
gize the earth liberation movement.” Although Resistance ap-
pears to be a project independent of the NAELFPO, its former
spokesmen Craig Rosebraugh, is the founder of Arissa Media
Group which is the journal’s distributor. (Arissa Media Group
2009) Both Resistance and Arissa unequivocally embrace the
ELF publicly, whereas Bite Back and No Compromise share
tactical methods and a broad affinity. Additionally, there is
The Earth First! Journal published since the early 1980s and
often covering attacks associated with the ELF and other clan-
destine, pro-environment groups. Currently the EF! Journal is
published six times a year containing:
…reports on direct action; articles on the preservation of wilderness
and biological diversity; news and announcements about EF! and
other radical environmental groups; investigative articles; critiques
of the entire environmental movement…essays exploring ecologi-
cal theory…(Earth First! Journal 2009)
The journal’s creators describe the periodical as “The voice of
the radical environmental movement…[and] an essential forum
for discussion” (2009) within the radical environmentalist
movement.
Beyond these supporters there exist numerous periodicals
that regularly praise radical environmentalism and green anar-
chism, often documenting ELF attacks. Examples published in
the US include Green Anarchy,32 (in print 1999-2008), Fifth
Estate,33 (in print 1965-present), and Species Traitor34 (in print
2000-2005). In total, there are more than eight periodicals, reg -
32 The complete title is Green Anarchy: an anticivilization journal of theory
& action. The magazine is published bi-annually since 1999. The Green
Anarchy website is available at: http://greenanarchy.org/
33 The complete title is Fifth Estate: an antiauthoritarian magazine of ideas
& action. The magazine is published quarterly since 1965. The Fifth Estate
website is available at: http://www.fifthestate.org/
LOADENTHAL: THE EARTH LIBERATION FRONT 37
ularly published in the US that document and promote the ELF
and sympathetically publicize ELF-affiliated prisoners, in effect
allowing these organizations to act as an aboveground support
networks facilitating the building and maintenance of a pro-
ELF movement.
The aboveground support networks of the ELF extend be-
yond publications, and provide support to individuals arrested
and imprisoned for attacks. This prisoner support network
identifies and tracks ELF-affiliated prisoners around the world.
(Anti-Defamation League 2005, 11; Helios Global, Inc. 2008,
26) This information allows supporters to learn about prison-
ers, and write letters to those incarcerated, broadening the pub-
lic support network to peripheral, sympathetic individuals. At
least four organizations are currently operating to meet the
needs of ELF prisoners35 Additional aboveground support net-
works for the ELF include the North American Earth Liberation
Front Press Office (currently offline) which anonymously re-
ceives ELF communiqués from cells and publicizes them glob-
ally. Though currently the NAELFPO has no aboveground in-
dividual speaking on its behalf, in the past both Craig Rosen -
braugh and Leslie James Pickering served as official spokes-
men for the ELF through its Press Office. Rosenbraugh and
Pickering have also both authored books documenting the
ELF.36 Furthermore, Rosenbraugh’s project, Arissa Media
group (now managed by the Institute for Critical Animal Stud-
ies and not Rosenbraugh) distributes books, magazines and
CDs promoting the ELF. In 2008, the National Lawyers Guild,
established the “Green Scare hotline,” in response to a series of
34 Species Traitor is published irregularly since 2000 and has no website at
present.
35 The English language prisoner support groups which specifically track
ELF-affiliated prisoners include the North American Earth Liberation
Prisoners Support Network (http://www.ecoprisoners.org), the Anarchist
Black Cross Federation (http://www.abcf.net) and the currently offline Earth
Liberation Prisoners Support Network (http://www.spiritoffreedom.org.uk).
36 In 2003, as part of a Master’s thesis, Craig Rosebraugh wrote The Logic of
Political Violence: Lessons in Reform and Revolution and later, in 2004 he
wrote Burning Rage of a Dying Planet: Speaking for the Earth Liberation
Front. In 2006 Leslie James Pickering wrote Earth Liberation Front 1997
2002 and has also written articles in the newly formed, pro-ELF magazine
Resistance.
38 RADICAL CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN 1929-7904)
arrests targeting ELF cells. The purpose of the hotline is to
provide support to individuals arrested or accused of involve-
ment with environmental or animal rights motivated attacks.
The hotline will assist the individual in locating a lawyer. The
Guild has also published a guide, entitled Operation Backfire:
A Survival Guide for Environmental and Animal Rights Ac
tivists (2009), explaining activists’ legal rights and anti-terror-
ism laws as they have been applied in prosecutions of ELF-
ALF members.
