<%BANNER%>

An Analyis of the Communication Efforts Made by Law-Abiding Animal Advocacy Groups about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

University of Florida Institutional Repository
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021106/00001

Material Information

Title: An Analyis of the Communication Efforts Made by Law-Abiding Animal Advocacy Groups about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
Physical Description: 1 online resource (114 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Vera, Nadya M
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: abiding, activism, ammendment, animal, civil, communication, cruelty, eco, ecoterrorism, efforts, enterprise, extremism, feinstein, first, hls, hsus, humane, inhofe, kucinich, law, liberties, lobbying, mainstream, petri, protection, rights, shac, society, states, terrorism, testing, united, welfare
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Mass Communication thesis, M.A.M.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) was signed by President George W. Bush on November 27, 2006 amid claims that the language of the bill featured oversights that could threaten certain civil liberties for those involved specifically with animal advocacy. Seventeen telephone interviews were conducted with representatives of law-abiding animal advocacy groups in order to analyze the communication efforts that were made by these groups regarding AETA. Instead of participating in a telephone interview, one organizational representative provided written answers to a list of sample questions. The responses of the 18 participants revealed that, generally speaking, law-abiding animal advocacy groups' communication efforts about AETA were not enacted until AETA was close to being passed in both houses of Congress and that the passing of the bill has not hindered their campaign efforts up to the point of this study. This study reveals implications for those involved in the study or practice of law, public relations, or activism.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Nadya M Vera.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.M.C.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Hon, Linda L.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021106:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021106/00001

