According to an online NBC news report the FBI considers ecoterrorism the most widespread and damaging form of domestic terrorism in the US. It has been carried out against forestry activities and against biotechnology (genetically modified plants) and for animal rights. Yesterday 11 ecoterrorists were charged:
"The indictment tells a story of four-and-a-half years of arson, vandalism, violence and destruction claimed to have been executed on behalf of the Animal Liberation Front or Earth Liberation Front, extremist movements known to support acts of domestic terrorism," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at a news conference Friday.
"There is a clear difference between constitutionally protected advocacy ... and violent criminal activity," Mueller added.
"It is one thing to write concerned letters or to hold peaceful demonstrations," Mueller said. "It is another thing entirely to construct and use improvised explosives to harass and intimidate victims by destroying property and to cause millions of dollars in losses by acts or threats of violence."
... A criminal complaint filed in federal court in Eugene accused Paul, a firefighter, of setting firebombs that burned down a horse slaughterhouse in 1997. The ALF claimed responsibility for that fire, which caused an estimated $1 million in damage.
Savoie, who works in a group home for the developmentally disabled, is accused of serving as a lookout for a fire in 2001 that destroyed offices of a lumber mill. The ELF claimed responsibility for that fire.
Ecoterrorists have done more than $100 million in property damage over the past decade, officials told NBC News on Friday.
... Targets included U.S. Forest Service ranger stations, U.S. Bureau of Land Management wild horse facilities, lumber companies, meat processing companies, a ski area and the power line, the indictment said.
Interestingly the terrorists, the media and the Judge don't appear to distinguish between terrorism for 'the environment' and terrorism for 'animal rights'. To quote from a recent post at this blog: "Animal welfare, animal rights (including animal liberation) and conservation are three independent issues, which are often in conflict. Boundaries need to be placed on each to better understand their role in different context."
What were the 11 really fighting for?
No argument and you have my full support.
Phil,
Strata titling and the self-aggrandisement of local councillors lost Port Douglas paradise. 'Saving the Daintree' is a political goldmine but it comes at the expense of an already small rate base, with an estimated $433,000 lost annually. Of course, these losses are off-set by claims of service provision and infrastructure savings that would be otherwise necessary if full settlement were not opposed. Never mind the ratepayers continued obligation to pay for these services in the ever-decreasing Daintree Cape Tribulation rainforest community. Nevertheless, throughout the entire history of the Save the Daintree Campaign, Council has boasted increased rate-revenue of six million dollars per year through strata titling in Port Douglas.
More than 70% of visitors claim disatisfaction with their Daintree experience due to over-crowding and lack of exposure to wilderness and yet (ironically) the prime-movers of the Save the Daintree campaign dictate the mass-market day visitation experience on artificial structures in degraded forest without any contribution to either conservation or the well-being of the local people. No local intellectual or cultural property and every expense met courtesy of the tax-payer.
QPWS allocated Commercial Activity Permits to enough operators out of Cairns and Port Douglas to carry 700,000 visitors per year and then protected the allocation though the exclusionary influence of a Ministerial moratorium. Ever since, state and federal governments have functioned under a policy that directs all future tourism growth south of the Daintree River. As the only scope for growth is in support of the local people, the policy is completely counter-productive, and yet millions of dollars go into tourism management strategies to conform with this policy objective.
The Daintree, Phil, deserves to be protected. It is undisputably a global treasure that should outrank the Galapagos in terms of its biodiversity values alone, but it needs to be protected from political and bureaucratic sabotage and the inhabitants need to be provided with the maximum possible assistance in modelling a world-class conservation economy.
Most importantly, minimising the impacts of any future development must be honourable and completely free of impropriety.
One of Neil's points is that you can leave people in the Daintree - and let them, for example, run small scale ecotourism ventures - while protecting and enhancing world heritage values. Indeed locals will look out for the forest under the right planning scheme.
Instead, government is chasing out local residents and at the same time bringing in large numbers of tourists for one day visits in big buses.
But is it not still some sort of a problem. If the Daintree got fully Quaid-developed - would your land values be as high? Would it be paradise lost?
In suburbia there are covenants on new estates to "preserve" the character of an area or development. No shortage of people wanting to buy in.
Is there a balance required - or just let it rip !!
From my point of view Port Douglas is now definitely paradise lost - sux big time. Hate it.
Same in northern NSW - Byron Bay - yech!
Noosa - traffic jam on Hastings Street - but good coffee still.
So for all the regulation - an outsider still sees some aspects of the character of the Daintree seeping away every visit.
So you can see the greenies as the problem or just the symptom of the real problem. Too many buggers wanting to visit and live there. And just too much development.
Just some observations? Solutions ?
When I asked the eminent consultant team leader for the Daintree Futures Study, how he could possibly rationalise contradictory recommendations that sought to halve residential traffic to protect cassowaries and at the same time double visitor traffic (for amongst other things) possible cassowary sightings, he replied, "What can I say, except big brother is alive and well in the Daintree."
QLD Green policy on freehold land;
3. Amend IPA so that a Regional Plan and / or a Local Government Planning Scheme may expressly :
prohibit development, and
regulate development , including limiting and conditioning the timing, location, scale, intensity, type, character and impact of development
designate freehold land and Nature Conservation Act and Land Act tenures exclusively for nature conservation & environmental management functions and uses.
http://www.qld.greens.org.au/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=153
Big Brother?