The functions of aboveground support entities are crucial for
clandestine members to function effectively. The separation al-
lows cells to remain unseen and unheard while supporters act as
their voice and promoters. In this model, the cells carry out at -
tacks, and the supporters document and disseminate propaganda
the movement creates but is not able to distribute for fear of
discovery. (Joosse 2007, 353) Under this model, based on the
leaderless resistance structure, both the clandestine and public
actors are necessary participants as both operate within comple-
mentary spheres of involvement predicated on a shared ideolo-
gy and divergent tactics.
CONCLUSION: NEO-GUERILLAS & NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENTS
The ELF is a network of clandestine, autonomous cells, orga-
nized via a decentralized and broad ideology based in deep
ecology, primitivist-themed anarchism, collective defense of
the natural world, and a critique of environmental policy, genet-
ic engineering, residential development, and globalized capital-
ism. The success of ELF cells avoiding discovery and arrest
has limited the available data concerning the identity of partici-
pants, but a broad profile does exist as it pertains to sex, race,
age, class, nationality, political affiliation and education. The
ELF network emerged as support grew for the use of illegal
protest tactics within the British radical environmental move-
ment, modeling itself after the ALF as a leaderless resistance
movement choosing sabotage, arson and vandalism as its main
tactics. These attacks are carried out by tactically proficient,
highly secure, small unit cells, using easily accessible weapons
technologies and online instruction. This underground network
of attackers is aided by aboveground support structures which
help to promote and publicize the aims of the clandestine units.
LOADENTHAL: THE EARTH LIBERATION FRONT 39
The popularity and deterritorialization of the ELF in the US
has served as a tactical and strategic inspiration to a host of
movements who have drawn from the ELF’s methods for a va-
riety of goals. In this sense, the ELF, despite its decline in do -
mestic activity, must be understood as an instrumental social
movement in the post-millennial period of radical, direct action,
anti-State politics. Its praxis of insurrectionary-styled direct at-
tack and unmediated offensive strikes offers inspiration to ac-
tivists; inspiration which is aided by the network’s relative im-
perviousness to disruption, arrest and infiltration. Despite be-
ing established as a ‘number one domestic terrorist threat’ by
the US intelligence community, and despite malicious prosecu-
tions and egregious sentencing of activists, the network re-
mains.
Since around 2007 when to so-called anti-globalization,
counter-summit movement declined in the US, a large number
of activists were left with a time vacuum. Hours that had once
been dedicated to planning outreach, recruitment, logistical
preparation and infrastructure building (e.g. housing, food, le-
gal support networks) were now freed. While it is too early to
make such determinations, it is entirely possible that with the
decline of such mass-based protest movements, some individu-
als shifted their modus operandi towards what the military
would term ‘small unit tactics.’ In other words, when regional
and national mobilizations proved to be a resource-intensive,
short victory producing avenue of resistance, attack histories
such as that of the ELF may have led the charge for a multitude
of movements to embrace lone wolf, leaderless resistance and
urban guerilla tactics which had declined in domestic popularity
with the disbanding of the United Freedom Front, George Jack-
son Brigade, Black Liberation Army (BLA), May 19th Com-
munist Organization and others in the 1980s. Just as the de-
cline of the anti-Viet Nam revolutionary groups (e.g. Weather
Underground, Black Panthers) led to the establishment of the
more vanguardist ‘Peoples Armies’ such as the BLA, so too
may have the latter’s decline left a void filled by the rise of
clandestine property destruction networks in the early 1990s.
In this sense, the ELF should be understood historically as an
instrumental tactical and strategic tendency in North American
protest as it offered a model of outright resistance at a time
40 RADICAL CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN 1929-7904)
when aboveground movements were gaining publicity and mo-
mentum.