Material Information

Title: An Analyis of the Communication Efforts Made by Law-Abiding Animal Advocacy Groups about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
Physical Description: 1 online resource (114 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Vera, Nadya M
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: abiding, activism, ammendment, animal, civil, communication, cruelty, eco, ecoterrorism, efforts, enterprise, extremism, feinstein, first, hls, hsus, humane, inhofe, kucinich, law, liberties, lobbying, mainstream, petri, protection, rights, shac, society, states, terrorism, testing, united, welfare
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Mass Communication thesis, M.A.M.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) was signed by President George W. Bush on November 27, 2006 amid claims that the language of the bill featured oversights that could threaten certain civil liberties for those involved specifically with animal advocacy. Seventeen telephone interviews were conducted with representatives of law-abiding animal advocacy groups in order to analyze the communication efforts that were made by these groups regarding AETA. Instead of participating in a telephone interview, one organizational representative provided written answers to a list of sample questions. The responses of the 18 participants revealed that, generally speaking, law-abiding animal advocacy groups' communication efforts about AETA were not enacted until AETA was close to being passed in both houses of Congress and that the passing of the bill has not hindered their campaign efforts up to the point of this study. This study reveals implications for those involved in the study or practice of law, public relations, or activism.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Nadya M Vera.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.M.C.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Hon, Linda L.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021106:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101129_AAAAAK INGEST_TIME 2010-11-29T21:55:45Z PACKAGE UFE0021106_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 69716 DFID F20101129_AAAGKK ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH vera_n_Page_017.pro GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
687d40d5a4bdac8892ba8cdb37273db1
SHA-1
701a996c90c0b05c80d8d87864c79c534633578c
7277 F20101129_AAAGJV vera_n_Page_053thm.jpg
847484e7de1e6d8b7b58d4fef8b54cfa
bd97088fdafda6ce05b941a792891672ace7241d
7335 F20101129_AAAGKL vera_n_Page_051thm.jpg
5c45477df75e039cd4654b756dca638e
9d2fd39974aa6bb9b9d9e2e59e0524d8bc2c9406
1051983 F20101129_AAAGJW vera_n_Page_018.jp2
b9d934a12f61864d0e047b42622def82
7871a2489fabd6106dbb54c4f26af681ea226176
32460 F20101129_AAAGLA vera_n_Page_099.pro
1835ffada41f22dbad9810e618a4c453
38b85ed3270b413deb9c7f521c3aefc8d94466e7
1051985 F20101129_AAAGKM vera_n_Page_078.jp2
781e680ee5b67cf9a23e0a88d5e2267b
c7067d09bea0a870620cfe41b59ad5cd21457025
25271604 F20101129_AAAGJX vera_n_Page_089.tif
205504087b365f06052f588b1bd75398
461dd2b7249da8993ab1126a0f87dba5ed89f973
F20101129_AAAGLB vera_n_Page_032.tif
2179811a21475e89a1a7f1ac0873510b
5a75f1a5e97cda2de058cbb18ec770b4ac06cae5
107905 F20101129_AAAGKN vera_n_Page_110.jpg
8e24c6f75ac630672861ef5ad118bc09
1618a65439dcad09f48d7097d5c133682ca1cafe
109426 F20101129_AAAGJY vera_n_Page_085.jpg
71cf3c37338e4936b550ebef129f0533
d2901e0b9544c644c8b9da1b7946bb738ef61ad2
9686 F20101129_AAAGLC vera_n_Page_094.QC.jpg
a40df4fddff621fb1390f03c9f8522e4
8818ab27214a8f4ba0fab4265cf579ac2bd6fec2
15061 F20101129_AAAGKO vera_n_Page_043.jpg
0ffdc578e714f8916dbf436f73e7a343
028a0d19bbc32bd2862851ca6ef256bacc4b9c99
9861 F20101129_AAAGJZ vera_n_Page_087.pro
4a99e447a100edf3c5fde4f2b4548dc0
3bd5553868ea788a26e5b0b0d9592ed872d30877
40856 F20101129_AAAGLD vera_n_Page_114.jpg
ed66e72b9829db1e912d32ef5c521440
4f17e39943e9ad5fcb888df7f87531c0e77ab834
89463 F20101129_AAAGLE vera_n_Page_052.jpg
2cbf51217f20e8409992649eb80a8a16
693889a60517ea1173ac2b581f74c40fafad9ebf
540564 F20101129_AAAGKP vera_n_Page_098.jp2
3bea0c4600f60c71405eb21fe0401c09
b7032e576a9145a941ba445875eb18985f1de243
92412 F20101129_AAAGLF vera_n_Page_005.pro
59177f6d661f927cba6fecb2db621daa
8b25ac4e9ed46ca91e2f17bdd494b5e9caa0a537
28344 F20101129_AAAGKQ vera_n_Page_016.QC.jpg
832b1212697d01f6bc5149ef5a229d7e
bba3deb28db2b917a16be68f1168a5e055386470
11410 F20101129_AAAGLG vera_n_Page_004.pro
70200ba89b3b43027386bbf871a00288
94408fe25ab786e474e77c8aa5a33e249d56f97c
506342 F20101129_AAAGKR vera_n_Page_092.jp2
772f37f90b54afce399db2fa47e6c421
6dc03793064797f22ab300e8a000ad5bcc00222e
F20101129_AAAGLH vera_n_Page_037.tif
27a5593bb8662e8e429f1b7bbba036dd
28dfc3d413fb5570c5b41bfa1c5e44395f7056c4
1053954 F20101129_AAAGKS vera_n_Page_048.tif
d38ab936c4ab595d5dfdb23c2b876125
da5cd53541521d3139b99e47b5e9fb2660252872
1051955 F20101129_AAAGLI vera_n_Page_023.jp2
a451771dd0b18605bd1989b83e8ec94d
ac5ce2a665247ea52741af51fadb1687a91acbd6
7692 F20101129_AAAGKT vera_n_Page_108thm.jpg
cb3ac7f1d7c37afd38194e3b5dacb48d
0bf610209db9bf3035d2328cc1c5dcfeff50e3a1
F20101129_AAAGKU vera_n_Page_060.tif
1b6b3a088f41914c89787370e8293b72
81bdefff8cbaf965addf7d99a55261f220d364c8
25367 F20101129_AAAGLJ vera_n_Page_030.QC.jpg
cc81026c8cd99c979416145ee6ef5999
63a494e199798b35c55c332ae2656c4d07664741
7102 F20101129_AAAGKV vera_n_Page_078thm.jpg
6cc89b208bc023f02145bb61ac276449
2228015cf5d936f95bd7d4221fb82fcfcdd39e6b
7397 F20101129_AAAGLK vera_n_Page_106thm.jpg
e5d9f6f67bb6b4e64ee59d134959eef2
d5f2599e779a029ca4a1f9b592e8fe00b9549ffe
2259 F20101129_AAAGKW vera_n_Page_013.txt
2ae977801069716097962f9b9d0f7b68
611d97be8d6a86ab11309f51dd5bc55e09925c57
1051981 F20101129_AAAGLL vera_n_Page_076.jp2
fa00f8600f8c1c29335777e64f7ee4ad
74085ee3a49298e3b7c33c96be262de6f3ff499e
2539 F20101129_AAAGKX vera_n_Page_086.txt
aec61a3da51e292f5d84db5f7aaa788b
56ca4c819c88236f4cb9a45282f67f479ab46b63
2690 F20101129_AAAGMA vera_n_Page_038.txt
8a966ac88c38beb7d10d9113f8b6c08c
e965c8b1c58f1775622ff5479e2af679f6fb1e56
2136 F20101129_AAAGLM vera_n_Page_059.txt
11257306a6e66e2f7362b382fc91b090
a8edc7f5d6629dd9822bd498d2f2e54528ff4d00
2112 F20101129_AAAGKY vera_n_Page_076.txt
60d035ca60c63d63215acfa0dd1c68c4
ffd1ec5a508627f92fae363debd39ee46fc52c63
53100 F20101129_AAAGMB vera_n_Page_050.pro
df7124606c812436fa075a367ba9372d
9a1675cc155d95a235067e603a82d6d181404ac8
27095 F20101129_AAAGLN vera_n_Page_019.QC.jpg
f0f55c8b99983874fba1353e07751102
4616bff16b80538d575ef935f755e508f36db409
79 F20101129_AAAGKZ vera_n_Page_003.txt
9e8e7d57d7d1de2262173571114cab65
c310534cb0ba406ab9074eae2c12e32287bb930d
2118 F20101129_AAAGMC vera_n_Page_014.txt
1ada0ac060409d03806280df791036db
cab9bd0811018a1d52c2aeef1aec23a15c465843
F20101129_AAAGLO vera_n_Page_015.tif
1aad15d153168b5627932f090c0d8cf9
8b32a232cbac57104e7213cff4314d6783cc9b5d
7181 F20101129_AAAGMD vera_n_Page_063thm.jpg
03527abf32485246ec014c7499040461
865bf5d0388726ee4222a20e3bf623c6277a1594
539 F20101129_AAAGLP vera_n_Page_001.txt
61e14256ef0a62899c08a159d7c4ac7e
9b08383fd227b7918b566817c31a24c34bf6d1fb
2617 F20101129_AAAGME vera_n_Page_111.txt
bdb30cf7a74e6940abde4c8bb791f969
04d907f031d0d50f36dec02983f4dcb6f7ca7ae4
F20101129_AAAGMF vera_n_Page_023.tif
1ac5609cb3b72350200db3bea064ee7d
f9c43850a5549282dffaa1a2ce2d21a179511b02
1507 F20101129_AAAGLQ vera_n_Page_091.txt
f7652781120027996a62f4e8c4c6e185
41d86b5fe82ca244e328dc30361c9c2233286942
29686 F20101129_AAAGMG vera_n_Page_029.QC.jpg
d07610d717e0fb8f6c517229add63197
dab78e413aaf2f6b9ea003f2a1af76051d89f869
62552 F20101129_AAAGLR vera_n_Page_103.pro
f53aaa40535108460ed2150a65963eb0
09b3ade719b006a20bff2d95465569fa097b74be
F20101129_AAAGMH vera_n_Page_102.jp2
5fb7129aca19d343070d0d41de04c627
8d7297faf67d05746be6f6d0f534511e3c631a64
95424 F20101129_AAAGLS vera_n_Page_016.jpg
1ae699e05cb161bf09e9a036e36082b5
0cc18bc8241fb5ceb075fb9c1a7d142acc18a1a2
2678 F20101129_AAAGMI vera_n_Page_110.txt
dba1021282bc969dcf7584d6ec3210a3
c580318e30b3f72dd1bf0de717cbcba1a05f231d
29140 F20101129_AAAGLT vera_n_Page_072.QC.jpg
25fc2edd2f8c63891495f487f34dd991
24a600a9fc6f0509a31a160df6b1cbb0b509ff6c
89 F20101129_AAAGMJ vera_n_Page_002.txt
514ba83d31452a75e9d222e2238c8dfa
f4c818e9303a3382f18391f2bdd2c03b1ec9e6fe
30387 F20101129_AAAGLU vera_n_Page_028.QC.jpg
3bef2bc3a78acfce3440462573dbd691
e19e2c6533a862f89b9fa4fd7a96744bdef240aa
6826 F20101129_AAAGMK vera_n_Page_061thm.jpg
24933af2ea455904fe66e1851c8fc8c3
33bce0554cf767207fc7f3f1bbe902c396a847d0
100774 F20101129_AAAGLV vera_n_Page_112.jpg
4a29f2ea8fb6d191bdd179240e30f1b8
d08351715b35baedffc1ef528dc59a0247463e04
F20101129_AAAGML vera_n_Page_067.txt
7493d2512ef1d1b2f9e8a3466395e8f3
a4d931a9df1e7c6a99ee3962bc91e052745ae1a2
28412 F20101129_AAAGLW vera_n_Page_015.QC.jpg
40c32fd71a5b3e1800de06303d21b07e
95c81a1c2deda6ab71c5e3034c258b6d191a3188
113091 F20101129_AAAGNA vera_n_Page_108.jpg
e8caf4198fb8534aaf94a3f2621788d0
3772015850c63899921182c636f54a561ad1026a
1478 F20101129_AAAGMM vera_n_Page_099.txt
57085ece3792cc8d5dfdf4b742fa1cf0
1765a1b1d1217b0ed45c5aaf4266383cd9c57524
14363 F20101129_AAAGLX vera_n_Page_096.QC.jpg
99de352d86bebe674f0d178989e8b550
f98080ef111b4fe26d4aefc21d4d9338afe92378
26164 F20101129_AAAGNB vera_n_Page_076.QC.jpg
86a9997fa2934f8803fe0b17351e519a
e79aaafeedf0532a11f43ec03a5dfcac8f76b175
554114 F20101129_AAAGMN vera_n_Page_097.jp2
ca9f8745fcbd370ec80e6f5c2fb95136
14a5933e3aadddff4711d5a68025143828d7ba15
F20101129_AAAGLY vera_n_Page_030thm.jpg
db3ddb1625a821d1d7a99fc199f84217
2360e237bdc613d5e9e8fece8e4fd32b925a4b84
16023 F20101129_AAAGNC vera_n_Page_049.QC.jpg
a0cd13ef11fde10de4abd29de924880b
9046a1289599fe632f64c4d0f7b21c85e07569ee
7653 F20101129_AAAGMO vera_n_Page_111thm.jpg
f37ffcc20f813d8ebe3ea18c6118ad44
3e1c0f13fe2700f38720319d945e7f5a01c422f7
2581 F20101129_AAAGLZ vera_n_Page_029.txt
2170b1561cf805af48500821a1e58e93
09e63919519ab724da3b01b0d7b3ae8b7b039790
25976 F20101129_AAAGND vera_n_Page_042.QC.jpg
67da3e0652830c7abea4f9eace797bcd
c8314f41206914a0d748170fcb8c5d847b92c512
2391 F20101129_AAAGMP vera_n_Page_054.txt
c92e046d3799f113bafbe77da3bc86ea
20b7fb33ef9d59f0c41d3b8c15578b8b3666188e
1051959 F20101129_AAAGNE vera_n_Page_112.jp2
8446c6e3167381ec792727d0b1c18a14
ee3d57ea08fe07cc3203d7b77eec2f41ce0cd338
1546 F20101129_AAAGMQ vera_n_Page_089.txt
3e893657fa92ffd0e7c8a471cd69afd3
cbcbb181f96ca8e620cd67b9a2232e09dd0cc635
1051946 F20101129_AAAGNF vera_n_Page_059.jp2
f939703832f693292dd842fb98d46b72
6907893dcb8f7c1680684161b313eca976817cf8
89913 F20101129_AAAGNG vera_n_Page_039.jpg
5678c9ef6b22984faf92218884415f3e
20bb93f82e9f4ab4e8fa3f70c65a7aa63a9a850b
1051889 F20101129_AAAGMR vera_n_Page_054.jp2
5c5f7790924e8e0131dddbd890d6b193
8ab63ccf9c516578ff0939d5721167b50386f5ec
45083 F20101129_AAAGNH vera_n_Page_096.jpg
369d326e49048cfd5d9146c5551a0a1b
c0c64685d78917f879c92475411831b1a295e1ef
7216 F20101129_AAAGMS vera_n_Page_019thm.jpg
caf25838c1685f32eed872ca1f49d9fa
11e132677a86ac1f3fd370f14584499092bd45b9
1926 F20101129_AAAGNI vera_n_Page_048.txt
b368bf30da30c74cd7be04e9cf72a273
16b810db7d8016a2e673491b951353f13c694172
F20101129_AAAGMT vera_n_Page_073.jp2
460b66ef4063777e809515482c9d0a0c
e55250120876dfd3b0f36d8266be26bfc11fd8f8
F20101129_AAAGNJ vera_n_Page_106.jp2
d3b6ccd49057600c64cd18f984cf8d3e
59067770472954b53bdfc6367c93b9e24f051957
7213 F20101129_AAAGMU vera_n_Page_105thm.jpg
dfa164f5e3e95cba31de798eb09bf122
9419b5817c7d3d27075639a800cf1dd08ced6af6
25466 F20101129_AAAGNK vera_n_Page_018.QC.jpg
d19fa2bc15f70e0ee63aa5eee8871b8b
43db6c051efba8d75bfa7ea577d70dba950dd7db
1051929 F20101129_AAAGMV vera_n_Page_068.jp2
75456416d730fbe518c6ee5bb2a37a18
02a23de2723d939a9697dccade85c046bdf0e3ea
26372 F20101129_AAAGNL vera_n_Page_013.QC.jpg
6e96cd145fa7f0364d19c4d33fe2371c
41809dafac9421bc15c6d10789600e2648640b6e
2175 F20101129_AAAGMW vera_n_Page_018.txt
070ff9bdd411f7e5ada9a4ee06e6ff86
e2eeeea22e09d59181ca57a8730fe72fc358c8b3
1626 F20101129_AAAGNM vera_n_Page_007thm.jpg
28cd53b13effee3a009fa77d6050aca0
f44eba6b944f1156ad0453feb019cadb87007e0c
F20101129_AAAGMX vera_n_Page_057.tif
e936ba3d3e542988399edf9c7a678a54
bc841e4a3525ddead3db4cf243554e5b3d67c5d4
82896 F20101129_AAAGOA vera_n_Page_011.jpg
df4aa05dd9a27b3874b17ae84d22fbb9
dd8cc59f62bf4ab69e9cce3bba45c612315c43c0
86852 F20101129_AAAGNN vera_n_Page_056.jpg
cdcf811814f82cfed67a5ced2efe6290
c96f052e0ad140212345fcc9ce2cffd658c5a6a6
7802 F20101129_AAAGMY vera_n_Page_067thm.jpg
d1893caeb62c6f1b4e1b5f0c76ad6f90
7298939a448ff2f07868d22a3a603423d7b67919
65078 F20101129_AAAGOB vera_n_Page_006.jpg
6c40a2a13f57fc318ef1b9195786e627
49db25b02d09b08cfc6ffb75924b253b7f4cd816
1051968 F20101129_AAAGNO vera_n_Page_109.jp2
97b04791ef6a9c622d804d49360b4c26
43c32a8978c3f6c581c57238a1dbe6d238ce1a99
50868 F20101129_AAAGMZ vera_n_Page_030.pro
ba20b9815e7c181e6aaa83140f54b07f
a228297c22b9ea4c614f9a8070528ca4deff0ded
3624 F20101129_AAAGOC vera_n_Page_083.QC.jpg
a2070cf9a8e667ac6cb383dc6e5dfb22
2945fdd70445dd187477cb3170ea5f80b3bd9ed5
7634 F20101129_AAAGNP vera_n_Page_110thm.jpg
deed003e48eb58db4dd34a542e696e0f
70873c50084b9a552ee8f1618d7af2a8200f8ffa
7657 F20101129_AAAGOD vera_n_Page_036thm.jpg
56182563a726e587398a9437b938dd23
139e16209edf7997f9af4fad12a11d0ecfa2471b
53569 F20101129_AAAGNQ vera_n_Page_031.pro
43fddd7d3e47f91daf00672ce3decd03
d7214c2c75a594c61220428e1595b97c55a1305d
F20101129_AAAGOE vera_n_Page_030.tif
83b21edd0eac65d56eb9c0a906ea7cd5
7bf58da444fda7a58f9953706180681cee620c69
29502 F20101129_AAAGNR vera_n_Page_101.jpg
2d91fce719dd364f7e9868bfd590788f
219751b0ea2d106c376a77ce590535f65845899c
56649 F20101129_AAAGOF vera_n_Page_048.jpg
3b19909c6cf8e8b4953e5e97637cb395
a8a168fb11cbb79b86a7297ac501166edf78b319
18766 F20101129_AAAGOG vera_n_Page_009.QC.jpg
84c09925a6fdb0bfaed2a0bc5edadc0f
874fa7f563369b0dd443443a68cb4f814259059b
70821 F20101129_AAAGNS vera_n_Page_027.pro
3c898b32c0e3303396cd7fd19f7ece89
125856a46a50fdeb01552b41ed33b3bc023e9161
29254 F20101129_AAAGOH vera_n_Page_085.QC.jpg
b311304b94ee9fca4ad99e9c0bbefbba
d67bcc63ca31750acde743c3b9dbe8e8d6036b39
7697 F20101129_AAAGNT vera_n_Page_028thm.jpg
ee83a2be13deb2e7f7d768770286d629
cae895e1ab0194135542412cd9a4a05faef5bf99
186 F20101129_AAAGOI vera_n_Page_007.txt
b1bb93a47d63ed9b5a1045116936387c
4414af01df7e1046bf57fa034ee022c25f8d9744
1051934 F20101129_AAAGNU vera_n_Page_025.jp2
e8bf62687d17027384259787b231e6b5
04f04c6f781b3b4f06df020bd2f11b168d5ca44a
1544 F20101129_AAAGOJ vera_n_Page_047.txt
aa0ea6f88eabf720d8b5f080bf9242ba
c91ad1c57124868c9dd3467653e54704bb855f1e
2866 F20101129_AAAGNV vera_n_Page_027.txt
80a239efdb6d4fb514451dba511d1f78
da7a41e7b1eb6d66a1cbbdbf36e39b0135f2082d
F20101129_AAAGOK vera_n_Page_088.tif
88a1b1fe74b255bc05b014ee04eda638
38259471e65c291e07c96bba261a0a97352fbca9
2764 F20101129_AAAGNW vera_n_Page_107.txt
792cf7729d7b80f5772225b6ef1b1125
064f5aadbc0e9c1b54ebad07f354a1afce9c0765
83632 F20101129_AAAGOL vera_n_Page_080.pro
b970c453f978142ed4f6431f14b631e3
cd3a14e4953cfadd0ea5e6468bd9b5e3d1b0fad8
2226 F20101129_AAAGNX vera_n_Page_019.txt
0adde6cea7e61bfe27c790dc902214c7
8da2986c7b05b04004ba691470af066009ba0b5f
F20101129_AAAGPA vera_n_Page_063.tif
f43c658c803b2ac4c25e874770395fd3
0b91ca1cf9307423cb0cc52e68e94dcc6f432359
29716 F20101129_AAAGOM vera_n_Page_023.QC.jpg
e283f5cb648d465e953b2e6a26b3062f
52cb1bd43bbba36c1ae004b456d7ddb931254b2f
69512 F20101129_AAAGNY vera_n_Page_023.pro
47223f1a70dee83f1e9876881f3a9d01
ced915c1d49c5aab217929a4ea850e9d9d636219
2186 F20101129_AAAGPB vera_n_Page_087thm.jpg
eaf9ae44e5e0ea2f495a443f1611d225
32daa3890d806d208d5317faf4ac82f8a37d5f20
7380 F20101129_AAAGON vera_n_Page_017thm.jpg
e56a80861e2e2fa044019554da1a13eb
592c9e3bd3e492a7e11dc09d58e11a266b8747e3
F20101129_AAAGNZ vera_n_Page_090.tif
a3d944092fcb59dedd19538b51f4d224
3121ba8ce7f9b331161b14f2c4b73b7f831179f8
27559 F20101129_AAAGPC vera_n_Page_071.QC.jpg
fdff3f575616eb327539cfb814a7fa24
6cb327a86cae99e012e1844aeca1bb0c6bfc4ae1
889 F20101129_AAAGOO vera_n_Page_114.txt