At present, in 2013, the North American environmental jus-
tice movement is once again experiencing a period of growth
and diversification. Popular movements utilizing non-violence
civil disobedience are prominent in their position of the
transnational Keystone Pipeline for transporting oil and the
more generalized use of hydraulic fracturing (often called hy-
drofracking) for extracting natural gas and petroleum from sub -
terranean areas. Continued logging campaigns in the Pacific
Northwest has led to the reinvigoration of forest defense and
encampment campaigns such as those being fought by Cascadia
Forest Defenders. These movements, while adopting self-sacri-
ficial civil disobedience (e.g. lockdowns, tree sits, tripods) as
their main tactics, will also likely include the use of clandestine,
ELF-inspired property destruction. Previous campaigns around
the world have witnessed such a hybridized campaign, often
with great success. To cite but one example, in 2010, activists
in Scotland were able to derail the construction of numerous
open cast coalmines (i.e. strip mines) through the use of forest
defense in conjunction with the anonymous sabotage of ma-
chinery at sites like the Mainshill Solidarity Camp. The com-
pany building and managing the mines, Scottish Coal, finan-
cially collapsed in early 2013, likely pushed into ruin by the
costly and frequently sabotages it experienced during the an-
ti-open cast campaign. Following one particularly costly con -
struction equipment sabotage by anonymous monkey wrenches,
the activists released this statement to Scotland’s Indymedia:
In the early hours of this morning machinery at Mainshill open cast
site was sabotaged. Two Caterpillar D9T’s and a 170 tonne face
scrapping earth mover, an O&K RH90, were targeted, both will be
inoperable today, and will cost Scottish Coal greatly…The machin -
ery at the Mainshill site, and any other coal site in Scotland, are ex-
tremely vulnerable. Sabotage against the coal industry will contin -
ue until its expansion is halted. This action was done by autono -
mous environmentalists in solidarity with the people of South La -
narkshire [Scotland] who are fighting to save their community and
their health from the coal industry. This is also in solidarity with
people around the world, including Columbia and India, who are
fighting for their lives against the coal industry. (Anonymous 2010)
LOADENTHAL: THE EARTH LIBERATION FRONT 41
From this short communication one can see broad affinity with
the ELF in its methods as well as its politics. The use of clan-
destine sabotage in defense of the Earth did not begin nor end
with the ELF, but the network has been key in the invigoration
of a sense of possible victory. The production of spectacular,
multimillion-dollar strikes time and again has had a catalyzing
effect on those that stand in the shadow of foreboding multina-
tional giants such as Monsanto, Exxon and the likes.
Since the US made its largest arrests during Operation Back-
fire in 2005, it touted the end of the ELF with ‘key’ members in
custody and jailed. Despite this great loss to the movement, the
international growth of the ELF since that time has been re-
markable. What started as a small attack tendency in mid-90s
Oregon is now a history of ELF-claimed attacks in a host of
countries including Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ice-
land, Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Rus-
sia, Sweden and the UK. In the past two years in particular the
ELF name has been partnered in numerous attacks claimed by
the Informal Anarchist Federation (FAI) and the International
Revolutionary Front (IRF) in attacks throughout Europe, Asia
and the Americas.
The ELF is not an organization in the traditional sense and is
more akin to a movement of informal networks. Names such as
the ELF, ALF, EF!, FIA, IRF are freely adoptable political
markers providing little more than an articulation of a shared
politic and recognizable name. The usage of such names to
claim attacks allows disparate actors to present themselves as a
global movement, linking isolated cells and individuals through
a central meaning. Thus, the adoption of the ELF moniker in
conjunction with newly established clandestine attack networks
such as the FAI and IRF speaks to the draw of the ELF as an
idea more than a collectivity of individuals or single, isolated
actions. In the end, the ELF may die as a domestic network and
live on as an idea—an idea to be included in the signatory line
of communiqués claiming responsibility for attacks in perpetu-
ity, serving to carry the ELF moniker far beyond its original
horizons and into the annuls of radical history.
42 RADICAL CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN 1929-7904)
REFERENCES
109th Congress. 2005. “Oversight on Eco-Terrorism Specifically Examining
the Earth Liberation Front (‘ELF’) and the Animal Liberation Front
(‘ALF’).” http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=237836
(April 2, 2012).
Ackerman, Gary A. 2003. “Beyond Arson? a Threat Assessment of the Earth
Liberation Front.” Terrorism and Political Violence 15(4): 143–70.
Anonymous. 2010. “Mainshill Coal Site Sabotage!”
http://www.indymediascotland.org/node/18959 (January 1, 2013).
Anti-Defamation League. 2005. “Ecoterrorism: Extremism in the Animal
Right and Environmentalist Movements.”
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Ecoterrorism_print.asp (January 1, 2013).
Arissa Media Group. 2009. “About - Arissa Media Group, LLC.” Resistance
Magazine. http://www.arissa.org/about.html (December 20, 2009).
Auntie ALF, Uncle ELF and the Anti-Copyright gang. 2003. “Arson Around
with Auntie ALF: Your Guide for Putting the Heat on Animal Abusers
Everywhere.” http://archive.org/stream/Arson-
aroundWithAuntieAlf#page/n0/mode/2up (January 1, 2013).
Beam, Louis. 1992. “Leaderless Resistance.” The Seditionist (12).
http://www.louisbeam.com/leaderless.htm (January 1, 2013).
Becker, Michael. 2006. “Ontological Anarchism: The Philosophical Roots of
Revolutionary Environmentalism.” In Igniting a Revolution: Voices in
Defense of the Earth, eds. Steven Best and Anthony Nocella. Oakland,
CA: AK Press.
Borum, Randy, and Chuck Tilby. 2005. “Anarchist Direct Actions: A
Challenge for Law Enforcement.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 28(3):
201–23.
Chalk, Peter. 2001. “U.S. Environmental Groups and ‘Leaderless
Resistance’.” Jane’s Intelligence Review [republished by RAND
Corporation]. http://www.rand.org/commentary/2001/07/01/JIR.html
(January 1, 2013).
Dishman, Chris. 2005. “The Leaderless Nexus: When Crime and Terror
Converge.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 28(3): 237–52.
Eagan, Sean P. 1996. “From Spikes to Bombs: The Rise of Eco terrorism.”‐
Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 19(1): 1–18.
Earth First! Journal. 2009. “About the Earth First! Journal.” Earth First!
Journal. http://www.earthfirstjournal.org/subsection.php?id=5>.
(December 20, 2009).
Earth Liberation Front. 2000. “Communiqué - 12.19.00.”
http://www.elfpressoffice.org/comm121900.html (December 20, 2009).
FBI Counterterrorism and Cyber Divisions. 2004. “Tactics Used by Eco-
Terrorists to Detect and Thwart Law Enforcement Operations.”
LOADENTHAL: THE EARTH LIBERATION FRONT 43
Fireant Collective. 2001. “Setting Fires With Electrical Timers: An Earth
Liberation Front Guide.” http://www.scribd.com/doc/10523512/Setting-
Fires-With-Electrical-Timers (January 1, 2013).
Frontline Information Service. n.d. “A Final Nail Exclusive: Electronically
Timed Incendiary Igniter.”
http://www.animalliberation.net/finalnail/index.html.
———. 1998. “The Final Nail: Destroying the Fur Industry - A Guided Tour
#2.” http://www.animalliberation.net/finalnail/index.html.
Garland, Davey. 2006. “To Cast a Giant Shadow: Revolutionary Ecology and
Its Practical Implementation Through the Earth Liberation Front.” In
Igniting a Revolution: Voices in Defense of the Earth, eds. Steven Best
and Anthony Nocella. Oakland, CA: AK Press.
Helios Global, Inc. 2008. “Ecoterrorism: Environmental and Animal-Rights
Militants in the United States.”
Immergut, Karin J., Kirk A. Engdall, Stephen F. Peifer, and John C. Ray.
2007. “Government’s Sentencing Memorandum in the United States
District Court for the District of Oregon [case Numbers CR 06-60069-
AA, CR 06-60070-AA, CR 06-60071-AA, CR 06-60078-AA, CR 06-
60079-AA, CR 06-60080-AA, CR 06-60120-AA, 06-60122-AA, 06-
60123-AA, 06-60124-AA, 06-60125-AA, 06-60126-AA].”
Jackson, Brian, and David Frelinger. 2008. “Rifling Through the Terrorists’
Arsenal: Exploring Groups’ Weapon Choices and Technology
Strategies.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 31(7).
http://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR533. (December 12, 2012).
Jarboe, James. 2002. “The Threat of Eco-Terrorism.”
http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/the-threat-of-eco-terrorism (April 4,
2012).
jones, pattrice. 2006. “Stomping with the Elephants: Feminist Principles for
Radical Solidarity.” In Igniting a Revolution: Voices in Defense of the
Earth, eds. Steven Best and Anthony Nocella. Oakland, CA: AK Press.
Joosse, Paul. 2007. “Leaderless Resistance and Ideological Inclusion: The
Case of the Earth Liberation Front.” Terrorism and Political Violence
19(3): 351–68.
Laqueur, Walter. 2000. The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of
Mass Destruction. Oxford University Press, USA.
Leader, Stefan H., and Peter Probst. 2003. “The Earth Liberation Front And
Environmental Terrorism.” Terrorism and Political Violence 15(4): 37–
58.
Lewis, John. 2004. “Animal Rights Extremism and Ecoterrorism.”
http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/animal-rights-extremism-and-
ecoterrorism (April 5, 2012).
Loadenthal, Michael. 2010. “Nor Hostages, Assassinations, or Hijackings, but
Sabotage, Vandalism & Fire: ‘Eco-Terrorism’ as Political Violence
44 RADICAL CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN 1929-7904)
Challenging the State and Capital.” MLitt Dissertation. Centre for the
Study of Terrorism and Political Violence, University of St Andrews.