18806923f4c4a14abf9534ef22a203d9
681d830027e142d0819260961fda5e9a41071609
1051943 F20101129_AAAGPD vera_n_Page_063.jp2
20dd32fe87d12fcd1221fb7d2923b1cf
3fa0e72a6ef410b207e6e390eabc9ef58ccb7680
2306 F20101129_AAAGOP vera_n_Page_052.txt
0e7effee0bf057f99136ea3723d208ba
ad1dace43a41efc47ce52c59c39c42d70233fbb7
68271 F20101129_AAAGPE vera_n_Page_107.pro
dc1b154388ffa07571cb79a21da731f5
9c3e8e8e051032c0fa4bd55cafff48b51243aebb
1806 F20101129_AAAGOQ vera_n_Page_043thm.jpg
9b8b839a62536e48bf8f75b6e46e636b
e555f915435e6a4c521cae30491afd2291386a46
F20101129_AAAGPF vera_n_Page_020.jp2
1c20b7fe568eecdeb4de2cba61f928a9
3097f2ec07d5583eefc8edd70f3c3d139c874e59
2061 F20101129_AAAGOR vera_n_Page_045.txt
236d5117fa0d4b542ab1a6a59d5048df
cbf9e878abd1a2a4f4ab1887eeaff19513c51b17
1357 F20101129_AAAGPG vera_n_Page_079.txt
b197969f69482eef45ffc753afce1eb6
8be0d4b5d3faefe5b5c36ec20556446ec0fc1b0f
16088 F20101129_AAAGOS vera_n_Page_081.QC.jpg
806b1d47b19b59256d9d398ff2e1286c
17c23c127739e9837bde12366a7697d3c18ffc4b
2048 F20101129_AAAGPH vera_n_Page_010.txt
9f09786073dd10614f3825d01200b353
5f1db344c51292f9367b1309c1d690a08c4bc280
F20101129_AAAGPI vera_n_Page_054.tif
38167ec2a189f09bfa9864d3671af773
10daf5f15e6b9a2ad2bbbed82af5f7507923d90b
1051974 F20101129_AAAGOT vera_n_Page_056.jp2
9cc49fa651f8f31b00ef39df368129e5
6094bfe6696ac584a39d222a96bac72df97ccd13
62281 F20101129_AAAGPJ vera_n_Page_106.pro
2afa19f4d77896513b4557e0e8b4a2ab
e38539d435e5bd3b928b0b3af2452ada4fe409d6
559129 F20101129_AAAGOU vera_n_Page_089.jp2
709d427f084ac112fecb80a42e46a84a
f91b7a9498b09c9369087a9f6b64184bc5a73e0c
32892 F20101129_AAAGPK vera_n_Page_079.pro
46d32deae5125408178838d7f52a4a81
ea24f905feec60b03aa0d06c6b90623fcdef710b
F20101129_AAAGOV vera_n_Page_106.tif
d4534b9626eec3c0cdca85a4d05be639
7cccbe551e98e164dadd9fb4445fd6ecaad7310a
88633 F20101129_AAAGPL vera_n_Page_025.jpg
1b7e1cbfb7ef5ecdc7ed6f6a795da9a7
1eccb147bbac018a86fd977a0c4cc2964edfa6c7
51587 F20101129_AAAGOW vera_n_Page_077.pro
31f9cbe8033909dce6aa7ad66126c208
034079ff9342d490c083aa7c49346539e692f814
807 F20101129_AAAGQA vera_n_Page_002.pro
ac622776496e365dec7b4d865e058315
1756cec53a2c644b3c03a80376baf8e875ea0003
27297 F20101129_AAAGPM vera_n_Page_062.QC.jpg
38887ce7f50d09f1d943f2961e13ca34
eb327ee28f003ffe833aa11af5c4e639522a0f1d
264772 F20101129_AAAGOX vera_n_Page_004.jp2
b61b1555304b74b979ea2a32d1afb39b
e2d998ff553d07bec5d092722b7322dbd892242c
23938 F20101129_AAAGQB vera_n_Page_070.QC.jpg
249ec4d7960e13ed76e779e9a5b625c1
dc2cd15ccbe32bbbc2f18964f4b52ecea5f19bc7
2087 F20101129_AAAGPN vera_n_Page_057.txt
74f95a6fa904c3b82a7b6a0d9a245664
a6a5010e1befb621aeeba5af19ce7e292ea59809
2734 F20101129_AAAGOY vera_n_Page_022.txt
76bd2a4862698512193d408cd8f8ed62
a8f31660d9cf480c1b72e9ed4c9113da9f292505
55477 F20101129_AAAGQC vera_n_Page_071.pro
152b79e6fcec46b203e475be9a46a5c8
41f583ed6f0f66a22462c292b16aaa5825c4f3f7
F20101129_AAAGPO vera_n_Page_035.tif
c2fa0bf316122205fddc8eb6c60b4bbe
df2714d17301a603b9d68bc5c21246248f2fb6e9
3734 F20101129_AAAGOZ vera_n_Page_098thm.jpg
d377d9c85c288e7d42c03852539e6295
62342e70b671adf06d8316c9fca8efccd9bb9c76
1051908 F20101129_AAAGQD vera_n_Page_022.jp2
029408d3d8edaabc00ae4ec96b6c8e8e
fdb1e641e9fa8d61929354402b9a34e4f87167bb
62061 F20101129_AAAGPP vera_n_Page_072.pro
523805a93fb0f63e37c5edb681c7bb0a
008946195623394c3992dc331854b211fdd1f3e5
27071 F20101129_AAAGQE vera_n_Page_066.QC.jpg
a9431d0d21f276c7f3876d62d2cfe1ad
f81af7961c4eb1650b65a8fa02d380a34bbb7089
52483 F20101129_AAAGPQ vera_n_Page_045.pro
f4bbf2cc9085d0739fa3faeaedb8691c
8b03c8a426729d80d3485bc93872964081249051
54658 F20101129_AAAGQF vera_n_Page_065.pro
8855edfcf1e7a00ceca8638a03d4e37f
724153480e7899791ce99ba1174e118a0b250224
5572 F20101129_AAAGPR vera_n_Page_047thm.jpg
67c1d36728f189d46e2f3b8a22269fc4
8b4ae0d72384a9c58e52a162c34ffed0a251226c
1051980 F20101129_AAAGPS vera_n_Page_016.jp2
73f8fa48d5617bda2acaa313d93bcca7
04320c965280dd979f254d89f8053385f1c56dae
5919 F20101129_AAAGQG vera_n_Page_104thm.jpg
bed06bb9d282618713f4af6e849993dd
871ade3757ca7c4e6bd09f1b9090bbacff806320
32116 F20101129_AAAGPT vera_n_Page_109.QC.jpg
dad2f5eb638c2fd48987fcd1e1544f0b
45c873a4e1462e91f471b71d9b3247821103e1a0
54347 F20101129_AAAGQH vera_n_Page_062.pro
5764534ff21700cb1763af56a42bef35
88a4887a92c306cbe552a3e2b1f826fa8940c46b
1390 F20101129_AAAGQI vera_n_Page_100.txt
3b0035c4830f2ea22b85fa5b5afa620b
c9b71a05f21129153ea0679d1cd8b528b57e5bb3
F20101129_AAAGPU vera_n_Page_093.tif
b87a0acc27aefe1c63f30c6f9b2c780a
dec383200c5cf21b11972e1779507a17fc9748a7
53092 F20101129_AAAGQJ vera_n_Page_044.pro
6fda28d03e0c10673d2cc8cfbf931754
b1204145ca6116f7c16c362c299cf0004343f088
5101 F20101129_AAAGPV vera_n_Page_043.QC.jpg
a141c95fdda5ff7ad6231140b8e35423
453865d90df26d2fa75dfe3b4b6684d3c6cac417
2601 F20101129_AAAGQK vera_n_Page_103.txt
04a0437a10aa73d9bb68bc44d02b7f81
9e791e9c82337668dc41ef04eff6c604b7e2f30d
F20101129_AAAGPW vera_n_Page_009.tif
ab8be8cc1533acc717e4ae1729e360e0
7d9f0fe22d4750c7da9be98aaf20ecf6339ad174
7720 F20101129_AAAGQL vera_n_Page_027thm.jpg
b929f049d00efdd43657117deefd496f
d17adc3c6167b182053f930546d0b718a9c0aee1
88324 F20101129_AAAGPX vera_n_Page_055.jpg
89fa5a23b914a8f608eb72fc68067718
3dcf64382c257baaaf043ab9c49e156d33764796
86876 F20101129_AAAGRA vera_n_Page_071.jpg
157d38cbe32db4af3433d1e74c9c572d
c91fc80fa6102c537f42638d2a5b11e4500d0f52
F20101129_AAAGQM vera_n_Page_002.tif
508f69379075bfca46322c0203134479
6cf8215a0fbfa44fb2a8b4f23bd3f4ee8df449e6
7427 F20101129_AAAGPY vera_n_Page_058thm.jpg
e9afc7b113523b1ae7a0feee76ab58a8
23dc61c031b4adcb23895c782a705035893e213b
106697 F20101129_AAAGRB vera_n_Page_007.jp2
50f81ea9248df145ba1c150c9091d0fb
eaf490f15fcde249e02ba1c876927e45ee0104d1
85335 F20101129_AAAGQN vera_n_Page_062.jpg
48a535111eb4dd594558798e02f7b7d2
6fafb21b38466d6c171c6ab65d6b0ebbf0d3845c
F20101129_AAAGPZ vera_n_Page_029.jp2
0d55b801834866abf621ee8066a4ea5d
11372eadef33d4fe3acf1e25cc815d27cc0637d2
67049 F20101129_AAAGRC vera_n_Page_038.pro
9478c3ade3ef344ae6c1d24842f55f31
fd78e16eeff08062c3bb62712791e480fa5e6968
30399 F20101129_AAAGQO vera_n_Page_027.QC.jpg
841b07ac6c974ee91ffc335b1bb9238d
81a7d7e2439cdb0dfa1757877a0d84cf5926ac51
85674 F20101129_AAAGRD vera_n_Page_046.jpg
d616cf6fef417460c84b26ce7715c968
dc72c3d7ba0ecb0e35b4f936752c06542824c25a
1051965 F20101129_AAAGQP vera_n_Page_071.jp2
9f0f27436ad8ebe5a25284c92bd8e6b4
807f339bb522ce877e2661cd3f84c517db098b72
27800 F20101129_AAAGRE vera_n_Page_041.QC.jpg
5303097c920b7625354853729048d777
76c56fc026289a2ec71e96c6b6d03120217ab1a1
8423998 F20101129_AAAGQQ vera_n_Page_049.tif
4a9d3d4349aa7ac64c9e6a999b9a6ce2
eefcbda285a2ca3de09f19f2a7c6ec6f16f0755d
97452 F20101129_AAAGRF vera_n_Page_058.jpg
e3aa9e6f15946252b70db0484a6c178b
43dfc24a9bf47b49bf7f2d2e07908c7482f154f2
1051913 F20101129_AAAGQR vera_n_Page_069.jp2
f29df64885cf11bc6668e37af6aac9d9
a97e662aa19632da287559143b021e15bf0dc951
24036 F20101129_AAAGRG vera_n_Page_095.pro
5ff870787f199ccf7c8723e3f9df6e3d
f335d11c1b30cf64e9b56cc6f65084f3f685c8de
F20101129_AAAGQS vera_n_Page_094.tif
3d1427c5782574281e0efd91c9546058
d088da2e45ad740ba18b9ed5cf27f25e9229c342
7145 F20101129_AAAGRH vera_n_Page_010thm.jpg
00256a3492c43d5e7717b99286936336
30fac1f0350355c650a60a2e1d87d9f2e5335a3f
71843 F20101129_AAAGQT vera_n_Page_032.pro
4371fc932e330513a5d81b1e602b8298
06effab42abf484a16c957b045c5400a0d9f8c3c
3074 F20101129_AAAGRI vera_n_Page_088thm.jpg
419d1b8b75b482e505179893a1918755
6e3f861f0035ffb6f037efd41ab637c91c576c63
30050 F20101129_AAAGQU vera_n_Page_038.QC.jpg
35d2c83218ba9b2501a7b0e6a2458fcc
687d5004239a57ce376949507ecc222d6d1f4db6
7448 F20101129_AAAGRJ vera_n_Page_085thm.jpg
6bd72834459ede887d40aba18f782cc8
dacb0603c06a2775d783680e66ba738f2e013725
113279 F20101129_AAAGRK vera_n_Page_107.jpg
476ebe3dcbe195647549e272ee433679
2dd07c5f97559d3832f7fe8590d0f68fbefdbcb3
F20101129_AAAGQV vera_n_Page_105.tif
fc8eced0d81fecb9d90fdbd180346068
9bc84d9ad31f8a1a17d985287605eff30006f8a4
7049 F20101129_AAAGRL vera_n_Page_013thm.jpg
efb7618022e8321c86df97b2137bc135
98a83ad92b667dea611a2e60b9abfd7250f066c1
57196 F20101129_AAAGQW vera_n_Page_039.pro
aa084cc6420f954fc61affe2dbd77b0a
62ea2fc5ce3b47623f693e79a4ba04db7d72588e
2081 F20101129_AAAGSA vera_n_Page_053.txt
395e11f402154a0d5adeb44b5f9604c6
cf730a780407faf537e876cc5c8860f57f18a2aa
1051976 F20101129_AAAGRM vera_n_Page_013.jp2
9d98bb4ccba770faa748ecdd23bd5a94
4b36a936e65dbdcaa0662643e11977f724255d1e
84052 F20101129_AAAGQX vera_n_Page_076.jpg
f1dc85a5c56a835736504a2d32608fae
047227ac60acfd4e5fa7ea2f0709c7bbddc07152
26832 F20101129_AAAGSB vera_n_Page_014.QC.jpg
ed8a9aa5519f51dbfa9b2cfdddc84330
fd5a35a29dea5af681610e0af1dba7d4a377809a
74885 F20101129_AAAGRN vera_n_Page_069.pro
b74d80f8ff1f4716b9161442cc2f4871
377d17d1c860e0f04f9ae189250fcecaed35eb8a
25079 F20101129_AAAGQY vera_n_Page_010.QC.jpg
22d5cb24aad399cad1a6b43400428dc8
74775a10d28b34f01968287d70b4556e933f9178
430334 F20101129_AAAGSC vera_n_Page_095.jp2
a8e4ba9150701d0b952f729620ddbf56
c1db284ab0fd997ba7cf9dbe269f459a33712048
1051977 F20101129_AAAGRO vera_n_Page_060.jp2
582bc45687ef611ac10f0eb51db584b9
8c31e667e31b8f3f5aef89978a60add9bb4242c9
27947 F20101129_AAAGQZ vera_n_Page_074.QC.jpg
ee502e2ca707e0e36c67157e8401fdc2
bc518bd3c7ec5bf844bfd979d173f6b98553736f
290658 F20101129_AAAGSD vera_n_Page_001.jp2
aa8bb0e5531e1223735039054dd2d458
e8cccaf0f7d9055a25c3dff6dadd75554ad5d317
84667 F20101129_AAAGRP vera_n_Page_050.jpg
638b8a1b191409147bf383877112a766
0c135f147a204454c0567b40061650bf08eefe34
6701 F20101129_AAAGSE vera_n_Page_050thm.jpg
58711963b714611a11e2c8e9b2129f13
7572d363b43fa5c537a30d1296c4311dfdd1398f
27286 F20101129_AAAGRQ vera_n_Page_059.QC.jpg
2610f8cd3f4534c800149c7d07b57eb1
c801db9509c133274cb3dae310b70cdd38d4cbba
7575 F20101129_AAAGSF vera_n_Page_062thm.jpg
ba1ecbdc805bc65b9340bd9b48af355b
7420984c30bd242551fccf7fe23a164f3d30cc2d
3776 F20101129_AAAGRR vera_n_Page_097thm.jpg
1688fee055b4f96555c64fb99dd7f231
52b7a070b35f3cf43c40a6a9bed994f7eb38c90f
1051960 F20101129_AAAGSG vera_n_Page_028.jp2
3b583ef4729e2dd62f9dd9eab42d312b
c8029848ad672d8966133dfc6795ef5e59dcfcc7
27012 F20101129_AAAGRS vera_n_Page_051.QC.jpg
a7dd76a470684b4729bed8808af2ea2d
134736a3c874699d810df19534246645d41a25a5
468 F20101129_AAAGSH vera_n_Page_064.txt
8c9c62defbf02a02eb17c902e59cb9bd
45f1fc4b6a899ced673aae0dbdcb07ff0045d665
31289 F20101129_AAAGRT vera_n_Page_049.pro
d9c7fb98fc367e380f9b013e3ee42bed
5e907fe95b6565b7a93e362277a69eaccfa5c498
553722 F20101129_AAAGSI vera_n_Page_090.jp2
39fbad42ee355cf412f9cf63043742ef
a9887a0752c359cf6855318e506a666a9c9dd176
F20101129_AAAGRU vera_n_Page_040.jp2
901a0ec2f92f52b83e94dbfa36c3d792
2e4c9a6f42f54ca2f6db53235f6d997bd9d1f0a1
F20101129_AAAGSJ vera_n_Page_053.tif
5b306a17ba0909c74b95721a447fbab3
ed7e4e058fde849ee43cfd05f8dedee5d4e8167b
30434 F20101129_AAAGRV vera_n_Page_069.QC.jpg
74dfb456f9460038c30ba5af3c4ced69
038d71446ba397edb1453beb71b124dc3f3913be
54598 F20101129_AAAGSK vera_n_Page_073.pro
19689475ad725b4c459976fca7af2740
009b05539715298a0741cee39678bf74f8c8bc51
F20101129_AAAGSL vera_n_Page_039.tif
600e8d2d3a45305455bdfe82c72c565c
c9525d4ed85ca3869ebe3c5d6d74b4deecf0201d
64610 F20101129_AAAGRW vera_n_Page_111.pro
4b33e13150d8500c9919288b64e39b07
39e1fd488f759cd1d9ba55fa6ee4feaa317307b3
2422 F20101129_AAAGSM vera_n_Page_016.txt
e326f667d41c311045658396d455e6b6
75bc0316a4ae33c2833e686f04d08f3f9eac8c29
7308 F20101129_AAAGRX vera_n_Page_086thm.jpg
beace8b48f031c5729d367871d813b12
635ad722603867546ba55ada49d3066719ec25a1
F20101129_AAAGTA vera_n_Page_007.tif
452f08198456f2ca5b12a60ac0a6c543
a890aca45aa274bb3e2b829a6a51950a4d1e5d64
551295 F20101129_AAAGSN vera_n_Page_091.jp2
81db4fce80e43626d88bfad911180195
9ec200530f3cafd2f66135547f14a196449ec8cb
4469 F20101129_AAAGRY vera_n_Page_012thm.jpg
4f5ace938ae153777f183717ffe41eb3
0d461e5321ee2d222d5cc68d703d996a5a43c16a
1051984 F20101129_AAAGTB vera_n_Page_077.jp2
a7f6d52d13f70d8bbaaffbcb05bf8343
8648791be3269ef9b1041a4e01e5ca53e18bc1b1
6068 F20101129_AAAGSO vera_n_Page_084.pro
367e99a7f7926282dcbca84866c06c8f
309656f541dbdb4862d1e0ef3efae29a6e3a3451
2536 F20101129_AAAGRZ vera_n_Page_064thm.jpg
102c2d4455b9f41b03f24889e333e279
b6b83fa591a35fecc60cd80737bf1ac703f8d569
F20101129_AAAGTC vera_n_Page_077.tif
c2f766e6884bfa048c6e4bb825e69ba2
cb64bf1f980f11d5f246993f186a37e06f12ca2d
F20101129_AAAGSP vera_n_Page_005.tif
9cf6f5a9552284cf85305357e5571ce7
d7cba3d7b3166ad80ee93ec6501435d73140a925
4754 F20101129_AAAGTD vera_n_Page_080thm.jpg
053170dd4146b0e58b0c8c2e2ed90e83
2f1baf11b8628897092573b745d4d9a46525fafc
1051966 F20101129_AAAGSQ vera_n_Page_104.jp2
66aaf6de7f1dd165edfaf8294f17ce86
04e6b80e75fb0b18f1c5562753766f905be45e64
108114 F20101129_AAAGTE vera_n_Page_027.jpg
8c2008da7bd96fd51e5d31f14cfe2ad3
ae087493bbcf7925eceac79e0af84b4dbc50c40b
1051914 F20101129_AAAGSR vera_n_Page_055.jp2
e61fd89746b755d32fd74ef8aabee395
20191ba3e1800317a17da43c46ef471fdcd77a9e
2189 F20101129_AAAGTF vera_n_Page_026.txt
f9a1b57e720f4769a6257db2427f4ed1
5128f7bc82977ec1c7d0385a9ccddb1a11eeb1c3
54770 F20101129_AAAGSS vera_n_Page_074.pro
fe422dce015d4cfe8b631b9b4fc7e2f3
76e059eaa089859421c14a124154dba34a2a59e8
1051979 F20101129_AAAGTG vera_n_Page_057.jp2
a4899e9fc2a726c03602b9e7816b4ef9
8db10b1504a64bcac6a82724590f999bbf0414cf
F20101129_AAAGST vera_n_Page_108.tif
185d80b7cdc7a2d520110405cf5acb4b
2399a77edd48bc0890b25093142ddb0d725937d4
F20101129_AAAGTH vera_n_Page_081.tif
abb30257a5f681f2177e9aab552f15a2
e6ba8eb2bc16e7c94045f993885797022c3d96d6
7334 F20101129_AAAGSU vera_n_Page_057thm.jpg
4077fba8b1453f16e023cca449ab1fd5
58efbe63ae6720a81859d0bbf8a15677addc82ae
111766 F20101129_AAAGTI vera_n_Page_024.jpg
5c18f23a5bbca4447f9765960ead2cb5
fc0491c0df6e037d41773771759bdccce13ef6b1
32881 F20101129_AAAGSV vera_n_Page_097.pro
e74a55c8063b5b3f066713248fae526c
c2cb29559aec6bbb57dee6d574b93d7bebbf307c
6871 F20101129_AAAGTJ vera_n_Page_068thm.jpg
6b09401354f9cd0577e5e9f0abc5bfb6
cd4166f4d3d60f52ace9e41337f3991f2aaa1144
89195 F20101129_AAAGSW vera_n_Page_075.jpg
6a0b816c1e7fba79b6cf9fdab4dfe16e
77b8559568482a3252b153097d56d59c93e622f3
2206 F20101129_AAAGTK vera_n_Page_071.txt
edaae15f5adac155cbbc46719129881b
0a9c837ae09b13b67b54982b2ae87e07c57e4dd8
935 F20101129_AAAGTL vera_n_Page_088.txt
9b8ab8b45e69171c43f67610bbeacc1f
7ed216345fdc2a6e995ec107b66b646dbf96c481
5233 F20101129_AAAGSX vera_n_Page_079thm.jpg
f6aaf0e6e8e1a3de5fb5e6257473d1d6
1d320499f8f957f7884c434066c09ae2d1fbae4c
26070 F20101129_AAAGUA vera_n_Page_057.QC.jpg
069f1fed85ec9ad9c107254d3c980e75
3898e209086604ccb5416814ecdb672037a161c5
F20101129_AAAGTM vera_n_Page_112.tif
a48fd1319fee95569d9028c56e532b1a
50f556f69cb187e15ffaf591d7bb6af440756952
2674 F20101129_AAAGSY vera_n_Page_108.txt
0f44b8852a02b504ba4dd1b4eb862072
04e123a29b985c673bbfd6b85ae2be7f59861ea1
F20101129_AAAGUB vera_n_Page_065.tif
2de0c62c6946b03632cc6b44e18843fb
07aec10ea5d0647fe92012a776a3dfc20e781d1a
21288 F20101129_AAAGTN vera_n_Page_114.pro
03abe0f289ebdaefba5901094a4dbe06
26471c08e72bfaff0a5b820abfbc9913265e8331
7746 F20101129_AAAGSZ vera_n_Page_004.QC.jpg
46e3813fe44e0e56e1b2740e1be31cc7
3bbe7505c91a642127e29bbcf2691af8605ec898
1972 F20101129_AAAGUC vera_n_Page_078.txt
4014ff530cf2c84da4b0d11430579371
5bde78140655bb98eecb23a1cf385dfcbd8fe6e8
7185 F20101129_AAAGTO vera_n_Page_060thm.jpg
ab758a5c044850f3935366f2625b19c7
5aabca7d14a01d697363a11902b0d9d1b4149a4a
F20101129_AAAGUD vera_n_Page_045.jp2
a4c2e45738ded100bd8cdb4741ffe1a3
8a05e9e916eb54f77d2820192f28890afa958b64
20719 F20101129_AAAGTP vera_n_Page_084.jp2
33ef1914e69a4cdf21fff21f656db30b
a21f66f9fb43aeb65ef8c22f280d8ba46a8b0e18
13833 F20101129_AAAGUE vera_n_Page_097.QC.jpg
04206c10064d1fff78a07ab97fd16bba
c8401da04ae2c898becba5d147f21d2f9d1a1f81
83575 F20101129_AAAGTQ vera_n_Page_030.jpg
27ee6b481690474f4f452f530376d821
1999329c5c4ea5c6ba7a721a7c9c908782f01960
61042 F20101129_AAAGUF vera_n_Page_112.pro
df5f29681b35c345dc55a6562e73c889
2345a864478bf816306ca9ad010ebab5c82e3dba
F20101129_AAAGTR vera_n_Page_012.tif
80a403daa6f95d5f7184ee54f91fc05a
c4300415d4ba1c4361b9c5865a680279702a9ad7
36297 F20101129_AAAHAA vera_n_Page_095.jpg
730715256678ea710aaa453b5d59f337
c878bf25dd700bb5a065f1441dd1cbdb2b9ad61e
F20101129_AAAGUG vera_n_Page_093.txt
bd111680f26c686105ad27cc5743f633
caddfa5fbe68892ddb0fc68799936a21c820cf63
18247 F20101129_AAAGTS vera_n_Page_080.QC.jpg
7c06dd3b0d993a979d66d7c7922b44df
1b9e00cb0a2810645abe2f74a28fb8a6db9b17ba
43483 F20101129_AAAHAB vera_n_Page_097.jpg
d6b9bc42c83cd0f9e0f63c3aa8ef9752
78485641197608645b215fa0fe0aeaf16cb5ede7
5364 F20101129_AAAGUH vera_n_Page_048thm.jpg
de1bfae3cdea7f58bcc846bc34f0cba0
aeee7134468b9937684a0640f058892b61560b63
7620 F20101129_AAAGTT vera_n_Page_075thm.jpg
94a9910accd9c27088d2e786512c5644
9714792e099707dcd26cb4301c8e5d08f69cf6ff
43937 F20101129_AAAHAC vera_n_Page_098.jpg
7256a39f696659620b4b9901c04dc922
8820e0e5a6289c9bdda048fc3f146d62aa630c1f
F20101129_AAAGUI vera_n_Page_061.tif
6efbfa04ab469d81b921efe06eb22411
61e69ed5ee2c6ee3affe39b3bfbf14bde27c1712
34259 F20101129_AAAGTU vera_n_Page_089.pro
c68789e1913c65553cbef81dc61434cf
331d093e4a7a0edc47e3a1753b5e9ec436bf4201
40954 F20101129_AAAHAD vera_n_Page_099.jpg
5f395762d418c74b68b3064122c0a81f
429c7583b5a63053cfba43d1163b5611ad5eeada
2917 F20101129_AAAGUJ vera_n_Page_020.txt
f8a08ca548e192c900854c360a75c9b5
faaf5b875545568824072cb3ff03d152f3f676ae
F20101129_AAAGTV vera_n_Page_047.tif
b5bd34a6991f40b3cf24b0e4652b674b
e1b7c1fa3de12e25a1b5b5c0d4c86cd27171fa8b
F20101129_AAAGUK vera_n_Page_042.tif
597a9d9444a22855262908d03ba1deae
0ba868a1ba49ba5cfacb1c40438d07eb255babe0
F20101129_AAAGTW vera_n_Page_031.tif
ea7062a5a1605a75e7121265b26f9ad8
948e9f8a38ee8787269fb231d0654bb689a4f835
98856 F20101129_AAAHAE vera_n_Page_105.jpg
37b71a11f9b1beea9d7970eec263b58a
456eae0084ce814ac07b971633feb38739cbc553
1035814 F20101129_AAAGUL vera_n_Page_080.jp2
88498cda6644ed8e841be3083a8bf3e2
ce87e80910dad109806c3022018500c957a694f1
4491 F20101129_AAAGTX vera_n_Page_049thm.jpg
df256975518aff53ba4438de4059856f
aeb85da6727b1e1ef1aa7be7b60de10787efda42
98822 F20101129_AAAHAF vera_n_Page_106.jpg
8158ff51f8e1a47cda34ce7905335fd8
6a6c495feb42d76999adbee0a978a79b20beedb7
98530 F20101129_AAAGVA vera_n_Page_036.jpg
2604d85ba4f23a25326eee531d21991d
8e0ccbad1261f3bb114b55f59c9ec6c555a9fbc0
103392 F20101129_AAAGUM vera_n_Page_034.jpg
cd6973affd247bdc9049b3e08707e6be
4fd11644511dc4001870927bb15a9f3481792abf
116900 F20101129_AAAHAG vera_n_Page_109.jpg
2168c94e2ecccf8498bbe22bebe33113
4f7ae997d2f64fc3a756596bb804a613e1e82d1d
72783 F20101129_AAAGVB vera_n_Page_028.pro
cd8e8fd2e2b62bbde6c5e0c51c8fb153
07336c480bed739f2ff68f789df569031ab52a8c
14375 F20101129_AAAGUN vera_n_Page_089.QC.jpg
600e0520e36eddad56298d82e3b4e552
00f01f448a3e4feca90cb74526445ba72d1fd3d0
F20101129_AAAGTY vera_n_Page_036.tif
b78812ad09cc189b3a777427c5b8c942
573135d129fee587ab1d14cab1f00f6d4f4cbe99
65112 F20101129_AAAHAH vera_n_Page_113.jpg
b3e218bebf51248adf76fa9d9702c8cb
03770790328f6c442cfa23e9663081299eaf0064
83074 F20101129_AAAGVC vera_n_Page_031.jpg
763724b26042904d131a6ccf406d126a
7d9848a12ab02c876a3ae5922306530b74dae4cf
55728 F20101129_AAAGUO vera_n_Page_026.pro
6332ba7bcff61ee6821e7f68352bad0f
9871e1af9ee7f05ca5ef9c583cec6aef8086419c
7854 F20101129_AAAGTZ vera_n_Page_038thm.jpg
22d9c5def2aaaf4968c064405bc36ace
d909faff0a9aea3d7f0400bf973f8fc771395ff1
24211 F20101129_AAAHAI vera_n_Page_002.jp2
45bb423916ae598ebdc8460ed67bf7b4
f6e9fe934a6c51cd26fad97b90b065b3f1b11bed
125170 F20101129_AAAGUP vera_n_Page_082.pro
1f3ee5b9325a592a687bd8d9ab830e36
6d8ab6d0a25ce5e9c885513199476a751b9e0d1f
17922 F20101129_AAAHAJ vera_n_Page_003.jp2
c9a87c987a58d136a4525fde3880f640
e7a099396908cf9d421f720da14186f6a323034e
81509 F20101129_AAAGVD vera_n_Page_060.jpg
c6e9537cce23e7ef1ae788275ea1bbde
c908efda4dc354b7f84fc3bdc52b802f9ab9fe62
85736 F20101129_AAAGUQ vera_n_Page_013.jpg
e06f0a1b5f8ceb9d3aae90e6cd42903c
6272f0a006d2724e7fda20b999e768181958e1de
F20101129_AAAHAK vera_n_Page_005.jp2
3edcb05fd6787dc2785b2832e69318ea
4e81f8cd34a94598e9fb51fcab82a03dd2e625a0
89790 F20101129_AAAGVE vera_n_Page_081.pro
8f0c97ab2112a59c90dfdd783f512466
0980e0c6b4e15d18673077e01fd4eb897f89bfbc
1476 F20101129_AAAGUR vera_n_Page_090.txt
2c18a8f2e7550adde4222bb027017648
332aa51d3c255077ca743602991e74c591331072
872036 F20101129_AAAHBA vera_n_Page_047.jp2
4b7b83c7db3d20991584fe14d70596ae
19479de6b6ddbd057f1776c72c1e0feea99531b6
86240 F20101129_AAAHAL vera_n_Page_009.jp2
bc9290145fadb077679b174ec50b2563
8428776f2e895760519ad0857622a334fea91650
F20101129_AAAGVF vera_n_Page_033.tif
38e8c8b2890967b0cae10e9799b05ceb
d98075171bb90e33d5b320700f6feb866377a33b
5048 F20101129_AAAGUS vera_n_Page_113thm.jpg
d000427d361cb336ed1a49d51091d6b5
43807425178b594754f1bcfb522cbe42fdef8605
672342 F20101129_AAAHBB vera_n_Page_049.jp2
c057c42ba8a6d7c4bfb3f0a402f0d2f4
ff89d93173954d2396057f24be560c80d4163385
1051939 F20101129_AAAHAM vera_n_Page_010.jp2
eac37167013f5c18a47ee5087e261357
51c5a27d5fa21e7e8f4a39402c97d046c8fe7867
7722 F20101129_AAAGVG vera_n_Page_109thm.jpg
f6f3e13aeaceccad5624787c7ee7db72
f9325bad70b31c38157148627085bbb7e7856dae
54545 F20101129_AAAGUT vera_n_Page_013.pro
0e0081650ec454e50e0a9b833afef515
440e501b98bf101ccca20e9fcaa8ca998ac6db1b
1051948 F20101129_AAAHBC vera_n_Page_050.jp2
6f5902bd1cb066ecbf9a5d1fe0c572ba
304ea8fa25ea190f40dd5639ed3b37d18ce764ab
1051901 F20101129_AAAHAN vera_n_Page_011.jp2
ed4bee932bc979b21f1abf7b6340059d
3b3b0806cd21af597ed65cfa43d7dfba17f0e567
F20101129_AAAGVH vera_n_Page_097.txt
4fee2d302cfa64e7b49f9f21143851f9
91ef2a5a0203b2db71965c6719c0f8f008b6af16
69579 F20101129_AAAGUU vera_n_Page_080.jpg
577a4d008c421a0897d6da1ac9598d51
8c8159ab1b8316183da9ed40a1b5e6e51628911f
1051964 F20101129_AAAHBD vera_n_Page_051.jp2
85690f3f527c45bcc2e2e5cef8c7fd28
3ec08df2846fac6a7a54238d7fa3210e2f4c1242
660497 F20101129_AAAHAO vera_n_Page_012.jp2
0d4c96aff4438ccd44af0abf3b62b400
7d1d0dc01728010201617e089c5fe5ac144fa41f
28283 F20101129_AAAGVI vera_n_Page_055.QC.jpg
195faab33fe9b467f366573a09f54b6e
9459a4ab8e09df48a5e5ba97970073f19aece1a1
F20101129_AAAGUV vera_n_Page_085.tif
d20d85ccd3f599ab10cbeaa06f9f7067
f1479e9df59cc19c84c09ae6599bf9a89766e29c
1051970 F20101129_AAAHBE vera_n_Page_052.jp2
64efc5f265009c21d29dc0b58de89f02
7a5810fe6d93af836ce1527d470afc5dbcf52467
F20101129_AAAHAP vera_n_Page_015.jp2
33e02cc2c78a8d584e2cc4fd2329f402
066938007f501bd3f0000e97fb5250cf7fb427bc
7524 F20101129_AAAGVJ vera_n_Page_041thm.jpg
f8eb8c7bd901c8f5023de670c38c5e18
05e54d6331444bcfe131770097d17b413d1c3716
1051963 F20101129_AAAGUW vera_n_Page_027.jp2
2b3c571c6845e5d73a35d092b6ad963b
c78d49e1a196f24d939b51f6c1a7a07afea16452
F20101129_AAAHAQ vera_n_Page_017.jp2
380977c957e5be46bee03151e3f945ac
77fd34c6cdf9232bc4afeec7f485ed5267896b12
F20101129_AAAGVK vera_n_Page_075.tif
6b848752be6dd2f998de7b7ce9aa8ba8
2219eb676399c8d61e1bb96fe1f9f1e301a2d2b2
87239 F20101129_AAAGUX vera_n_Page_026.jpg
cfcdc3f7b8dcb1d0bf3e6a4487497699
8166a0f951ea005d2959e4129c701502fadc0a9d
F20101129_AAAHBF vera_n_Page_058.jp2
5aefe7f4679e7a0369f7c63c0a8e9fcf
926b49794f687b4caa5d534726d30d2bdf85b891
F20101129_AAAHAR vera_n_Page_019.jp2
0ec1b17f11deb5a9376cdbe05bbdea6f
e59ddf4f6e5703ed9e26b17241ba7173573eb14f
6955 F20101129_AAAGVL vera_n_Page_042thm.jpg
146158920882a81aadb8aa8cecbac1dc
7409e4bde177e1aaa3496537670214f4aa6d4c5e
6293 F20101129_AAAGUY vera_n_Page_070thm.jpg
1968f77a7ffd07c582ad43b365cc0679
eb960fea5bb3780416c857fa6e4eaabe3e1fd3e8
1051961 F20101129_AAAHBG vera_n_Page_061.jp2
620acd765d0bf1171c23de0dd5f806e8
6581a712efdce6f4224a13e7941306b7738f840b
1381 F20101129_AAAGWA vera_n_Page_083thm.jpg
07cce9e2b4db258088c7744c1f3aa3ad
81228bd586526963e7466308ebeaa768a497ff79
1051941 F20101129_AAAHAS vera_n_Page_030.jp2
0ec1bc829b8084e10ace42559349642d
d9ced5583686ae686bf8d659556db5ad85f5cefe
F20101129_AAAGVM vera_n_Page_086.tif
f91c0a61ecd4528e443909b658714efd
5b619a38bab1b04dca5976298c65a6fbc1b8c6eb
1051932 F20101129_AAAHBH vera_n_Page_062.jp2
e4645660d5ed498b41617c75ad0b8367
b688f44182ac4d9a2fac45eceef95726995cffd5
24980 F20101129_AAAGWB vera_n_Page_078.QC.jpg
20360c5bff47d96d2a56d5ca09b0de93
b4a40220779893f44db63ca7b3dcf22b79dd6cef
1051967 F20101129_AAAHAT vera_n_Page_031.jp2
1b553ef9b5d0460d8296194682d18ca7
f063e968050f641c07e255c9f8bb0af0420cd805
18993 F20101129_AAAGVN vera_n_Page_047.QC.jpg
8bf652028f048226df30e48116465534
690c424c6b7cc117b8a4b2f838cd269ad1640690
3753 F20101129_AAAGUZ vera_n_Page_114thm.jpg
b0263ed85f3b718fbd53fcb2bca09aaa
a1aa6ae049679213e72405843dc5283161074dd4
F20101129_AAAHBI vera_n_Page_067.jp2
d1311026b823d0409c4e5f5d87b59bfc
e1d1fcbe383f8893c709556bff352253fd1ab14c
84663 F20101129_AAAGWC vera_n_Page_045.jpg
950851f5a4fdf906c01d3a3d1b458a92
090dbe7cc2e94fce3d9d4f74c10fa2ec1862427d
1051978 F20101129_AAAHAU vera_n_Page_033.jp2
3d2a97d50fc3e11c88ee7e119d79c619
dba5d896a5b3dd1db80872b0183fdec8277bd107
1917 F20101129_AAAGVO vera_n_Page_061.txt
8e57e5a34ca3a4c882c27999c0392f3f
d00cd0dc0f16bfe073869381f3bb51ed999837b2
F20101129_AAAHBJ vera_n_Page_072.jp2
0adb510b9a8dde0724aa0b77f134270c
3ea4467690eced92a5da59226c1cdcc16926d52b
4538 F20101129_AAAGWD vera_n_Page_043.pro
6ab51870fca0fbf376243deda4e5df95
25c049abd9e0bdead2fd04766b1fb67a8a29f20e
F20101129_AAAHAV vera_n_Page_037.jp2
f4e0b42b3df6f5871e3b8395a2af26f9
e32003f27247fe919642f924c9475fd5dda74411
31852 F20101129_AAAGVP vera_n_Page_088.jpg
8ff5d26e15c6d9abb8af0065995fd2b9
f3561687447ec13d2bf6f524da5afbef58f237a5
1051907 F20101129_AAAHBK vera_n_Page_074.jp2
143fb0fd7409a8c3d78c537d6c8c1439
7d5a2a5d6267821d6196c0a044a6b178d5a62b9e
4063 F20101129_AAAGWE vera_n_Page_080.txt
9465a77dd1c53e5d34fa4b2f161b4d5a
7cae01fc96f0568e50f13c9b490b5348ef6551c5
F20101129_AAAHAW vera_n_Page_038.jp2
c37057a991699cfbd3c012a7f603f47d
1657a4c41f3293297901461a90b2e2258448de0a
744462 F20101129_AAAGVQ vera_n_Page_079.jp2
51cce2be44aa1833f8820e1c374f9471
6e5a3cd810f46da8c06c0c20f0824bdb7aee6780
887815 F20101129_AAAHCA vera_n_Page_113.jp2
f4cb930b3f30c3c701d390bea36e2104
702f8f0a3f4a532e4d42ec8cdf1ee0ed4477301c
1051982 F20101129_AAAHBL vera_n_Page_075.jp2
74614492819065b58f31029e129a47ea
82abc3a1b844af0d4f822c1056c65b3e1c0f27a9
90022 F20101129_AAAGWF vera_n_Page_019.jpg
cbe5bfee092754bb01687581c2e80b16
22b0ed2f659326755597d7096731053689390d39
1051888 F20101129_AAAHAX vera_n_Page_039.jp2
225e0eab7000cbdbf48da62fc33d8872
372fd4422c74b61a781fb5e900115b92bd16b7e0
26600 F20101129_AAAGVR vera_n_Page_056.QC.jpg
23e62218dafaec36e72d8da5daad239f
6f76b2e0b96367f9f26f25236492cb3b418b0800
995924 F20101129_AAAHBM vera_n_Page_081.jp2
d20a7bd62a1a863a8e1a2b2f87742961
67a1f97c46fa29f7cc9d1412ecae40df4ab3083d
26064 F20101129_AAAGWG vera_n_Page_060.QC.jpg
a198d61867a1051121f1bc10130dcf43
5e0026ddebbd31e909b1c9c44a989fe1cda12d0f
F20101129_AAAHAY vera_n_Page_042.jp2
17f520e3bc364515263ee03a47dff5eb
513ae4a174ad347c07bbb9a9f09d0411d45a2459
2270 F20101129_AAAGVS vera_n_Page_084thm.jpg
7f8565ad20de01f1e0e68ca061030bda
9df6e8717854a3b57da9ec60ad19cd3f71704e5e
506144 F20101129_AAAHCB vera_n_Page_114.jp2
da382f78722735cc8a356cf3b77e284e
7f9e406aa4833e84fe35c7898c812c4a7cb03795
42503 F20101129_AAAHBN vera_n_Page_083.jp2
cf20b174b14f33a7f750a131284ced81
bcf04aa6493580bd8183dd06041203f7a093a7fa
17866 F20101129_AAAGWH vera_n_Page_113.QC.jpg
0eaa2ae9a06436f4136c451a0e205052
36d07e855fb35347da3233dafbcd9fef0a158032
F20101129_AAAHAZ vera_n_Page_046.jp2
354342b0900f43d42596c981924c2476
c5a5fa8214dcc34b643f64bbe141ad670f0298a8
75318 F20101129_AAAGVT vera_n_Page_040.pro
f941166ed0daf545eea19e3746c6f8eb
95d6381c893302e4ab668384c23feb7bdf7a1a86
F20101129_AAAHCC vera_n_Page_001.tif
b89a2481e1deff7b84c33fbb967d5223
05d4d7a5bb7ecf84e24ba8b47dc959a786e2b1b6
1051944 F20101129_AAAHBO vera_n_Page_085.jp2
d7faf6f0d5202e9051b2ca20100e0cc6
47210a59920baa521b8a086fd648e2815cb1a887
F20101129_AAAGWI vera_n_Page_114.tif
fee8c698aea8238355ad478789debdf6
89320922b0a7530cf7bf77f3ad545af3a276c608
F20101129_AAAGVU vera_n_Page_091.tif
5a57a09559505778bc535c23cf242635
346b3fed25f0b415d403f8d22a65d70a37f8c979
F20101129_AAAHCD vera_n_Page_003.tif
4e53006a8bfeb0e7a25b3644224e2773
6505de3f9dc15e967924b3d738396bd33595ed24
F20101129_AAAHBP vera_n_Page_086.jp2
f8ec60c124cb553924b6a22886562ed2
f93278f2ed6a86e250d1888b58cd81b47838a957
50179 F20101129_AAAGWJ vera_n_Page_012.jpg
7222387e2a0e7e76820c483a16ac56f9
b743f4cef6c2064bdf26fe07c5f281c42c499997
29869 F20101129_AAAGVV vera_n_Page_110.QC.jpg
778cd723a56a950a7a33e103a97b2711
f6c61aaa4a1a982714739e0cd3890dbdea5ad093
F20101129_AAAHCE vera_n_Page_004.tif
9926c9b7fa0c79124b83a773c062f813
cd0944a3f3b40f00bff54b78b79e7ff79a837229
217838 F20101129_AAAHBQ vera_n_Page_087.jp2
a58c1630f473ae466693831d2a9f4cb6
9656efe80f67c308e30a0464c7323e48f5a16c26
74093 F20101129_AAAGWK vera_n_Page_070.jpg
6f18ba53d6f513be5e9a7920e9287c4e
2b634d09f265495871130bd4a7d882178dd2355d
49288 F20101129_AAAGVW vera_n_Page_010.pro
f0c66235a7e6bcbbf1ea31a49f13cb29
c9b9caa3e28466f31893416d9718fa73fb33a02b
F20101129_AAAHCF vera_n_Page_006.tif
15d289eaca7ed22f0a9405720a696baa
6b5f70a12f6ae6c82bff668c26a1e2850a837fd7
367853 F20101129_AAAHBR vera_n_Page_088.jp2
8508e700f25ab656ec2c157d9a7c041c
f96980946f05e8d2cbdc86eef08e6d2ba865c57c
28345 F20101129_AAAGWL vera_n_Page_058.QC.jpg
8ca0179af623518e61ed1870b7783802
9456571717957de9198760379c0e389259672f98
F20101129_AAAGVX vera_n_Page_044.jp2
370912f60c718e25f26568712a871832
e2281138f500174a4010c4585bc7cb2b833aa120
F20101129_AAAGXA vera_n_Page_092.tif
604095244c8c454cceb86444e6f02ca0
c1fb7a933de5d4464d3443eca1dc038ac3e3de31
448894 F20101129_AAAHBS vera_n_Page_093.jp2
9bb4b4921f49be70f628a492734c61e1
53dea150e05a89a804cd4721d02e03d7aab434c2
7414 F20101129_AAAGWM vera_n_Page_069thm.jpg
2da4f853bffedbabad1172c2a76a3e3d
6f2ac2265daf462f3b5cdadeb42b8be5e44a02f2
F20101129_AAAGVY vera_n_Page_070.tif
43dc32de57d2ff177dc461ee527ae223
a517d568bda0439711796be17e6c4ddbe230723f
F20101129_AAAHCG vera_n_Page_008.tif
6ca26b1636b2d6133c7736aef5be40a5
078de60c5a147bf93e851fd5282bf5ff74725e97
85683 F20101129_AAAGXB vera_n_Page_059.jpg
08ac108954f57880471a8d7c255a6f9e
2e6eb0e35f2749787f016da88a4361b4e94ed431
354253 F20101129_AAAHBT vera_n_Page_094.jp2
5ffcbdb2bfb8ad6686adbc479456c191
b34b71ca12f42d28677396c9ad63ccd3afe3df80
732757 F20101129_AAAGWN vera_n.pdf
4eadc70235b9100177f8b135b7f92e5a
573c4a110d65b9ceb032c2aa70c47854694d6db2
F20101129_AAAGVZ vera_n_Page_019.tif
6d2a53008e7faf069b49c0e94f0131ad
e87e7c30b9dbbaa14b4cd816f65eabd755251c0d
F20101129_AAAHCH vera_n_Page_010.tif
9a6f13d746743d64cfc8381083539792
bf56be6e27decf53b5a39580bd55c8e5e351de2c
F20101129_AAAGXC vera_n_Page_066.tif
cdbd20d7492bdc2581952d5b066c7651
516505fcdbbe18c4381ba5b4888408ace47a8af9
559445 F20101129_AAAHBU vera_n_Page_096.jp2
ab4ecc1c501c739317b0fde1b9c5af85
a2a0326a24dae28ebe19d7b2fce77e2547b4e960
2958 F20101129_AAAGWO vera_n_Page_028.txt
9f437c667e9b11377745af8706db7cd4
06a8e3236a9fdd629eae9ac837d000dfcc05fc96
F20101129_AAAHCI vera_n_Page_011.tif
1d533dafe549d932a746dc3cea74dc2e
aca72178a0c4d7143d7954a8e4f3d1171904af64
28871 F20101129_AAAGXD vera_n_Page_022.QC.jpg
02c38cffeaa959e32a4e12b61a046a53
a11f54472a60cdf477d82ab35cf61245cf048648
449916 F20101129_AAAHBV vera_n_Page_100.jp2
7a489f349c286f4adea0d802fa304760
75f6bbdaf28fad724a9e3f7c2367a3333a6d9c51
2750 F20101129_AAAGWP vera_n_Page_085.txt
b62f6db7e37205112bbc68817e4112e6
6bc5c583f4ba041cd8789fa877070cf041f87f64
F20101129_AAAHCJ vera_n_Page_013.tif
30baec1bee2aefbe66fdf806ad1acab9
9992e7dafce137c208be815c74e36eb06d2f8575
F20101129_AAAGXE vera_n_Page_065.jp2
e26bb8b1388cb2fe67dbeae4a5e68ca3
26beaebfe48cfa0d9f05847c48247ae147e39b8e
355033 F20101129_AAAHBW vera_n_Page_101.jp2
e11077edace14d417875cd6ec033cb6f
805f4f417ee6601486ae5dbbda45b4c6546d127d
F20101129_AAAGWQ vera_n_Page_109.tif
28d0f9687ee363798b3b19dd4eef2197
00fa28cf34a4519dc366027b31e4d77df5bd1c94
F20101129_AAAHCK vera_n_Page_014.tif
38f366d91c6a2a6c4b986c40e24d0d89
13a09a293059d5b2ec43f59fa38811ed366e54f3
F20101129_AAAGXF vera_n_Page_058.tif
b5bc61206ff5df55c9e39363d119f700
75f5f39a5868862b02a9d47a2d5b17b2080c1bce
F20101129_AAAHBX vera_n_Page_103.jp2
3cd1f0bc3fd37d15644a2195d9f43b58