———. 2012. “Operation Splash Back!: Queering Animal Liberation
Through the Contributions of Neo-Insurrectionist Queers.” Journal of
Critical Animal Studies Special Edition: Intersecting Queer Theory and
Critical Animal Studies.
———. 2013. “Deconstructing ‘eco-terrorism’: Rhetoric, Framing and
Statecraft as Seen through the Insight Approach.” Critical Studies on
Terrorism 6(1).
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17539153.2013.765702.
Lovitz, Dara. 2010. Muzzling a Movement: The Effects of AntiTerrorism
Law, Money, and Politics on Animal Activism. Lantern Books.
Molland, Noel. 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. Steven Best and Anthony Nocella. Oakland, CA: AK
Press, 47–58.
Nacos, Brigitte. 2006. “Communication and Recruitment of Terrorists.” In
The Making of a Terrorist Volume 1: Recruitment, Training, and Root
Causes, The Making of a Terrorist, ed. James J. F. Forest. Westport:
Praeger Security International.
National Lawyers Guild. 2009. “Operation Backfire: A Survival Guide for
Environmental and Animal Rights Activists.”
http://www.nlg.org/resource/know-your-rights/operation-backfire
(January 1, 2013).
North American Earth Liberation Front Press Office. 2001. “Frequently
Asked Questions About the Earth Liberation Front.”
http://www.elfpressoffice.org/elffaqs.html (December 18, 2009).
———. 2009a. “Earth Liberation Front Diary of Actions- 1999.”
http://www.elfpressoffice.org/actions1999.html (January 10, 2010).
———. 2009b. “Earth Liberation Front Diary of Actions- 2003.”
http://www.elfpressoffice.org/actions2003.html (January 10, 2010).
———. 2009c. “Earth Liberation Front Diary of Actions- 2006.”
http://www.elfpressoffice.org/actions2006.html (January 10, 2010).
Perlstein, Gary. 2003. “Comments on Ackerman.” Terrorism and Political
Violence 15(4): 171–72.
Potter, Will. 2011. Green Is the New Red: An Insider’s Account of a Social
Movement Under Siege. 1st ed. City Lights Publishers.
Resistance Magazine. 2009. “About - Resistance: Journal of the Earth
Liberation Movement.” Resistance Magazine.
http://www.resistancemagazine.org/about.html (December 20, 2009).
Sally and Peter. 2006. “ELF Claims Vandalism Against New Housing
Developments in Philadelphia Suburb.” In Igniting a Revolution: Voices
LOADENTHAL: THE EARTH LIBERATION FRONT 45
in Defense of the Earth, eds. Steven Best and Anthony Nocella. Oakland,
CA: AK Press, 415–16.
Schuster, Henry. 2005. “Domestic Terror: Who’s Most Dangerous?” CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/24/schuster.column/index.html>.
(November 10, 2010).
Slater, Colin. 2011. “Activism as Terrorism: The Green Scare, Radical
Environmentalism and Govermentality.” Anarchist Developments in
Cultural Studies (Ten Years After 9/11: An Anarchist Evaluation): 211–
38.
Someone. n.d. “The Animal Liberation Primer [3rd Ed.].”
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/primer3.pdf (January 1,
2013).
starr, amory. 2006. “Grumpywarriorcool: What Makes Our Movements
White.” In Igniting a Revolution: Voices in Defense of the Earth, eds.
Steven Best and Anthony Nocella. Oakland, CA: AK Press.
Taylor, Bron. 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.
———. 2003. “Threat Assessments and Radical Environmentalism.”
Terrorism and Political Violence 15(4): 173–82.
The Green Anarchy Collective. 2009. “Back to Basics Vol. #4 - What Is
Green Anarchy: ‘An Introduction to Anti-Civilization Anarchist Thought
and Practice’.” http://www.greenanarchy.org/index.php?
action=viewwritingdetail&writingId=283 (December 18, 2009).
Trujillo, Horacio. 2005. “Chapter 6: The Radical Environmentalist
Movement.” In Aptitude for Destruction: Case Studies of Organizational
Learning in Five Terrorist Groups, Arlington, VA: RAND Corporation.
Walton, Matthew, and Jessica Widay. 2006. “Shades of Green: Examining
Cooperation Between Radical and Mainstream Environmentalists.” In
Igniting a Revolution: Voices in Defense of the Earth, eds. Steven Best
and Anthony Nocella. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 415–16.
Weimann, Gabriel. 2006. Terror on the Internet: The New Arena, the New
Challenges. 1st ed. United States Institute of Peace Press.
Yin, Robert K. 2008. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th ed.
SAGE Publications, Inc.