50183cb8166bdcf9366c0666ee769599bf1db205
99489 F20101129_AAAGWR vera_n_Page_037.jpg
bb850bbac241df227749d7195e0e89c6
b626cac6c23e123d6dc7576334cad0af8a651f9a
F20101129_AAAHDA vera_n_Page_045.tif
cdb30d52fdd0e0ea9164641e04a7df22
4cb1daa85d4333854289afcb019a5e22da7a37e7
F20101129_AAAHCL vera_n_Page_016.tif
ca34224dd1a12ebd15817ada19336fba
522b00e25ebad37ecee90e8f57f573d91e1ff28d
3079 F20101129_AAAGXG vera_n_Page_040.txt
caf083abb8034d121009657eb11feb18
25b4c90514e6739e21e0a245562e4004c591748a
1051945 F20101129_AAAHBY vera_n_Page_108.jp2
1b0bde54fc99737e5a5d83cce0ad959c
acc74872776ebb5237576bcf3f0bb0d8ed2494a1
24552 F20101129_AAAGWS vera_n_Page_031.QC.jpg
d0e6d61b7edaaf589de216b0574863d1
d53135b1e1189d2d4c131fe50cc0e3387fcfb7b1
F20101129_AAAHDB vera_n_Page_046.tif
a16bde2c9ea355ef157e6c3e20e2dd0e
ce9518a56d6afbc7e0757dacc76abdbbf7d1854e
F20101129_AAAHCM vera_n_Page_017.tif
ec402bdad072efe4167907609265446a
598f6c6821ae77dab24b81c4953ddc40bf9ff43d
7361 F20101129_AAAGXH vera_n_Page_014thm.jpg
512f6d3108e72bba2610f867aebc0e80
a0f33bd47202ad152e2465a12323378087087975
1051986 F20101129_AAAHBZ vera_n_Page_110.jp2
e2c8e70bc9413c7a5ea1c4366a036225
59bf97d3585f3b4f5d47eeb43d4e123f8f8bc905
1333 F20101129_AAAGWT vera_n_Page_002thm.jpg
f2649b611873a45342f03ce070efeb54
5f47d66c650b68815d731fd8d7c61d4aef315f01
F20101129_AAAHDC vera_n_Page_050.tif
3c41ae1c503d244fd562f1d43c0f5344
9e4faf393b687cf47716e0551739571656c4c87e
F20101129_AAAHCN vera_n_Page_018.tif
d98c25214e03d0042cd1aff348384ca1
fa3febf4dbad76d89975f036a43d99f93fdd1b13
264572 F20101129_AAAGXI vera_n_Page_064.jp2
cea6b284860e7c98958c15d642f2d37a
ceb4785f7cfbd50051147d9f26f09ffafdf7b327
25072 F20101129_AAAGWU vera_n_Page_050.QC.jpg
95dd6f558fdf45b8e047eb2dd57972e4
ba72e2bbb4dd8dcc284db5d3da14cf4667809131
F20101129_AAAHDD vera_n_Page_051.tif
0f0cb4c28a55ec653f298875ae33130d
3026e5bc5f4ebe0ceb2ab8768c8f429ecd9431ca
F20101129_AAAHCO vera_n_Page_020.tif
9af10a052e21d87122e040881341d33b
1e26fc34e280d3cc3c1996f4aeb821ad65974857
30160 F20101129_AAAGXJ vera_n_Page_040.QC.jpg
3fff14b3144ed54ff5bc2c8356624095
67e82d42622732a8c7a6a2109c0f405c3a028a40
29436 F20101129_AAAGWV vera_n_Page_067.QC.jpg
e9a6e729dbdfe8f8284cfc19433b267a
06372536bccbd5f09069af9a9eb1513ef97c1d47
F20101129_AAAHDE vera_n_Page_055.tif
1a9b82979e9a031298948cbe2a35fe94
4295d03589d353ea5dd901c8d5391d4c0ad4c688
F20101129_AAAHCP vera_n_Page_021.tif
e36477719470df1cc3e698d79a991096
2356c4fdbdeb6ba7571c9be1ffdb6620ffbd680c
40895 F20101129_AAAGXK vera_n_Page_092.jpg
45f20fdb870057778d9b29dc8201e437
a6c46a57f58b952efa85d841ced8611699b25ab4
F20101129_AAAGWW vera_n_Page_052.tif
271e417983f352b72d5a62c23ca6a5c2
901cb02fb1624e6a3c0a13bc136cfadfb11c52db
F20101129_AAAHDF vera_n_Page_056.tif
8b7104674d4ed01eb33e540a68295197
d8b79a081a46301f3c92a586cd3e81360530cc81
F20101129_AAAHCQ vera_n_Page_022.tif
0d2785b123c15dd310c595ef1ea4dfe6
452440aa4d54ca114b90a8225bd9fb779540a92d
13978 F20101129_AAAGXL vera_n_Page_091.QC.jpg
3ddaa4ac29664680ca1443ff21436036
c33775999d2168c674be5a443459664160d00fcb
2220 F20101129_AAAGWX vera_n_Page_050.txt
dfc71dcd3ba8d356a2552eb8f7abf24e
aeb29622820dd1f097fb36dab3e27dc2898907aa
F20101129_AAAHDG vera_n_Page_059.tif
14c23f8c5bce36693ccc204bf2fe7639
e01a8507cda76ea7ff794ec34fef4df58d102188
F20101129_AAAHCR vera_n_Page_024.tif
c23afbe75d689cba27b460a41a2d4754
47ece9bb7788be85f89275e950c8e10f6b42880d
1014236 F20101129_AAAGXM vera_n_Page_070.jp2
f411c5d950b33ed93629650460b4a863
837f739fbfaefe7cb4a25c1753de0d8aa970da12
70413 F20101129_AAAGWY vera_n_Page_085.pro
0d7fbf1e7a88600585fccc4baf7f592c
9724314c8bb3c22d94559750c709b0d0e23a4f19
1051947 F20101129_AAAGYA vera_n_Page_036.jp2
16be125a2c1fc4c51d9106671b3b153f
c9fa31c3d454c2ee77bee20ba34c0d5439e59230
F20101129_AAAHCS vera_n_Page_025.tif
be13349ec6ec0ac98ad0bb1a2a338a57
1d457e14995ed34c889c0751f9c0d46aebf2aec6
26750 F20101129_AAAGXN vera_n_Page_035.QC.jpg
3df5261816df22074c2c8fef87cc37a7
56d627303c3be854e89dd19934464a411821ce42
67974 F20101129_AAAGWZ vera_n_Page_022.pro
09e3facd50f5d3807522dc618cf0025d
dad31c9bf9f9f17fb281f84f9ade5139ee4a0dd1
F20101129_AAAHDH vera_n_Page_062.tif
7019155d382fded97721c71ef16990c1
64890778be9bd7b0282160538ad5b6f414975d20
33910 F20101129_AAAGYB vera_n_Page_102.QC.jpg
e63fc607c6dc65327754d4d5859330e8
4c40fe37decccfacbd216dec30c248559ea35265
F20101129_AAAHCT vera_n_Page_026.tif
324ce77efd054faf1f8808dccb691bcc
bc406827db1a9aa3d8bc6885b8e17bc4cfb3baee
25715 F20101129_AAAGXO vera_n_Page_068.QC.jpg
223d1d2699ce8d69e32762743634e88d
2ccf41bc33166de16b4c030e3f8e92990a139773
F20101129_AAAHDI vera_n_Page_064.tif
a8690a998bfbfe2c91a707e034b8a2b3
4c1937bad727284b110f4a8e79afb14e53e5117e
2083 F20101129_AAAGYC vera_n_Page_011.txt
7c64d18c619ace96f45465451c2df955
7bca37ba447fce2c592325d2786cb4da84074470
F20101129_AAAHCU vera_n_Page_027.tif
f464084efcdc7e50c015efe2032d9073
9c7c889bb7de6dbe9c1b172c04e01ee50f4de7ff
F20101129_AAAGXP vera_n_Page_072.tif
bf877d12a1110f9da8c261aec5bc9f2a
743961c347d775954c98f4f4dc8670cdec3b0329
F20101129_AAAHDJ vera_n_Page_067.tif
354c459887f11fcbc202051ff64420d3
a1bdf8324ceb876e0a290faf35846e5d9bc7b2fc
131340 F20101129_AAAGYD UFE0021106_00001.mets FULL
6fbe57c275cc6a30b89857fb522644ea
f9bc8b85e471c3567fc597722da9a2769e3422a2
F20101129_AAAHCV vera_n_Page_028.tif
b97f77e0c6b31d3146396c10734cb6a2
6e659415646847c15858e6a20463f2aa704405a7
F20101129_AAAGXQ vera_n_Page_103.tif
9858f42ace61f84c733e59d1ab441554
f818a1824d7e25fb456d40dd17437a8529aee3c4
F20101129_AAAHDK vera_n_Page_068.tif
6421c5331541c68995d2cd33728dc05c
ae5a7f00f2b8082f2de0c61d6ebc4cf5b7ee3a7a
F20101129_AAAHCW vera_n_Page_034.tif
c945499eab82cee8daa22d68ea37d7d5
1dd32b70646971604771a7da4ca0992665610a6b
37244 F20101129_AAAGXR vera_n_Page_100.jpg
24186be3d8ef89876e95be6383b06263
31f8687447ef7db2fd793206e6d54ecc00e56acc
F20101129_AAAHEA vera_n_Page_107.tif
4c677d46233baf30d299e0345817f847
099158f8484fd7cf74d987ae4e00b82af5d0b23b
F20101129_AAAHDL vera_n_Page_073.tif
4cece961bef6c8d2758ed90ce6ddd981
68bb07b3626cf5cf4c0bc87f43ea18e5375597e3
F20101129_AAAHCX vera_n_Page_038.tif
f52b14a04ad3443d265619c4cf6153e5
d401d5fff6d007e20b16645388e53734f6623478
7539 F20101129_AAAGXS vera_n_Page_032thm.jpg
532f284030d3dfece36890fe0c52a31c
d7aeac9096581075a75153bc87b3f5111d8c6f08
F20101129_AAAHEB vera_n_Page_110.tif
ff8d31ddc739286e29a06d4694cbd70a
548a4299a2d5671deba80366ca03e6387287fee2
F20101129_AAAHDM vera_n_Page_074.tif
8a60cec01e0e2370329701d5242fd356
9e1df1167ed920e7c79089bf0b26ecad46413ff5
29875 F20101129_AAAGYG vera_n_Page_001.jpg
7542f159214ce7c2b3d915d99f8d76e3
81bdb444f8ec9adb78a6f507a4c9cac20b9d00e5
F20101129_AAAHCY vera_n_Page_041.tif
ec704bcb7fd286baf812884e73525511
8ac0e32197fa94173b0bfa529ea88fbd26a210a2
66286 F20101129_AAAGXT vera_n_Page_110.pro
047323b959473a8529fd8195e8700374
879d6ac3adf1a5a0221f885f36b1e9b754b8cc21
F20101129_AAAHEC vera_n_Page_113.tif
c88ca3613b8c5dfcca3b4d9a3f7b6514
7f0311a640c1d130818153653c2f07695d610b96
F20101129_AAAHDN vera_n_Page_076.tif
5bad2b939ce99fcb6662d7bbcc642390
aeff07ecdb0b59a291165ec1b1d516058700669f
9956 F20101129_AAAGYH vera_n_Page_002.jpg
cff17a5b38bb3f8ad5bb8a740ecbc2fa
833744006b7059741de99b844b892092f6592770
F20101129_AAAHCZ vera_n_Page_044.tif
9729c6c84d3509ea8c6cd6748500f932
fa63c5ff65d01769551439cb35ee496acb325772
53686 F20101129_AAAGXU vera_n_Page_018.pro
0ace07a81a202e1a961920a984cacea7
fffed326fefe9964fd6c60745ab92901be381ba6
9361 F20101129_AAAHED vera_n_Page_001.pro
05d330dc07b243ba632ab9adb6c21826
6f9401b2900f75e12fc8faa0a980edd169774c96
F20101129_AAAHDO vera_n_Page_079.tif
829e2d92e5cf2eb787542ae14169f627
6ef5851506b0cafa4990aad23288b22b6e4154f3
77873 F20101129_AAAGYI vera_n_Page_005.jpg
89b3d495d6114fac90341784f1d9ea44
d4b6f40bfc250e148e1a9b3c65449bbdcca46602
F20101129_AAAGXV vera_n_Page_043.tif
24b984eeccbd1881b396b0c8449b019c
b3265cfc8d23b9b1ede4d3582b9715a2864d747d
61757 F20101129_AAAHEE vera_n_Page_006.pro
d3231b38b4b2b047beb638b52c1c2960
3dc44904d8909c41a25a0daa8b01c6f0ddd13705
F20101129_AAAHDP vera_n_Page_082.tif
83897ebbbf523f063dac5414f82c242a
536f1f853957bffcad647b80900189048d1adc16
12780 F20101129_AAAGYJ vera_n_Page_007.jpg
f9c04cc1efa4ce792bb5341320329428
15d29fdb4142dd1e97128d340e1fe8b5923f0023
37142 F20101129_AAAGXW vera_n_Page_113.pro
75187242185d7492f145d13e31491518
138a55f002c08a19a181c0e18558e519c21f33ab
5951 F20101129_AAAHEF vera_n_Page_007.pro
9cd722a3a0e96374f230658578ed4314
b6c7063f605044991c92476b625fabc84450f6eb
1054428 F20101129_AAAHDQ vera_n_Page_084.tif
dfe4978c110324ada40c8b4c65668aaa
0b230b08074375ab78eb13a3b01733f2ed957a57
43954 F20101129_AAAGYK vera_n_Page_008.jpg
2660feabf54556c51e28a83c0bdc6139
1f00e73ad23c8f6a2e212fd2878c54eae16b43e4
F20101129_AAAGXX vera_n_Page_105.jp2
f063117b6eb9a8a34295f89318930d87
3daa5d6cf4e113586b6f0523122eab69797987b8
24101 F20101129_AAAHEG vera_n_Page_008.pro
6bba8154b89581c2fe9ae8288e0eefd6
18f0c6e28df604a61ef2173d40e6a49ae4b4e4c0
F20101129_AAAHDR vera_n_Page_087.tif
2dc2366e376dab3d9178e89d88075e4f
ea23135265ab7b8643838b647b3803403c3acebe
61173 F20101129_AAAGYL vera_n_Page_009.jpg
a213138a3d6fd7675955cf840f45fbcc
705cba325483aacc81d985b05fa308811d1fabb8
2529 F20101129_AAAGXY vera_n_Page_006.txt
7bb6f346b4f6ef34e1f5ef24289eef58
27f464b0426179b4f62bf6b109bbeb0816d9f9a0
52985 F20101129_AAAHEH vera_n_Page_011.pro
c5c917ef522cfc618a7cbf2afb5a2d21
49046860b2858c89c196056f6915389138cf3d97
61665 F20101129_AAAGZA vera_n_Page_047.jpg
90d833d425690377825644a76d473979
8a40721f6f98941346a8756a8aa707d3f6094e49
F20101129_AAAHDS vera_n_Page_095.tif
bbf089999ea4abda77a339cc563a3c6c
6a1b81470ed7cdfd9f61d4d9c95a54f0f9ef5c56
81134 F20101129_AAAGYM vera_n_Page_010.jpg
839a5d13f8978f93ba7bc5aec7e67762
238084d3b0e1c1452c11febfd3c95c949009b983
494 F20101129_AAAGXZ vera_n_Page_004.txt
7e1728d94ad1c4346790c48ec3d5efc7
50eb2c448e023fe78ce5ca342b206d6ddc0a7a81
54027 F20101129_AAAGZB vera_n_Page_049.jpg
ae226ebf9c13577053e77ca5c4cbd299
42127f089f779faedf65ccbe4b2b928d57bb27d9
F20101129_AAAHDT vera_n_Page_096.tif
9034407b44ac9ed08d61948eafc0f1a1
38cb78239eb74807c572ce45c421a37a2b2ea566
92348 F20101129_AAAGYN vera_n_Page_015.jpg
40eb3ce272da36b25edc11266cc3429e
7579af9cc59c50d3fbd5a892f074a6c9d29ec73e
29289 F20101129_AAAHEI vera_n_Page_012.pro
33aa4d2ebf5d7f50c4f129a30a0f5da6
185b98b1d5972019088468c6322277d702d4ce41
85852 F20101129_AAAGZC vera_n_Page_051.jpg
7101ec47b71f874e001d0518b9d32635
73189ad0792235142c186c8e59b09e58c7ae8be9
F20101129_AAAHDU vera_n_Page_097.tif
7a8a1c61c55c16f3640248d86c20a13d
98e77fcea92335f77856ebdd0d5125c52e51b384
104425 F20101129_AAAGYO vera_n_Page_017.jpg
1f2278f09ba2e2524b2b83903f7b6e09
cb023fd41a2814d53fdd596eb4a43af9abed9795
60951 F20101129_AAAHEJ vera_n_Page_016.pro
938ba2365b07a54d9e426272c8e684d6
ac84de5c9c4dc4785294df8cc3d332bcd8214674
83285 F20101129_AAAGZD vera_n_Page_053.jpg
60aa4243943189f402f2bbf84f6b919b
7d02514a8a0a041e237262e971070dd9f60624cf
F20101129_AAAHDV vera_n_Page_098.tif
8e514118801d5147ede9364149c18e73
7367f6464836fc826b1bfd5ce9b9448f58b88da2
83420 F20101129_AAAGYP vera_n_Page_018.jpg
6a13811d254c8a5ef805f584387a684d
20dcaef02dc43a654f613757c19acafefebe60b2
55942 F20101129_AAAHEK vera_n_Page_019.pro
a5e06231cbff4e4b8fc3bd307fe37d29
5fe8f557d90c6953459993a12ce5cfa35648b59d
84223 F20101129_AAAGZE vera_n_Page_057.jpg
b9e59bd7148e7f3772a51bd972d26a59
68b5a38d10c39c2a80f32366fe2047ab4c4978c0
F20101129_AAAHDW vera_n_Page_100.tif
f3da67f395209c583b5a2ba92c027df2
5674ac889cca513fcf59828fe2adf76c82edbe9e
104062 F20101129_AAAGYQ vera_n_Page_022.jpg
2390f9e583dfdddd24319c7bc3ffa537
2e64c638b81d7749ae5f4e932dc029ae52200b8a
56492 F20101129_AAAHEL vera_n_Page_021.pro
4832b3c572746c66ae184563b2d3111a
b3627b253efd33bd1ea4900789f7f953105ced3e
76274 F20101129_AAAGZF vera_n_Page_061.jpg
a0b2af6f178e1ffea0d80d700c3161ac
b8e32648f90c176b4b82bda15992df24c9a24876
F20101129_AAAHDX vera_n_Page_101.tif
356453acba5ec875f9caf14f63820805
841baa8bd98d51edd8fced74ebd4bc1af283bc87
106376 F20101129_AAAGYR vera_n_Page_023.jpg
500852125a241564984d9038a5576613
ca6c6da78979119edd37f799d6eec6e090408bfe
64458 F20101129_AAAHFA vera_n_Page_058.pro
ac838b7f929ac2823f24ff3e85fc68bf
e45bfda820f7f711ca6c929770ef5f182f206c60
73688 F20101129_AAAHEM vera_n_Page_024.pro
04df518fbe95f7266f569115ae4879d7
9f625c98fd8c291c6d94d7b379c3850551a47e15
82411 F20101129_AAAGZG vera_n_Page_063.jpg
08bf32e7ca239a3823c86285498f0027
232dc9c1cf9b57b54bafc50054eb57e3174f41e9
F20101129_AAAHDY vera_n_Page_102.tif
1d5aef5ab6c97b9ba413fe08c5f74ab5
f9af9d34c146f6f8dddc4e9485de95faa7f361e7
109836 F20101129_AAAGYS vera_n_Page_028.jpg
34d2c95d697fdf440db10b156caa609e
a1f01f3ac26e1b7496de1bd3ac9eacec85af0b3f
47560 F20101129_AAAHFB vera_n_Page_061.pro
052359aab904646c319e60ad77150d00
000239abd720c349dffc7790fba25e8bc6939726
65092 F20101129_AAAHEN vera_n_Page_029.pro
b8c19640e71cff143fc56ea23a1a6033
e0151e5b1b04be0480b19d3b3c9c6ff5a36480a1
24977 F20101129_AAAGZH vera_n_Page_064.jpg
1a7dfdf3f98b3b7b01052344f32e2672
b97c7864bc56f5687363709768b030a41e88f13b
F20101129_AAAHDZ vera_n_Page_104.tif
0951d79b82e1d59a6e06edd149b17c02
231880f71efdfd60432b249aca0cdf3ecee25148
100211 F20101129_AAAGYT vera_n_Page_029.jpg
f78880387a6c4e2856a42eeef39e0739
23bc5940de6b56310504758678a66b8fe4407e17
52546 F20101129_AAAHFC vera_n_Page_063.pro
9320ddec51e3d00fe4013b69d17210ca
e53f39b9a9a00d2622fb5a04592cd9b7fde303d0
65968 F20101129_AAAHEO vera_n_Page_033.pro
e21c421e37faa0fa43fa40c954535fe0
9d5445ead4c9240a0627af8c3e2e10ec4f4e7fcb
87292 F20101129_AAAGZI vera_n_Page_065.jpg
7965486572729a9365b4c41429c9b0bf
eea5cba09672cdd77d725baf5ff5cbe7deb73417
100543 F20101129_AAAGYU vera_n_Page_033.jpg
950576a7c9ae5e45d1d25b71cb0c0070
910c2d06257fda9814ef6409a13dc13a98b66499
11759 F20101129_AAAHFD vera_n_Page_064.pro
3810c94adc4123364ee7cc2717f4be9f
c7653d499f839edfb166125e0ebb66b1f4bfbf58
68008 F20101129_AAAHEP vera_n_Page_034.pro
8474200a51e629e1ca588ae6f83c0582
6db1c79f32da6e55c8c3c02aae649f8454898549
98877 F20101129_AAAGZJ vera_n_Page_067.jpg
9897c4dcb64eb37b48fb2b268ff902cd
6f5b55f26ffa793a4dabdb90425bd94b83a120e7
90355 F20101129_AAAGYV vera_n_Page_035.jpg
3fe8b439861db0eef8451bd19e6ed536
f0771e194aa78e01ba2c1a801788963652154cf0
56476 F20101129_AAAHFE vera_n_Page_066.pro
0cf9ef875af3391104834d2b1aef182d
e1deaf09385a9329da1d3e1d62979e31d8c735ca
56668 F20101129_AAAHEQ vera_n_Page_035.pro
dad9e1b39c24782698b4c211c17e5dbc
c7d6361ad7298d9818a74b47e1a9fd534aa1e9e2
81715 F20101129_AAAGZK vera_n_Page_068.jpg
b198ec8e323273293a2ea488b2e48c4d
56d76b46734d3e71255c24cae2ce3fc838cb8ff3
103665 F20101129_AAAGYW vera_n_Page_038.jpg
5b49611b69b42538230725433f5395aa
9dec64e9ce30c4b82c587076ae0423c0150b9459
63645 F20101129_AAAHFF vera_n_Page_067.pro
e1ca3bdab6e69bc8f267f8696008ffe2
48dfabc180f9970e390efd72174bd95a569ff05c
63380 F20101129_AAAHER vera_n_Page_036.pro
ae908822999a53e8741520ba9d7aeba5
29847f96fdf0848581c95e85e561cbbf34ae7915
111428 F20101129_AAAGZL vera_n_Page_069.jpg
a4eab0bb7ceb60eeefa156dfb5d22f5a
ffd3bc39a0ad3a5c8a80e4b4629a26adaa52b915
109060 F20101129_AAAGYX vera_n_Page_040.jpg
1ba0e1671c5eecd7b9ee51eaca944548
0d049342cf8b65c7fe828675407077278db3fa40
56442 F20101129_AAAHFG vera_n_Page_075.pro
78607aaeb62c7eea06328901e6db1e88
c0a963d0e2307fd37099d9039674b57d1afd0e44
64929 F20101129_AAAHES vera_n_Page_037.pro
2fb114b2b276b7f8b14c8d496034dd98
138875819584a307ea6b1333cbe87e6b9c0e57f2
96455 F20101129_AAAGZM vera_n_Page_072.jpg
ef2bca2153f9e695e5fe874d1295781d
68926c7f55ab105e20108f99afc31526a86e143e
89291 F20101129_AAAGYY vera_n_Page_041.jpg
fde4e13ec6a7fedf02c40b05479706d8
9a4adaf3d4717571fc851647dc6e712426e24b91
52255 F20101129_AAAHFH vera_n_Page_076.pro
5b555eb7b67a6f863131d660237452e4
7f8d3209ccc863c94c9da299fff4e40bae5ac9b3
52403 F20101129_AAAHET vera_n_Page_042.pro
c8ae6af3ac450f75a3b078ef5d004a95
e0930631a13c170ffdcd88fe406b9787a4ee4ffe
86298 F20101129_AAAGZN vera_n_Page_073.jpg
7dfb9b61f7c31ec3ab08318e4b11e1ef
303bc4b654f035866f5a9bd1d265b32d749a26e6
85465 F20101129_AAAGYZ vera_n_Page_044.jpg
8c99748bc591e7dd39a555f4e68b311c
13f828889eb092bfe7009ea16b179b653a2ea59e
47912 F20101129_AAAHFI vera_n_Page_078.pro
bda5b9474dd8a741d7decf15ad9159d4
60811c2ab6b5bd5e8bcd3141df9508d1042cc18f
54181 F20101129_AAAHEU vera_n_Page_046.pro
8d1b85fbc289f10b4bb28ff7193f08d9
19461522dd0497131867d7191cc3993a8717f5d5
87175 F20101129_AAAGZO vera_n_Page_074.jpg
1b79a8ef1c22db80ca53ff6b691bbc49
56e42d25451d3e4e456fde7b4c684fe425f0e347
38074 F20101129_AAAHEV vera_n_Page_047.pro
dfd3d5af3a64f3e07402bc64d9de7071
7d76c8efe7eb26f6202011c74cd309544c4e9883
78462 F20101129_AAAGZP vera_n_Page_077.jpg
4aae80efe686bc01cc5712c4f9df89e7
b3b510b28bb3f3f38a7c4eae2ec5d2728b3927c7
1210 F20101129_AAAHFJ vera_n_Page_083.pro
bc5ec41c12c4579429b208d6a1ff6627
a455982edcda69ba667472ee4fbcf1a02d4493ba
35696 F20101129_AAAHEW vera_n_Page_048.pro
45e962cdf5c11293f04228481654cdd1
716975b2a580583bc01b1d9820432187bc67d041
56399 F20101129_AAAGZQ vera_n_Page_079.jpg
808d86ff43d6e134b3e9d058cc54b902
61f7da7b689d98e2f6f8ff519320152e8d11022e
65832 F20101129_AAAHFK vera_n_Page_086.pro
169dda07717f0fc5f3f5688147beb41c
cc1304b92c59c0d47e95a2d78624089310cd2018
58034 F20101129_AAAHEX vera_n_Page_052.pro
7758d700e4ca7940582d1c48a426170c
ec28d6487f0c7ec83b5b0fd3faa81ba1e80a4a68
64415 F20101129_AAAGZR vera_n_Page_081.jpg
3f95d8abd610257f45d8876e50bedb57
1572a413f3590d7f9584de5218a0a66185eadac9
2156 F20101129_AAAHGA vera_n_Page_025.txt
f4e84baf29216f0bcaf349046738f0c1
a0e21460c40455240d47d844a850b1c8ac4e4f04
F20101129_AAAHFL vera_n_Page_090.pro
4b5b8578c783e236cd1230625b93624a
2f87d5713a9b9c4dc030178783c2f3ba0586e999
59848 F20101129_AAAHEY vera_n_Page_054.pro
ce1415f9a4fbf47c789e01668e8f8510
5c4a56a998a2bc1e7fce12e9f2f2bd7b7b18adc3
11235 F20101129_AAAGZS vera_n_Page_083.jpg
7c5265a5dfb063a6430a38f3b3ad7784
e82d725ddde5957795778c46c89f8c25b8eabe71
2075 F20101129_AAAHGB vera_n_Page_030.txt
d4abde01a872e242c7c335c23bc2bad5
f30679db55ea2cdb65d10b09aa81fd8d69c2742e
33921 F20101129_AAAHFM vera_n_Page_091.pro
67b4bf42340587d82acb1464ecbe6145
81ee873c97574e0d410f72c6dce4d79037e99e94
16103 F20101129_AAAGZT vera_n_Page_084.jpg
cba1401172250dd4d5c4d3370471edc9
f85997793ee08a56197c04e67e99b1b2f17a6c8f
2161 F20101129_AAAHGC vera_n_Page_031.txt
453b51bddec2b7692600b157e811a16d
3d6d1057a823cb68a60442761ee3e7f91a203342
32462 F20101129_AAAHFN vera_n_Page_092.pro
fe5640f261488611419de759e7f7299d
b775bd3eb8c280427649ba956493ee2dad67f37a
53079 F20101129_AAAHEZ vera_n_Page_057.pro
e38ffea8d76a68c0004aeaf094fea2f3
ef8a1976b8e25179a54932fce963338d3dfbb096
99819 F20101129_AAAGZU vera_n_Page_086.jpg
e5da1a71ce5289caf1a31326784c3a73
7f04a711301f2268eada8f01d3a9e508588ad697
2935 F20101129_AAAHGD vera_n_Page_032.txt
b864e7468656d2cceb0de9777860344f
eb29c1e51fd32af7a0f9edc0ec6bad6bf3e58f78
29494 F20101129_AAAHFO vera_n_Page_093.pro
0b75df6fd88399191e5490188fb771cf
73a1d5b435600a83d321e6af84eb8bddb251f5d3
22525 F20101129_AAAGZV vera_n_Page_087.jpg
e5618478d449f81d25d476ddd6f9c24a
0982f5b9e2e83f164820bdfb6f2ccbbd6bbc9396
2654 F20101129_AAAHGE vera_n_Page_033.txt
6a160c4fef5d9da4ab5419f3e4c1e526
a6b0ec2662465d8b39195d430e9066545fe3a0a5
22153 F20101129_AAAHFP vera_n_Page_094.pro
e2e58f91e1687b45c0115632350debd1
ebb6073f36b1d158dd4a4a25034b8c5aedaf1928
45063 F20101129_AAAGZW vera_n_Page_089.jpg
8783d2f5396bf5bc3c5494ebc132021f
a2e5c9f02477e59026afa064e4eca7311a3e8549
2755 F20101129_AAAHGF vera_n_Page_034.txt
5dbcfe59877dd28a350229403ee1bcb7
dc934303a33c40d55d1dd5c648e5e508869956ff
34233 F20101129_AAAHFQ vera_n_Page_096.pro
e7c051db04ea7a6d1a79b1c9d34f0359
87faff5ae54c021a7bb1d25b124e0f82c03dbd30
43456 F20101129_AAAGZX vera_n_Page_090.jpg
b212a37e67be3c938f698abe4010cae8
76a5c51887fabd6576ee857db3700f35d187f543
2290 F20101129_AAAHGG vera_n_Page_035.txt
6c8ea45ce5d62ff631b3889a596de354
c7174123a3e08fe069998d76470e6b446121a0f4
33150 F20101129_AAAHFR vera_n_Page_098.pro
b98866a5b03f5d3330aec98af335a20a
425d90e88a29024a4614be8447c60de6fa8a0fee
37145 F20101129_AAAGZY vera_n_Page_093.jpg
8432291dca29c69289ff5ed9369b6349
7e943d8ac7d9c29cb5b04e2901170dcd78a2c684
2582 F20101129_AAAHGH vera_n_Page_037.txt
8f273eb0f22cc486407621fbfb2690f0
96433efdfb2340370b2a05985e6381970152a798
F20101129_AAAHFS vera_n_Page_101.pro
71ab1408f41c6bfb01ade7e7646d2c7c
00bcc36723782c7612e03bf1b20d3209f7d5d41f
29411 F20101129_AAAGZZ vera_n_Page_094.jpg
a9a00b0bcbf7f69e0820e2f5e9d47321
3bfa91b6d5a331d4193d4ec3f8076a73153798e8
2296 F20101129_AAAHGI vera_n_Page_039.txt
e7a615ef4837e9b8c1c6d5ef15d2eb1a
bf798441f9ae01f0579279a76825b5c78fc73a97
51548 F20101129_AAAHFT vera_n_Page_104.pro
e61c64a4afc6547c6f283adcabb1e6ac
2ddae2b842021ab97f9900457e0126c45fda19a4
2245 F20101129_AAAHGJ vera_n_Page_041.txt
bf0319013e4bfa823b769df4da9224e5
c9b8439522a4ecd47abab0a49fe052eec93000a4
59083 F20101129_AAAHFU vera_n_Page_105.pro
99d066126d03ac390e38437490b9892e
c0bd29a718dda3af0bc4423a2d5ef7d9a333c031
66057 F20101129_AAAHFV vera_n_Page_108.pro
d9274c05fdd135c392db8661fc1957c1
4bc2a7d96436e62ef1380198429b492e7f7358d4
2086 F20101129_AAAHGK vera_n_Page_042.txt
827debd7c4a72c72b399b16cdb16e6b5
e41be5dc0336d3bffeed8f6b1da7020a9e846d78
74310 F20101129_AAAHFW vera_n_Page_109.pro
0dc0fe06d736c3ba3976403862d634d4
4540c222808d67fd18b0853062f96ca92f52eddf
183 F20101129_AAAHGL vera_n_Page_043.txt
8410c01ab79cc02626e005264f8146fd
bd3153db4e110dd86bc672ee20b0e55f6a91d8d7
1055 F20101129_AAAHFX vera_n_Page_008.txt
16dc8ade476cc910c0e9b2554bdc3884
1a5989d45aa22c09b45699e6fc6bb0007c9a2195
2032 F20101129_AAAHHA vera_n_Page_077.txt
2f66835104b61dcf7154cd6079f4f477
69020f70ddb5ec2543144d0e2cea781a4396c751
F20101129_AAAHGM vera_n_Page_044.txt
6c6716ef5d45b543a58426b96e99eeb4
880c7675b44c2fdc0731b138d040cf2ec13bec6a
2444 F20101129_AAAHFY vera_n_Page_015.txt
126d2d7c6a91546e48152eb835e92bc4
117be0579a544486163ea9a075852a7350972312
4417 F20101129_AAAHHB vera_n_Page_081.txt
b858a1d24851ee5ba12424d8be731af4
eb6aaf772104c7ac9cd57a91e8427ed084beb956
1922 F20101129_AAAHGN vera_n_Page_049.txt
1c02569fd5b3d6a62a59678c51d209d7
576735331a45642eae012163a52edf0fb660853f
2257 F20101129_AAAHFZ vera_n_Page_021.txt
6a2fc27472884ab777da73bdb6c7c860
db42cecb5fbed5b4f0163902d0ea7dfc1aa4e681
4822 F20101129_AAAHHC vera_n_Page_082.txt
6dfb753147fbf717f9c29de6c77dc2dc
dae36904e78d5d6c6349537033839970b7c44417
2150 F20101129_AAAHGO vera_n_Page_051.txt
0c2e39107a220af5f1538f4c30703a7a
1cd81f69f7b9cfaefd5256450e66f85a0260584a
60 F20101129_AAAHHD vera_n_Page_083.txt
db97a295c3996f31e85f84453a16680b
bef78bb3d915aca3d723cb8d34e610dc83869d84
2094 F20101129_AAAHGP vera_n_Page_060.txt
d01009ea3a6d959011a982cb42789369
e8b72e9583794761a314697721abe91e7cc99981
265 F20101129_AAAHHE vera_n_Page_084.txt
dc58439073fcaa26e94b3865cba2ef41
1704ae970a8695b69534d71e07eb6054b072b8be
2135 F20101129_AAAHGQ vera_n_Page_062.txt
002e443d5a8654d2e29ace7e0af603e1
b5fa8a3de3956a35373baffc85665f6694a269df
389 F20101129_AAAHHF vera_n_Page_087.txt
03372080fca9983327132a2edd4f4fc4
dd3cc4f404ccec803a2fb8b851071723d2643fe4
2077 F20101129_AAAHGR vera_n_Page_063.txt
bd186b12ed4e1301eb91e2cb4d1c2310
4e184e91073ea3017f38c064342368f567b9bf01
1096 F20101129_AAAHHG vera_n_Page_094.txt
1d3df199292cc258b8f29f3272fc68fd
25761c624923678ad8a70dd5b961ed23dc487ccd
2267 F20101129_AAAHGS vera_n_Page_065.txt
54ebe427081780d9b129ad857225942b
e41b04b2b6ad4136a36fd8c5d38fd30fd1661ce7
1091 F20101129_AAAHHH vera_n_Page_095.txt
dd2312f8eec9f1c3f3c511c86c154580
886fd6a977eacc4154e0d7369dea47f3bf25fdd6
F20101129_AAAHGT vera_n_Page_066.txt
440df35246e97f934ba08e5675071748
934d368aecfee6fed271b80fb3552b118fc47bd1
1545 F20101129_AAAHHI vera_n_Page_096.txt
26cef1d09d00d8831e23cae6493f8bda
1ee1155887b59c11234451470f09034a8a0b2d3f
2051 F20101129_AAAHGU vera_n_Page_068.txt
cebbc12043ba6854690d5b9336d23cb8
5c7cac78342c5a25d5f5263473063f6f32f49ea0
F20101129_AAAHHJ vera_n_Page_098.txt
2efe5b5996db015418c034c12e2a9d25
ff7fd32f060b193f256e4c638c0a2aed0b1cafe1
3026 F20101129_AAAHGV vera_n_Page_069.txt
634ece1e400ee179a0dfa05fddef56d9
c13053ad8957c23c53b2e3b26acd78455bc893ac
F20101129_AAAHHK vera_n_Page_101.txt
69827efbda2592af519e01164206c8f4
4c7bc21cc41b316bb50feb0f35da5f77b2026fc5
1796 F20101129_AAAHGW vera_n_Page_070.txt
24e6a42f77130a7e25ca9f0cfcf83f0e
5c38e34526692a910c3814d770c0bfe52beabe79
2462 F20101129_AAAHGX vera_n_Page_072.txt
b7ae0e6956b1c4275459d0cc9c237753
521724ffbf8c6e133b83d5596d6148d13db47fad
5191 F20101129_AAAHIA vera_n_Page_009thm.jpg
951cd4b7de2d4ee02c31cedc7caf3fe7
b2e2a5e11ee465a4168a75e2f938dc9347e06c75
3928 F20101129_AAAHHL vera_n_Page_102.txt
f26b398e931caa6dec0a26ef760e5a40
1537500251ac942ff1512598cf6b2594970b101f
2157 F20101129_AAAHGY vera_n_Page_073.txt
0b01d74b2351b098a6c318580321caf1
6dbc648f157882b0176fbeb1c03a53ae7c832d64
28280 F20101129_AAAHIB vera_n_Page_112.QC.jpg
86ef5f7f7531630e1a162ccf1174f65e
a62c0f1d0c48354dbf49bd2b26039c5618d5341c
2269 F20101129_AAAHHM vera_n_Page_104.txt
31334d96c62e5f525a7fc409ce44f96b
652f161358747e8addd2092b0dbb5dc4ee9113e3
2228 F20101129_AAAHGZ vera_n_Page_075.txt
d4692eebe269f65336dddfc5155a07e6
75376dfe890a910131029058a020b6401bfcc1f7
7352 F20101129_AAAHIC vera_n_Page_033thm.jpg
508d1a59fd8cbaaef137cab7fbb97a33
b6fff1b6ae918dc43828e32bc75ab599c859ab0d
2535 F20101129_AAAHHN vera_n_Page_106.txt
3746554133e470fedcd18d2c8ef61aeb
3872e04fe477070459c3079ec2dc0aa2feaa2542
25318 F20101129_AAAHID vera_n_Page_077.QC.jpg
555a03a7fc497a4133e0cf370e105de7
d7af0eec4d02b526df57307f2ab9f217dda09730
3011 F20101129_AAAHHO vera_n_Page_109.txt
f04609a6bdcf6cd1d78d627a392ea004
5960bd36c05bb3bc005fdcc95ef68f3a69e62067
8290 F20101129_AAAHIE vera_n_Page_001.QC.jpg
8d4267c83f6791767f58360dac465e17
faa9c38497dfe88f29eece7d16bbe54adebd2466
2485 F20101129_AAAHHP vera_n_Page_112.txt
a0c7aa2843606e44d89c994f23072ff9
8afe8253a809391f01b1b3ab07c83a8ad166db9f
11899 F20101129_AAAHIF vera_n_Page_093.QC.jpg
ccfba8e1fc9d34cdc2f4ae1b510e3607
cba511e2235f3752ce0b273d48e029664b36f9ee
1528 F20101129_AAAHHQ vera_n_Page_113.txt
4958a11385b4e844f1f2e348872f29dc
6073fa123a9af9b565ea1753508a4b1ba073d78c
7343 F20101129_AAAHIG vera_n_Page_066thm.jpg
8678e788b74e09701bcd0817f05c6830
29aec99cf826ac49c16fd2e0d2478faf1c07691e
14128 F20101129_AAAHHR vera_n_Page_008.QC.jpg
128f33dfa8ef9f6fd8c532b9a70928c7
2adb6a4855b2187a5125e782cf807e09d31d5862
8523 F20101129_AAAHIH vera_n_Page_102thm.jpg
dea8fa88d5cb361ea76855cfbe16e74c
c382098cf46d7bd175464247cf8f96f616c6fad9
7492 F20101129_AAAHHS vera_n_Page_074thm.jpg
d12a47afbc993c08976b4d89fc558202
e52e53bff62364c6dff1423b7adce44059ffb3bb
18413 F20101129_AAAHII vera_n_Page_048.QC.jpg
e066e041114c6ee3b57a16e121ce22f3
24bb2da18abeeb716289680813f6996671825992
28287 F20101129_AAAHHT vera_n_Page_086.QC.jpg
949365d9525970b1f004cea9f48a0dcc
8fc6aa2508bff11139d2456278bb45b9b3d3ddaa
28481 F20101129_AAAHIJ vera_n_Page_075.QC.jpg
874564dc00b22706f0dca90de8dcf837
40d41876d4c655f03e0e9fcf66196006a6f7b8f3
4838 F20101129_AAAHHU vera_n_Page_006thm.jpg
dbc4038143b36b3b0020326c882b6784
aa37cb08828df1bc6ac0a7f0c495710f7998eb9b
27054 F20101129_AAAHIK vera_n_Page_021.QC.jpg
118c5a35aff5ce010fe323c62384f487
ba2222bfd3e74cc9eaaef2c7499e87313d1244f7
13574 F20101129_AAAHHV vera_n_Page_098.QC.jpg
4489e039ec1726c1f1aac45939867311
e4691a7f90deb31ad09e6a46d364c2e041a40ec5
6417 F20101129_AAAHIL vera_n_Page_082thm.jpg
103b676e9a8340255282c222a126d2f4
f0e9c4f43c0435416465422e751d04b2e6ac2cf9
12964 F20101129_AAAHHW vera_n_Page_099.QC.jpg
ad42d6acca63631883be0c12e54e7a49
5deb251112e5bfc6d00f369aebb4c15c289447fd
27601 F20101129_AAAHJA vera_n_Page_105.QC.jpg
d73754e55007b71dbaeb48bf56ef36f4
c273c4f46e499dcf0c63ae6f9ba0aab7e1e66e10
3630 F20101129_AAAHHX vera_n_Page_099thm.jpg
47cac6ba67070afbdfb0ad3991267d74
dbd57d160bef19fe9f6f8ac98a32de813a94642e
24787 F20101129_AAAHJB vera_n_Page_103.QC.jpg
028065cda083dc6df5f721b8f43d6e5d
d5312db2964c6b1b503f9e0c5f94900c6874a298
18032 F20101129_AAAHIM vera_n_Page_079.QC.jpg
b41bdf26d76b3e62e9ae379390f1e4c4
715891fae1b73b0a3a59e98f18664be7797bf752
3087 F20101129_AAAHHY vera_n_Page_101thm.jpg
8dfeaaa363460c4dc16dc26ae3d2af05
7f3e775c60afec136cc6ea0cff5f714608da873e
7491 F20101129_AAAHJC vera_n_Page_016thm.jpg
37456086e5d9cd49d39041223273db25
af434d1e779f801ec2b5887844cfc7d046ca3a87
29480 F20101129_AAAHIN vera_n_Page_037.QC.jpg
a447660634d63e90127ed78a4dd1fa08
2967b1514d340ab125fa3305da5a12561449feaa
30706 F20101129_AAAHHZ vera_n_Page_020.QC.jpg
390b149f13d6a6bb22aed79f6738e4a2
e4e95559fe2d19520edf0683757695f1713cb266
4082 F20101129_AAAHJD vera_n_Page_096thm.jpg
9afa9c038f1a8d01be33dbea14004ac9
0e1b6ebe7915bfb09a69cb567ada653fc74bdfe5
27719 F20101129_AAAHIO vera_n_Page_073.QC.jpg
3eee7a1cda41d8c5e502890df2bb5c20
36709a8c9b14eb7a520ddadb553825dc994e6310
7891 F20101129_AAAHJE vera_n_Page_024thm.jpg
2805835af21db8ba129edac6fb27d80e
cbcdf982bf6f18fad44533873ecf908010831693
24644 F20101129_AAAHIP vera_n_Page_082.QC.jpg
497fca581f25bee254f68dd989b38738
cf8a6a293faed406e6f6df12c9e83334ad81a67c
7161 F20101129_AAAHJF vera_n_Page_035thm.jpg
81fe840ecc69583447a823ca0f93225c
d22324a12bbcad1edc66c8153cafd8f145c5c7e3
7502 F20101129_AAAHIQ vera_n_Page_015thm.jpg
f65cd752986e614ddc404509ab4f0a63
01eb9658a0594dd444acc00e99410f94cb258071
4044 F20101129_AAAHJG vera_n_Page_007.QC.jpg
0ceee04a570764bb0b5fb20c4edde413
2158b71888858174d01e16e15114eaa20db9039c
26118 F20101129_AAAHIR vera_n_Page_063.QC.jpg
3db1b20a6378d663336260bf1ceb27e1
e80dce76f78f7121e624402ecff994c32dd11889
3256 F20101129_AAAHJH vera_n_Page_095thm.jpg
754245fc7756510fa2f2eb1b868b6705
0c57153354ad6872283bd5147b6baff35353a620
26265 F20101129_AAAHIS vera_n_Page_039.QC.jpg
42aa8699b5f1416535f24f462d322253
c01455b3646d84bea06e518544a865f95c4d2dcc
26674 F20101129_AAAHJI vera_n_Page_011.QC.jpg
9ba3b3d15158c587f60568593166c2ed
9ae8533476d9e44d1edf2c58dad37922da84eed5
29654 F20101129_AAAHIT vera_n_Page_111.QC.jpg
d04f969621139dbe867e0842671ebc9b
ce0f0cdad99f6ae10bd752efed5a438f0ebe3daa
7320 F20101129_AAAHJJ vera_n_Page_045thm.jpg
a19f0655e43e6b6d8d9cdef1534985fc
63606788ee01c3b60d874a344482f26e081085a1
18133 F20101129_AAAHIU vera_n_Page_006.QC.jpg
6476740a2fda04b7d54a12c7ca1e180e
d8f837d1717c05895ccda50bda3e5f1ce84d760b
F20101129_AAAHJK vera_n_Page_011thm.jpg
8ce8c2d1822a3f8499a1ead08a74a90d
64d4bbca0c9cf41c688881daf05e355cdc6674e7
29215 F20101129_AAAHIV vera_n_Page_036.QC.jpg
698d3331aa105fce3178a281fcf8782a
af4c3597c400ab137882c5069ed85af0058c5370
7465 F20101129_AAAHJL vera_n_Page_071thm.jpg
fa7517f7fc8a73d7e859032a2d7c6c26
67a06cd95ea21ffbb319adc60f0f1bfced820b29
3488 F20101129_AAAHIW vera_n_Page_093thm.jpg
91ebf5e65d59337a6ad4761d162e3fa0
094d8e9abae37edea387b8075ae3e18d9fa5e8df
7900 F20101129_AAAGGK vera_n_Page_107thm.jpg
ac1208668a537889a782c1a9eeb1f42f
9af48423472447c85ec6fc1d5004212520c99540
4196 F20101129_AAAHJM vera_n_Page_081thm.jpg
bfd5334a24b7bd50a7290799158c9a73
00a7d069ba00c586121839e2a09f6e22f2df4a53
31007 F20101129_AAAHIX vera_n_Page_107.QC.jpg
70bd981dad06ef5fbf3e4e7495ee9869
d0767dba9f4fe18cd1d8494261c6a2638d8e8059
26889 F20101129_AAAHKA vera_n_Page_046.QC.jpg
dfb24b37de9a12b71912d650215ee885
c6d7cbbe094963d130b803755093aa5110f3e2b3
4084 F20101129_AAAHIY vera_n_Page_089thm.jpg
5b51ad3774ccbe85f0ca71ec14f361b4
3ba11a2978a29b28d6e71fd69d99c4a3bafeb12a
7061 F20101129_AAAHKB vera_n_Page_018thm.jpg
eddf3e561ae2d1cf2e0a4b972f739673
5531ebe575d94c95ba3f636a64a2abe7bb2ce549
28349 F20101129_AAAHJN vera_n_Page_034.QC.jpg
7dabd3d020765df38d2d476f88494496
6738ab49b28343416e14c90f029bf62f77ea85d2
5365 F20101129_AAAHIZ vera_n_Page_005thm.jpg
0bd9e356c9d47912941c852161d300de
667e54c004bb367817bf10e27e7f577ec2a002cc
5660 F20101129_AAAGHA vera_n_Page_084.QC.jpg
0dcf88b5fc57ededd45b034e688aca64
2e67de86379749442d72b711f905e6db0bff605c
169990 F20101129_AAAHKC UFE0021106_00001.xml
acdd704be47e0d28d9304ed8148798a9
bd162d3aed652544dcfaff4c37e3b3eb4edd97ed
F20101129_AAAGGL vera_n_Page_092.txt
9169273938c22bf4348af57836abccde
d85965ae638c9a471c50cc4485fe0b572df68f2c
2985 F20101129_AAAHJO vera_n_Page_003.QC.jpg
712d542ac41efaec203543e35ffb3c9c
f43a286c0c0d5edbe0c20c839e1cef05396dd7b2
72308 F20101129_AAAGHB vera_n_Page_020.pro
2a313c35a10a48581293984223c06447
15d4eba8637aa1aff364b510052effd69d311e08
2570 F20101129_AAAHKD vera_n_Page_001thm.jpg
4077a0f869161bfb1b6b0729086bfe17
3eaca0e67822491db29d0f13171af72e8c846eb4
11975 F20101129_AAAGGM vera_n_Page_100.QC.jpg
fbe7b5670360824687873113437eeb8f
a38e7ff970c992637d344118a8ca3ba1912684a6
7961 F20101129_AAAHJP vera_n_Page_020thm.jpg
0942b6ea1b02901ee9d7d92ffa57f0a9
52c675031ab6f2b0bcf3f3a671d1c9da163d25e3
28840 F20101129_AAAGHC vera_n_Page_033.QC.jpg
110a10a72de356a8456afe4b895c328b
36e2f16c716114c42f6e184f014d0680b3eccaf0
3081 F20101129_AAAHKE vera_n_Page_002.QC.jpg
cb1aafdea241005a4a51af2beb023dc5
7f98ec6d598bf28c8df5df8337a7c072b6d7c05e
107738 F20101129_AAAGGN vera_n_Page_111.jpg
bd299876c46b9b9d72f74d151a9e8d98
1285939b8563208219164d72cc0de1e92a921e3d
7321 F20101129_AAAHJQ vera_n_Page_059thm.jpg
8c5748cb1aafb80bcb2824aa57f518ef
ccbe6bb6e9d58e29c45d6ec061b293dcfdec1ec3
7530 F20101129_AAAGHD vera_n_Page_040thm.jpg
af7e83d756f85f6f6f38893107a773da
e3b54ea0feb4287d715be4f935e35f77935cdc1a
1308 F20101129_AAAHKF vera_n_Page_003thm.jpg
09715231be43aa03da301fe9ac35cc89
7bd59617e26522920727e2920c26286888b7d8af
2400 F20101129_AAAGGO vera_n_Page_105.txt
767197f30078b7e45c57c3ac3ea760a9
f9efb6058570db16295d451b12780faf41d58316
4394 F20101129_AAAHJR vera_n_Page_008thm.jpg
56f4c72f45fe94fb991fe00ebb9fae1a
a431468c7ca2370d8aa3e729d33ed01688e0ba84
77700 F20101129_AAAGHE vera_n_Page_078.jpg
dfb500d75dfc9d508fa76097a1c9d184
0eaff2b26dbef9741c387c026364cecb6a19eb2d
21199 F20101129_AAAHKG vera_n_Page_005.QC.jpg
bfdc15b55215670bc673cf9b2f743f02
7d06e2a419743049aa1ca05c29e8f45fb205decc
F20101129_AAAGGP vera_n_Page_040.tif
c6154333da3d80920515c8a4e6ea8256
2c463a5744c9f6e10567c3cb2b605cc9d121e9cc
7157 F20101129_AAAHJS vera_n_Page_039thm.jpg
ed07805b9a0b0e2a2d0e20603d1bf373
32571a3f2b008baabf02514ba45dfad18a0fb026
53654 F20101129_AAAGHF vera_n_Page_014.pro
2d1f2bed53dba2508ff3b0119139b292
d65a84a24935da760bb781ec8e6a8d2e1f4fc92f
15704 F20101129_AAAHKH vera_n_Page_012.QC.jpg
abbc851d4b9e5f255cf409ee86ed545f
dd1bfb05d503e1075a3fa44ff420cc78883e264d
7407 F20101129_AAAGGQ vera_n_Page_022thm.jpg
5dd5925e0bc6f11718d11d11ead716f4
7fbf1fd73963b80154854ed75808c9abfac4aad6
7677 F20101129_AAAHJT vera_n_Page_037thm.jpg
3f634495485d59eeda63721fee807bb2
7dd3f6dc2ef5422dfd8e0d6db2234398893c0719
54976 F20101129_AAAGHG vera_n_Page_025.pro
634614c98cc3b3a29ba913aaff7b831e
b43e3843cbad72dd9e7c6ec21b3f376b27372ccb
28517 F20101129_AAAHKI vera_n_Page_017.QC.jpg
348d99462931fa36f0a7d13f3e7dd5e8
a73478cbf6dc964372af60666c7bd458cc384b84
F20101129_AAAGGR vera_n_Page_111.tif
4ccedf9dcbf28a0bf83000e88c9b07e7
4b7882cb5f885b3b9f637a946c8b680411e63770
6823 F20101129_AAAHJU vera_n_Page_031thm.jpg
45bf03e3f542da82fe1d577a963e3e79
4e6b3d8f3e5dabbfda30d9a783fcd9d9b225e2c4
1051896 F20101129_AAAGHH vera_n_Page_082.jp2
71a499e56289c8af656378d6ae847f42
2a0de5a977d7364f209a8f24cef782daff229896
F20101129_AAAHKJ vera_n_Page_023thm.jpg
8a8da432f4da041082bda7b6a1cf554c
5ca7b812091c23b8f523d8f1ba21304c49fb6bb9
19910 F20101129_AAAGGS vera_n_Page_088.pro
67a87ec694394cafb46af3f5b5e1618e
85123b57a5a1ea1565de70175a0ebdb484da710d
26828 F20101129_AAAHJV vera_n_Page_053.QC.jpg
b57b8d1cc1d1114ceef72db40d87b7f0
37939070dd3a00489b8bb7fc1268989e2a460567
54105 F20101129_AAAGHI vera_n_Page_056.pro
786a589932dccde74ae5fac207b16203
2298f3ad6e6c4afdc6b7f767ebd1620978a44c39
28653 F20101129_AAAHKK vera_n_Page_025.QC.jpg
44b83c91f6abdc501745e182babc14a1
0acac142908e865eecfc7d57b9c371bbe2901ca7
1176 F20101129_AAAGGT vera_n_Page_012.txt
5067c5ac5e788e0dce077ae141d8cc58
b4d87a3785b72dad6a74e2a1213fcdf98f3651d3
10759 F20101129_AAAGHJ vera_n_Page_095.QC.jpg
9d6af2532618c3fcebe9b8755b28fc85
26c962bc0054bde7ab3c9aca35825b1996c3892e
7872 F20101129_AAAHKL vera_n_Page_029thm.jpg
f45f92085212c6600c0d4ea7f6fe7cc1
00b0008672a3589d473888ef2dbeb5324ca9dbc3
2579 F20101129_AAAGGU vera_n_Page_058.txt
b68921553a66f01e3191febf66cd3edb
3cd05ae90716bac23c68e0ad0ff82685cd6b4cba
28072 F20101129_AAAHJW vera_n_Page_026.QC.jpg
08dddeee3eb596d1041784bfa3102103
ad32b8fc6a6f2fb28a63dca052980327120755ae
3623 F20101129_AAAHLA vera_n_Page_092thm.jpg
323c5a3b2886028bb318abebfc0ff08b
d6cbafb65a47856056f1c8b87effa9451c68dd6a
597 F20101129_AAAGHK vera_n_Page_003.pro
37973856b699e81b97a5fc29a0d0049c
0d3b7094d7eadc2dad8437e8e3480e342fb26b9e
26932 F20101129_AAAHKM vera_n_Page_044.QC.jpg
fbfc506e5eebe556308ebad0dcedf65a
997ba333d3ef6079032997a702d82d27e842fb50
F20101129_AAAGGV vera_n_Page_071.tif
3b8d96fca78082ed693fddfce7df8dc5
06c8eb1d9d405d8dd485a85e264c1687d34db56e
9750 F20101129_AAAHJX vera_n_Page_101.QC.jpg
e43a9ef11694e26d7aa8753432a73ffe
5fec633049629e6e202bbfe8e52e45037de1b562
3076 F20101129_AAAHLB vera_n_Page_094thm.jpg
d6022fb3899e8c1a4f470e574d15a33f
4efb80a08f8d5ee5b69d2cce02e784c9bd653543
F20101129_AAAGHL vera_n_Page_080.tif
6623914f007a764ffd22892cc0563bcd
6f98df8ff8923ff0279dd658eea3ba3d5f36c958
7364 F20101129_AAAHKN vera_n_Page_044thm.jpg
2792ea8b5bad1734a59b9adbdc7d6c0c
3a8a0d4c78503e75a26d90a0ea4126717da6b918
F20101129_AAAGGW vera_n_Page_069.tif
e9c91d21fe0fc8cf848137dc2ec2ffca
58da8b4889807dac811df61f52a2c457819649db
2475 F20101129_AAAHJY vera_n_Page_004thm.jpg
87ab0adbce5b7cb4cb6e8cca24bd08d1
97ba798d79600744ace9db8df63f4f2cc54d1b31
3499 F20101129_AAAHLC vera_n_Page_100thm.jpg
6f4977994c37f5e65b224eedd5f8b387
12f6a030fa45bed166ad72f63ec0123bfe961faa
F20101129_AAAGIA vera_n_Page_083.tif
4ebb91b4534c2015b5d88c49e9dbe4db
edeab4e67272be8cf1e96676700074b88eafb1f4
F20101129_AAAGGX vera_n_Page_006.jp2
32e9d9f0e658326a692569191a69d890
f35c83a4de509f20aaf2515c60b1e1ef1daa244c
7420 F20101129_AAAHJZ vera_n_Page_055thm.jpg
1dc22dee0aaeec8fe48392bed2a7f981
b4e60ea17c202bfec3069e3e6f3dc74f9782a17d
6217 F20101129_AAAHLD vera_n_Page_103thm.jpg
b5eee9595a6fe4230887201261c7be66
08e4b69a553c578f9c901771c5eb53752bc7bb48
107253 F20101129_AAAGIB vera_n_Page_032.jpg
39d946d01b1bb0c9c8a9317b87fdf69b
4d07f363b4f0d5b4a9d223c4893477b5b04ef44d
74851 F20101129_AAAGHM vera_n_Page_104.jpg
b4edca7bf3ff301697cb011239165d9b
5420e3c496a1d8c92e59be783b721e57fb36dcfa
7509 F20101129_AAAHKO vera_n_Page_046thm.jpg
3b40b929bb6a827fa2c21559cbd72872
858bbfed151a2a15566f51cc22c98c03476e24e3
84537 F20101129_AAAGGY vera_n_Page_014.jpg
ef6d10103483639c3e006b32cc2de11b
fa73e8e7a60f21316563f70d45ac895edc3dac89
28165 F20101129_AAAHLE vera_n_Page_106.QC.jpg
86d3fdcd0186cc48e67c60a4d0e61840
c21d8b8f199184f9cb635e68a9819ae0235686e7
83956 F20101129_AAAGIC vera_n_Page_042.jpg
4b407f000fc3db3f2d527d60b41f346b
f0f27a5fb715ae78a5a424ae4ef71daccc386208
538304 F20101129_AAAGHN vera_n_Page_008.jp2
0d0c2d9e8c7d430f3cf0c69590cd1f10
bb52868466f45f04f46dbb6054416f7f3e30fd5f
7092 F20101129_AAAHKP vera_n_Page_052thm.jpg
88ff5a98b1c818737391487fab68cf4a
7e563c9da94d35163c3953e4a824b2df97839444
F20101129_AAAGGZ vera_n_Page_074.txt
2185a5d1269e465bda3f497168732877
e3bd2a9797b32d2644532dd165796ffc60719aff
30643 F20101129_AAAHLF vera_n_Page_108.QC.jpg
fb4f4c9659469dfb400b245b10d62703
508d21123c30e468c901a781254a056ddb16f9d3
28695 F20101129_AAAHKQ vera_n_Page_054.QC.jpg
14712f3907682fc89bae8703f9fae7f4
297a3656a648e327274f899d15766d476a559530
90015 F20101129_AAAGID vera_n_Page_066.jpg
b6c875942560212c80bd7010e99a4e28
700b1380f56870089a5231b46bb374b28994ab96
9562 F20101129_AAAGHO vera_n_Page_003.jpg
2e54cbe44bf56a52fb43422ea767984a
a2b7a66a72773013e346e471b9fd9c3335365961
12920 F20101129_AAAHLG vera_n_Page_114.QC.jpg
96d9d67f82623bd081aaf95276beb434
d848ac777654d4652f126dae95fdc5ac438400fd
7384 F20101129_AAAHKR vera_n_Page_056thm.jpg
d60c8990a30b9cc793e972a0eed6359e
5f2fc585ac50dc0305932fe598a6a3067d078708
27502 F20101129_AAAGIE vera_n_Page_052.QC.jpg
657e364a3ac536d4d9db2714c422268d
ec9a6617558fafcbdbffb2282eff2dd29e1d2f39
44569 F20101129_AAAGHP vera_n_Page_091.jpg
2350bb470ba9eff2eb33e57e18c2dba5
1957286f3ca3ff2fdd23fc79e2aa7b00c1a907b6
24401 F20101129_AAAHKS vera_n_Page_061.QC.jpg
8ba295b0cd77c99965976dc2af98a72e
9e28a7fa4c1a0f67ebe9cdc935b040a70f3f4ba1
3808 F20101129_AAAGIF vera_n_Page_091thm.jpg
fff6517a342561e2e701eccb131582cc
a2470916db740ee4839927dd55726b8b980bd767
1051958 F20101129_AAAGHQ vera_n_Page_034.jp2
37a3ce5554e4ee31e0aaaf4b315ca652
8de8bc86aa5c8eb65dd4208369a15b6fb5894e8e
7848 F20101129_AAAHKT vera_n_Page_064.QC.jpg
0384ee53fc3d1f7dc03373b40a47147a
c03296716b37fcbba8e6fda1f53aebdca86317ee
2153 F20101129_AAAGIG vera_n_Page_056.txt
39214c917211e3ad8180ff6eead263eb
bae73b01a4ed2e21fe05e5faf116b014f4782e36
F20101129_AAAGHR vera_n_Page_053.jp2
128ab8fab107841361c625318255d424
003d0ccf5944089cb40477b568f061533100967b
25988 F20101129_AAAHKU vera_n_Page_065.QC.jpg
8dc7d8d58a10b87907dacb97187219bf
ecc12d74e7869929ffd96485237263a2dec61166
56228 F20101129_AAAGIH vera_n_Page_041.pro
eae6bc9a02e0db85d35cc461349ddac0
661f943ea537fece82300c558b64760239022617
F20101129_AAAGHS vera_n_Page_029.tif
3d92c8ff96ed14f83871b70e78a164ea
2cfe170ac68174072568d04f431ee2141be44d19
7202 F20101129_AAAHKV vera_n_Page_065thm.jpg
cecd3bfea78ebfe4b802dfe5cd5ce13a
ff52b17cebe8b76344ba65e4b95a399265042215
107689 F20101129_AAAGII vera_n_Page_020.jpg
26d7db569661ca6e50625e0c6379627b
8fa5a8deaf53b3dfc28060740ea04a0c8a29d870
56517 F20101129_AAAGHT vera_n_Page_055.pro
26735c0ee5ad060e642a1806e6e7e220
442f9a9f5e0ae6e137a563a255a130891ce676ca
7559 F20101129_AAAHKW vera_n_Page_072thm.jpg
62b0afb69078b937ee32dd72db27e5f6
2665ca939725e9c2b774cd8835376e8c7c0a0e4b
92279 F20101129_AAAGIJ vera_n_Page_082.jpg
ab7d107ee192a84445da11f4b0afd896
b084270266725d8b93bd43690a5fff3e943fbdd1
88961 F20101129_AAAGHU vera_n_Page_021.jpg
317a35dffcff028c7977452bdc6bbd20
c39a7e11ffd0424d1fa601f1127705c8fa72bad4
7245 F20101129_AAAHKX vera_n_Page_076thm.jpg
e1f70bda8181f98fbaa04f23c80d4098
0ce0da61ba6abfadf33714b4914ec2626a34da51
506951 F20101129_AAAGIK vera_n_Page_099.jp2
05a846091e00d730f40eecbd44571cdd
be91f7045e3e581cac9d1e7b301ddcab30fab693
F20101129_AAAGHV vera_n_Page_099.tif
b2fa274aaec19c8a5295ebae042967ec
bbd8ff57c877cc07a199d329f6686f6aa0db64f6
6562 F20101129_AAAHKY vera_n_Page_087.QC.jpg
da69ca506979a37075d1b319dedda13b
fed16ab4daf83cd27a4faddd98203d4dcf360ec1
F20101129_AAAGIL vera_n_Page_078.tif
fa4ac7828449e6801dd3257b32e6966c
ed3af1866cba9f7ac620452850941c4455ac889a
2837 F20101129_AAAGHW vera_n_Page_017.txt
e367906dbe74d6b6fcea99fb2de34978
4ce3ac2615c6856bfba4cf23d77fb0c4eeb13301
13819 F20101129_AAAHKZ vera_n_Page_090.QC.jpg
ed9b9d01bfa22ad6b918a910211d8e35
10fd90d0706d6b8735c89159626fc7dde7430154
1051971 F20101129_AAAGIM vera_n_Page_066.jp2
ceb1d00eaccb64e6245dd617913509d7
29afccd005d543c43709052cb1ca0d028d7b00e4
7483 F20101129_AAAGHX vera_n_Page_025thm.jpg
552c8292861eba37927e4e29f81cc729
c3686654a5cb8996bec4bfc930bfd847fef915d5
3772 F20101129_AAAGJA vera_n_Page_090thm.jpg
a76c79db92753b9b446cea615f2fbb37
b88ce6a417b957cc30621c14a5d548220dfc199a
26162 F20101129_AAAGHY vera_n_Page_045.QC.jpg
c7f9d1c30bdbad9de716196f1812a22d
0b12ab32f80e16cdfd121e27db134e3257e604f1
1051953 F20101129_AAAGJB vera_n_Page_107.jp2
3e1e780eb2f5f8ca2c97368f4bdbcdd2
9ec31639956464aad029ddcba1d3f17a8aaf13fc
3789 F20101129_AAAGIN vera_n_Page_005.txt
9d207d83d03247dbc44376179bb532ec
bc8c79cd9a4ad316dfd86113e60057ae44d7bd53
7096 F20101129_AAAGHZ vera_n_Page_077thm.jpg
62b307e19589d7d81b5afc104bb10502
ca6acd2b7b763296b8f701208ab5e719c1308226
75150 F20101129_AAAGJC vera_n_Page_048.jp2
ec27fcae9734dde2662a843df0f2b603
34eb66c6747bb8a24f7d236af04f2913fc2cbda4
F20101129_AAAGIO vera_n_Page_041.jp2
aaaa632010fcab7df14174b879bd00db
e542e5a44b44aecc02f9e4035a49236f2edb8563
12929 F20101129_AAAGJD vera_n_Page_092.QC.jpg
b9684596bac7944f137bd222c76dfe37
fd97984d81bcea457f5962c8684bafb5254ddc92
7459 F20101129_AAAGIP vera_n_Page_034thm.jpg
1cd14c8c981c0f5d627d9c6d968916f3
f6578ed72e4bf0bb6f6eb3e3cfeb88a07f29f69b
1051926 F20101129_AAAGJE vera_n_Page_026.jp2
823a4a04160918739d9a87cfdad73422
75af07c5105f897be0678be087260338402697d7
7088 F20101129_AAAGIQ vera_n_Page_021thm.jpg
65a57b62f8fe618160c0d470f78b736b
b5d151129784b1cfc988415a7605f79e3985323f
2218 F20101129_AAAGJF vera_n_Page_055.txt
8e8b9424970a28497493a6cca3ba70f8
8753bb4471625c2b78c963582682d9650e903226
2827 F20101129_AAAGIR vera_n_Page_023.txt
f1d95990a58012d9e45488fa265ab76c
41f6c0b0ebb1dc116479120c21890868d46d909a
F20101129_AAAGJG vera_n_Page_026thm.jpg
39c18199728a572572413bca1af70e5b
ee5f572cb4eef8ffea2414bfba9bfe488d2f3942
F20101129_AAAGIS vera_n_Page_024.jp2
0c7a717d8c57d674d66c6fbf3cc943f1
be4bdf21b00991c71a28a1810be7ebf2cf9732cc
54556 F20101129_AAAGJH vera_n_Page_051.pro
47663ffe83a1bf57400457a7a318cca7
dbb1f19da6a7215f2e0c00a2e4e4a74fa0a0f755
129650 F20101129_AAAGIT vera_n_Page_102.jpg
e50b05b3d5e1fdc7b23066ffc2d562ca
d89ba8e6075ac8aa33ca8efbfa98b8fa15462ff9
2138 F20101129_AAAGJI vera_n_Page_046.txt
f92e9badf37b65c16006764d74003d32
222504821c481f60a6d650aaf882a96883daef76
F20101129_AAAGIU vera_n_Page_100.pro
7bfbec09dfb866e13d02c5c6289775a7
6750e6adba99b970dbb5cf4da5264a40e32a23b7
31484 F20101129_AAAGJJ vera_n_Page_024.QC.jpg
3c9a8456efd635d28a121f504fa242dd
fe9eea113a6b796b2d7af5f963e93659e902d92a
110277 F20101129_AAAGIV vera_n_Page_043.jp2
fdc47bd5bb4a8751eb6374c6c4ed9b35
cd8ee100520dba4c49dfafe958b27c3fc3580808
37793 F20101129_AAAGJK vera_n_Page_009.pro
3fa8c7612a1b0f2ddb3d435c6f3f69f6
f324649bc73f26b2ee7d1b0f2b040c358c7c4171
52857 F20101129_AAAGIW vera_n_Page_053.pro
1499baddd5b298bff32b4a79f710ceaf
f789d7cd07bcdc286678228bcc7043f5dfc77262
85037 F20101129_AAAGJL vera_n_Page_103.jpg
68b15c89c90a9209cd8a1bb79e12ec50
e3cd2c2ef2e23ce35821935ebd79093f391abb37
45055 F20101129_AAAGIX vera_n_Page_070.pro
2fe8ac2b8c20cf502e29aaaf2145a769
e103a930b7b3d9ed9bb419628b0ccc4955cebfee
F20101129_AAAGKA vera_n_Page_032.jp2
0ae5ec41b88cc9e4cef4c8fba8cf4f15
b80227b1f4682989e72f31cc9e92d432168cf05a
100643 F20101129_AAAGJM vera_n_Page_102.pro
dd3d82de877b941a07a12ca0015e45ef
5b539ace3642b186fc782fab4e53565bb794a45e
91521 F20101129_AAAGIY vera_n_Page_054.jpg
ccf40da2f70cb3df89ec3265cc184d5b
08649fdd67ea9aa6784e5b638ba64601f4db0c7c
F20101129_AAAGKB vera_n_Page_021.jp2
f6e7ae5215e2db9fecac8fe88909beeb
296307ef64290d4af73f1516c68cfce99b4d7632
1051969 F20101129_AAAGJN vera_n_Page_111.jp2
623f5f6f189a7d264123a58377d6186c
98cf3378554c4317d00362b9e31553c5e453c140
1051923 F20101129_AAAGIZ vera_n_Page_035.jp2
4f31e997a9535f2c3daa886e557701c8
cafa8eaccd40fc33739e9c90996491b3d4c94bb8
7442 F20101129_AAAGKC vera_n_Page_073thm.jpg
77b9964138eb309164bc5d5589f4537f
d7c27b1d16962e3a98c499a8bfaffc1466bf669f
2976 F20101129_AAAGKD vera_n_Page_024.txt
a892d2afb22532c927adb4a5fe4cee0f
73d6ad4f830f966e34e2e1767fd3365e6f952e13
9814 F20101129_AAAGJO vera_n_Page_088.QC.jpg
73bab913525a600ce4d6e5f703f3ddc1
c789107253f93c75287e7dc9d6bf22fafc12be57
50755 F20101129_AAAGKE vera_n_Page_068.pro
d450dc139d539f5e76dc4e49c14b1032
4100753d1af568965ae1f1bd357ee0cbaa44cdcf
29678 F20101129_AAAGJP vera_n_Page_032.QC.jpg
439998007b553b79a8f6722b5778931e
9ede0bd55494bbd31ba4b9deadd9ab0d0dfa9059
52749 F20101129_AAAGKF vera_n_Page_060.pro
11e8fc6c90483a7b732c53d1a0a00eee
97437dc841d623b0220290de1e9dd4b35581e921
1719 F20101129_AAAGJQ vera_n_Page_009.txt
ef7db6fa60dd54007406a8cf9077e68b
71601b2573b6e1a0c1d4c4256580a3a135853e9f
7024 F20101129_AAAGKG vera_n_Page_112thm.jpg
e8bff5bd86ef35e01494b58863b5c9fe
9a6fa5dd20fd490ea5718b2ac7fc8b365cb63ce1
7577 F20101129_AAAGJR vera_n_Page_054thm.jpg
0728b692f282b4aa2180fb014849729a
a66c65a3dc0a00ea07ffc577e5b70f7b0103862d
25290 F20101129_AAAGKH vera_n_Page_004.jpg
5e0e4166493756f70639eb9116bd1697
6dcc0acd57da6bad6211e9aec7a3756417b9b23a
21754 F20101129_AAAGJS vera_n_Page_104.QC.jpg
74b273c98145475315cd021ff8288f91
f056566759edfe19b3d926236058883de9b12523
F20101129_AAAGKI vera_n_Page_036.txt
5be4d93b8ad51f79b83ab5978f9f74a8
0e6110fdc4aa4a8b44d96e876ad91002a6b94426
F20101129_AAAGJT vera_n_Page_014.jp2
1bba2d65aa582b29748e2efbf9834556
66cb260392963dc5606141eae2074f1241885443
54141 F20101129_AAAGKJ vera_n_Page_059.pro
12bee33356111538c9cac30f0d55c494
e6fe5ec3d642cfe64042e2c714adafef73bdf721
60913 F20101129_AAAGJU vera_n_Page_015.pro
bbd1c9d18628f31c4cf60ba085a23db0
60412e78cb30c41412e5dde8242051dbcf29ccdd







AN ANALYSIS OF THE COMMUNICATION
EFFORTS MADE BY LAW-ABIDING ANIMAL ADVOCACY GROUPS ABOUT THE
ANIMAL ENTERPRISE TERRORISM ACT



















By

NADYA M.VERA


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS IN MASS COMMUNICATION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007


































2007 Nadya M. Vera


































To my Family









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank my parents for always being so wonderfully supportive. I thank my baby brother

for being so sweet and complimentary for so many years. I thank my Jon for being so much of

my life during this period of the big picture. Most of all, I thank my little baby for changing my

life entirely. I promise every suffering creature that I will dedicate my life to helping others

understand and lessen your plight.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ..............................................................................................................4

LIST OF TA BLES ................. .............................................................. 7

LIST O F A BBREV IA TION S ................. ........ ..............................................................8

ABSTRAC T .........................................................................................

CHAPTER

1 PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICAN CE ............................................... ............................. 10

In tro d u c tio n ............................................ .......................................................................... 1 0
Purpose .......................................10
S ig n ific a n c e ............................................................................................................... 1 1

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERA TURE ............................................................. ....... ........13

Activism Theory and Research in Public Relations ...................................................13
T he A nim al A activism Spectrum .............................................................. ... ....................18
A nim al Liberation Front .................. ....................................... .......... .... 19
Stop H untingdon A nim al C ruelty........................................................................ .. .... 23
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals..... .......... ....................................... 25
The Hum ane Society of the United States .................... ...............................................26
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals .................................29
A b out A E T A ....................................................................................... 30

3 METHODOLOGY ............................. ...................... ........44

4 F IN D IN G S ................... ............................................................. ................5 0

Com m unication Efforts About AETA ......................................................... ............... 50
T he Shunning of E xtrem ism ......................................... .............................................50
L ack of A w areness .............. ................................................. .... ...... 53
Enacted Communication Efforts .................................. .....................................54
Perceptions of AETA ................... ......... ......... .......... ..............55
AETA 's intended effects .......................................................... ............... 55
AETA's passing ........... ....... ............. ..............58
In R retrospect ............................................. 60
Impact of AETA .............................. ......... ......... ......... .. ......... ............ 61
U n certain ty ................................................................6 1
H y ste ria ................................................................................................6 2
W ait an d S ee ...........................................................6 3
T h ere is H o p e ................................................................6 3









5 D ISC U S SIO N ..............................................................................................65

Two-way Communication between Activists and Corporations................. ............. .....65
Mainstream vs. Extremists in the Animal Advocacy Movement...................................68
SH A C 's Professed Legality ........................................................... ..... ............... 68
The Legislative Process for A ETA .................................. ............................ ............... 71
Information Dissemination by Animal Advocacy Groups............................................. 75
A Chilling of Animal Activism Has Occurred ............ .............. ..... ...............76
Practical Im plications ................................... .. .... ...... .. ............76
Lim stations .......................................... ... ............ ........................... 78
A areas for F future R research ............................................................................ ....................78
C o n c lu sio n ................................ ............... ................................................7 9

APPENDIX

A ANIMAL ENTERPRISE TERRORISM ACT (S. 3880)...........................................80

B ANIMAL ENTERPRISE TERRORISM ACT OPPOSITION LIST........................... 82

C AN IM AL A CTIV ISM SPECTRU M ......................................... .......... ........ .....................83

D PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF DR. VLASAK'S STATEMENTS............... ................. 85

E S 1926, 109TH C O N G R E S S ........................................................................ ............... ......88

F H .R 4239, 109TH C O N G R E SS ................................................................... .....................95

G CHANGES SUGGESTED BY THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES.102

H Q U E S T IO N G U ID E ......... ................. ............................................................................. 104

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ......... ................. .......................................... ...................................105

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ............................ ............................................ ........................... 114


















6










LIST OF TABLES


Table


3-1 Participant descriptions ..................................................................... ...... ... ............48


page









LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS


AAA Animal Agriculture Alliance

ACLU American Civil Liberties Union

AETA The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

AEPA Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992

ALF Animal Liberation Front

ASPCA The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

AVMA American Veterinary Medical Association

BM Band of Mercy

BK Burger King

CCF Center for Consumer Freedom

EJA The Equal Justice Alliance

ELF Earth Liberation Front

HSUS The Humane Society of the United States

HSA Hunt Saboteurs Association

HLS Huntingdon Life Sciences

NLG The National Lawyers Guild

NPCC National Pork Producers Council

LEARN Law Enforcement Agency Resource Network

PETA People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

RICO Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

SHAC Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Mass Communication

AN ANALYSIS OF THE COMMUNICATION
EFFORTS MADE BY LAW-ABIDING ANIMAL ADVOCACY GROUPS ABOUT THE
ANIMAL ENTERPRISE TERRORISM ACT

By

Nadya M. Vera

August 2007

Chair: Linda Childers Hon
Major: Mass Communication

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) was signed by President George W. Bush

on November 27, 2006 amid claims that the language of the bill featured oversights that could

threaten certain civil liberties for those involved specifically with animal advocacy. Seventeen

telephone interviews were conducted with representatives of law-abiding animal advocacy

groups in order to analyze the communication efforts that were made by these groups regarding

AETA. Instead of participating in a telephone interview, one organizational representative

provided written answers to a list of sample questions. The responses of the 18 participants

revealed that, generally speaking, law-abiding animal advocacy groups' communication efforts

about AETA were not enacted until AETA was close to being passed in both houses of Congress

and that the passing of the bill has not hindered their campaign efforts up to the point of this

study. This study reveals implications for those involved in the study or practice of law, public

relations, or activism.









CHAPTER 1
PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE

Introduction

While most animal rights and animal protection groups condemn the use of violence or

intimidation to incite change, like other social movements, the animal advocacy movement has

an extremist sect. As stated in its preamble, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) was

written "[t]o provide the Department of Justice the necessary authority to apprehend, prosecute,

and convict individuals committing animal enterprise terror" (Appendix A).

According to the bill's sponsors, AETA was designed to stop terrorism activities employed

by "animal rights extremists" (Gantman, 2006, 1). However, the bill's opposition, which

consisted, among others, of such organizations as the Humane Society of the United States

(HSUS), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the American Society for the

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), New York City

Bar Association, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, claims that the language of the act

was far-reaching enough to negatively affect law-abiding animal rights and animal protection

groups by potentially squelching First Amendment rights including (but not limited to) boycotts,

peaceful protests and media campaigns using video footage.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to analyze the political advocacy communication efforts made

by animal advocacy organizations that, according to the Equal Justice Alliance (EJA), oppose

AETA (Appendix B). The EJA was created in September 2006 in an effort to prevent AETA's

potentially harmful effects upon law-abiding animal advocacy organizations. In this study, the

term "law-abiding" is reserved for organizations whose sole purpose is to advocate on behalf of

animals in the United States, and in doing so do not engage in any violent, law-breaking









activities. Particularly, these groups do not utilize the tactics used by what Chapter 2 will

describe as being part of an "animal liberation" agenda.

Significance

This study will contribute to the body of knowledge available with regard to activism

theory by illustrating the significant differences in the ways that distinctive groups within one

social movement induce change. Furthermore, a strong case will be made for encouraging

outside parties not to define social movements by the acts that fringe groups may take or be

assigned responsibility for.

Within the study of public relations, it is understood that the field is in need of a dose of its

own reputation management. Although ethically driven practitioners know that a bad reputation

for the public relations field is not representative of the discipline, that does not mean that

outsiders to the field do not have a negative perception about it. As Rampton and Stauber (1995)

claimed, "PR companies have also become adept at 'manufacturing' apparent support from

ordinary people for the goals of industry" (p. 174). Similarly, the animal advocacy movement

has a situation in which outsiders may often bundle the entire movement based on the actions of

its unethical practitioners.

The idea that the practice of public relations might have a negative image in American

culture is not only an obstacle for those in the field of public relations, but it could be a

magnified problem for those conducting public relations for animal advocacy groups. As

mentioned above, this study will serve to analyze what communication strategies were put forth

by groups that utilized what could be considered a more mainstream-friendly form of activism,

yet could be negatively affected by a law that was not officially designed to hinder them. Leaders

and communicators of non-animal-focused social movements can benefit from this analysis by

analyzing this situation in the way they would a case study. This would allow similar









circumstances to be identified at an early stage and would perhaps even prevent an analogous

turn of events.

Communications educators and students can also benefit from evaluating the role that their

communications efforts played in responding to and addressing a law that could arguably hinder

them. Law educators and students stand to gain an understanding of the type of reaction that a

social movement group can have toward a law that is accused of being too vague or poorly

written.

Hearing from organizational representatives directly, rather than forming conclusions

based on available samples of their communication, can provide far greater assessment of their

communication strategies than the sole evaluation of the released written materials (i.e., Web site

content on the subject, press releases, direct mailing pieces, letters to the editor, brochures, e-

mail blasts, newsletter communications, official statements, etc.). This is a benefit for not only

the methodology, but for every one of the above-mentioned individuals who can gain an

advantage by familiarizing themselves with this study.









CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Activism Theory and Research in Public Relations

Activist groups are entities within social movements that often exist to incite change by

informing people about the practices that the groups deem as being in need of modification or

abolition. Unfortunately, communication efforts between activist groups and the bodies that they

try to change are often unproductive. As declared by Grunig et al. (2002), "many organizations

... try to ignore activist groups. When they are willing to communicate, they practice either one-

way or two-way asymmetrical public relations. This approach rarely works .... Failure to

establish good relationships with these often-belligerent groups may result in crisis situations"

(p. 447).

The spreading of information about an activist group's causes) helps to garner support

from people who were not previously aware of the issue in question. That support helps to put

pressure on, among others, corporate and governmental entities that form the offending party or

parties. The essence of public relations is often said to be the practice of managing mutually

beneficial relationships between an organization and its publics. Although activist groups can

sometimes seem to be a hindrance, as stated above, it is imperative that the public relations field

recognizes them among its lists of stakeholders. As Anderson (1992) stated,

activist groups are strategic publics because they constrain an organization's ability to
accomplish its goals and mission. Activists create issues; they appeal to government, the
courts, or media for litigation, regulation, or other forms of pressure. As a result, research
on activism has become one of the most important domains of public relations research. (p.
1)

In fact, the value of public relations as a practice is often highly attributed to its ability to "deal

with" activists. As Grunig et al. (2002) stated, "why is managed communication valued so

highly? What, exactly, is it worth? The answer lies primarily with activism" (p. 114).









Negotiations between corporations and activist groups can sometimes seem nearly

impossible to attain because the two often have different values or misunderstandings about the

other. Murphy and Dee (1996) studied the conflict between environmental activists and

corporate policymakers. They concluded that although each side often had similar priorities,

"neither side had the accurate information about the other's position that is needed to negotiate

well" (p. 25). However, constructive dialogue with activists can transform a crisis situation into a

positive learning experience. In an age in which corporate scandal is not unheard of, this could

increase the chances of survival for an organization after a crisis situation. For instance, the labor

conditions in its South Asian factories brought international protests to the Nike Corporation.

"As part of its response to the crisis, Nike created official policies on corporate responsibility and

involved local NGOs in factory monitoring. Nike was clearly in the wrong, and its subsequent

decisions were responsible ones" (Li, 2001, p. 13). Furthermore, a corporate and activist

interchange can even serve to discover unexpected financial benefits. In describing Hadden's

findings, Tombs and Smith (1995) asserted, "in certain cases, citizen groups have negotiated

with companies to reduce emissions following which the latter have then realized considerable

cost savings" (p. 144).

Not only can engaging in dialogue with activist groups be a beneficial action for an

organization, but it is also important to note that activist groups within the same social movement

do not operate in the same way. While one group might be demanding the eradication of a

practice, another activist group might be willing to make some compromises as long as they can

take steps in the right direction.

Interestingly, the range in the feasibility of activist groups' goals or demands might

actually be responsible for progress within the entire movement. The relationship among









different activist groups within the same movement is remarkable in that the radical and

moderate goals sometimes need each other to incite change. For instance, Derville (2005)

illustrated this concept within the animal advocacy movement as follows:

By making demands that powerholders are unlikely to accept, radical activist organizations
stay faithful to their vision and redefine what people consider moderate by moving the
ends of the spectrum. By arguing for much more radical demands than mainstream activist
organizations request, they increase the reasonableness of mainstream activist
organizations' demands. (p. 531)

When it comes to engaging in two-way symmetrical communication with corporations,

individual animal activist groups are often faced with not only the challenge of being an activist

group, but also coping with accusations of irrationality. As Munro (2001) explained, "a

movement predominantly female in membership is likely to attract criticism as being 'emotional'

(stereotypical feminine trait) as opposed to 'rational' (the masculine opposite)" (p. 45). Such

allegations can often serve as a way to deter the mainstream from paying attention to animal

activist groups' messages. In his framing analysis of the debate on animal experimentation,

Kruse (2001) exemplified that notion as follows:

If a social movement is to effect social change, it must promote awareness of the issues it
seeks to address. To do this effectively, movements must garner mass media coverage.
Unfortunately, such attention is difficult to come by, and individuals are forced to engage
in disruptive behavior, which then becomes the focus of attention. (p. 85)

Even though activist groups might have a hard time getting their communication efforts to

be validated by the industries that they are acting against, as well as having access to the media

that can largely disseminate their message, all is not lost. The American public's general distrust

of governmental agencies and corporations (Forstner and Bales, 1992) sometimes gives activist

groups credibility when providing information about a subject.

Although the general suspicions about governmental agencies and corporations have

provided leverage for some activist groups, the funding that activist groups receive from their









supporters is significantly smaller by comparison. This means that activist groups are forced to

make their funds last as long as possible if they want to gain the sort of attention that will incite

the change that they desire. The confidence that activist groups are bestowed today was not

available until activists began using media-specific tactics in order to prove their accusations.

Rose (1991) illustrated that turning point as follows:

The limited dollars which a fledgling group might once have invested in a mimeograph
machine and flyers to post at the supermarket are now more likely to be spent for video
production. In a surprising move to many observers in 1988, H.J. Heinz, Van Camps and
Bumble Bee announced they would stop buying tuna caught using methods which kill
dolphins. The issue was nothing new. Activists had been urging protection for dolphins for
more than a decade. What was new was the advocacy tools used to bring pressure for
reform. (p. 30)

Activist groups have become more effective over the years by first using video footage and

later taking advantage of the power of the Internet. As Li (2001) stated, "[t]he Internet has given

rise to a new kind of advocate: the virtual activist" (p. 12). The simplicity of launching e-mail

blasts and facilitating the access of fact sheets and streaming video via the Internet has

significantly cut down the time, manpower and funding needed to disseminate information to

large audiences; this has been essential in facilitating the spread of activist groups' messages. As

Illia (2002) stated, "cyberactivists make excellent use of the web by following online dynamics

and logic by utilizing the internet as a relationship medium as well as an information medium"

(p. 334).

As they become more effective, activists can cost corporations their reputations and, even

worse, their money. Tombs and Smith (1995) suggested that even though corporations

increasingly have the right idea about pursuing corporate social responsibility, activist groups

also increasingly expose contrary actions by corporations "in the light of local, or increasingly

global, problems" (p.135). Kirkland (2002) quoted Nichols in expressing the common, highly

defensive corporate sentiment that can develop in response to activist groups:









By giving in, companies are setting themselves up as an easy target for other groups ....
Challenging tax exemptions is only one way corporate America can fight back against
these so-called "attack groups". if you're in the right and conducting business legally
and ethically you ought to defend yourself and not assume they're going to go away
because they're not going to go away. (8-35)

Corporations can become disheartened and resentful when their seemingly good actions

are overshadowed or dismissed when activists attack them, which often leads to the above-

referenced defense mechanisms from those industries. This is the case in the biomedical

industry, which creates life-saving advances for humans but is at the same time criticized and

even attacked by animal rights activists for inflicting pain and suffering upon living creatures.

Kruse (2001) explained that notion as follows:

Although active, organized opposition to vivisection has existed since the mid-1800s,
scientists who performed experiments upon animals could, until relatively recently, look
forward to overwhelming approval from the public for providing knowledge that could
ease human suffering and improve the human condition. Such opposition as did exist was
confined primarily to the fringes. In the last quarter century, all of this has changed as
support for the rights of nonhuman animals has increased. Grassroots animal advocacy
groups have sprung up in many areas, and membership in national organizations has risen
dramatically. (p. 70)

This is also the case for the agricultural industry, which provides large and affordable

quantities of food, yet is also criticized and attacked by the animal advocacy movement for

inflicting pain and suffering upon sentient animals. Such sentiments were clearly stated in March

2007 by the president of the American Farm Bureau:

Animal agriculture is under fire. I call it "animal warfare." Special interest groups
campaigning around the nation under the banner of animal rights, and using emotion to
trump fact-based science, are changing the way the livestock industry has legally and
humanely operated for years. While wrapping themselves in a warm and fuzzy flag, these
groups employ sophisticated, big-money tactics to misinform the uninformed. The
campaign is spreading across the country. Animal activists are rallying throughout the
nation behind ballot initiatives, legal action and lobbying to shut down animal agriculture.
These groups are going state-by-state campaigning on emotion, leaving many producers
concerned with who will be the next target. (Stallman, 2007, 1-2)









The Animal Activism Spectrum

The animal activism spectrum (Appendix C) is included in this study with the purpose of

illustrating the fact that there are different facets within the animal activism movement. It is not

meant to be a definitive explanation of the social movement that focuses on alleviating the

suffering of animals nor is it a representation of the law-abiding organizations that have been

interviewed in this study. Instead, it is the researcher's way of visually representing the

organizations that are popularly associated with the animal advocacy movement. In this study,

the terms "animal advocacy" and "animal activism" refer broadly to all groups within the

animal-focused social movement.

Most social movements comprise distinctive groups that utilize different approaches to

arrive at similar goals. Although different activist groups within one social movement may

ultimately have the same concerns, their tactics range from extreme (seeking immediate, radical

change) to conservative (realizing that change is a slow and gradual process). Activist groups

that carry out violent or illegal actions often do so because they believe that such

fundamentalism is the only force that eventually creates room for reform. As Derville (2005)

stated,

The first distinction among activist organizations involves the degree of change sought,
which determines whether they are more radical or more mainstream on the classification
spectrum. Radical activist organizations are more fundamentalist than mainstream activist
organizations. They challenge the status quo while trying to prevent it from worsening. (p.
528)

Sometimes, as in the case of the Underground Railroad, that immoderate ideology is

responsible for truly contributing to the greater good. On the other hand, actions carried out by

extremist groups can oftentimes be detrimental to the mainstream or more conservative, law-

abiding groups within the same movement because outsiders often categorize movements in a

collective manner.









Animal Liberation Front

At one end of the animal activism spectrum is the underground force known as the Animal

Liberation Front (ALF), which is characterized by radical goals and militant tactics. In this study,

the two groups that conduct harassment of individuals and employ illegal activities such as

property damage in the name of animal rights ideology will be referred to as the "animal

liberation" movement. Derville (2005) illustrated the reasoning that some activist groups employ

when conducting illegal activities:

Some activist organizations justify highly militant tactics such as vandalizing property and
harassing targets because attempts to work through the political system are unlikely to
achieve their minimum demands. Aside from attempting to immediately improve the
situation, these methods have the more reliable effect of giving members a sense of
fulfillment through the reaction they get from the target. (p. 532)

According to the Law Enforcement Agency Resource Network (LEARN), a division of the

Anti-Defamation League, ALF began in England during the 1960s (Ecoterrorism, Extremism in

the Animal Rights and Environmentalist Movements, T 8). At that time, a group called the Hunt

Saboteurs Association (HSA) disrupted fox hunts using road blocks, bullhorns and other

troublemaking tactics. Some members of HSA formed the group Band of Mercy (BM) because

they felt that more aggressive tactics were needed to help animals. In 1974, Ronnie Lee and Cliff

Goodman, two of the original members of BM, were jailed for firebombing a vivisection

research center in England. (Merriam-Webster's dictionary broadly defines vivisection as

follows: animal experimentation especially if considered to cause distress to the subject.) ALF

was created upon the release of Ronnie Lee, which took place in 1976 (Ecoterrorism, Extremism

in the Animal Rights and Environmentalist Movements, T 9). The shift of ALF from England to

the United States is not well-documented. However, Kruse (2001) cited Sperling in describing

the effect of AFL upon the American biomedical industry during the 1980s:









In 1984 ... the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) ... raided a research project at the
University of Pennsylvania funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). On the basis
of information gathered in the raid, and subsequent protest to NIH, the secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services suspended funding to the laboratory. For the
first time, an administration official had intervened in the allocation of a grant from NIH,
the largest source of funding for biomedical research in the United States. (Sperling, 1988,
p. 4). (p. 71)

As stated by LEARN, in the United States, ALF has claimed "313 incidents of break-ins,

vandalism, arson and thefts committed in the name of animal rights between 1979 and 1993"

(Ecoterrorism, Extremism in the Animal Rights and Environmentalist Movements 11). The

2006 documentary film titled "Behind the Mask" took a deep look into the lives of the people

who risk their freedom to engage in activities with the ALF. In it, examples of ALF incidents

included break-ins and vandalizations of equipment in research laboratories or fur farms,

removal of animals from the facilities, and sometimes arson of the facilities in order to inflict

significant economic damage. According to the ALF Web site, ALF's actions are carried out

with the intention of not causing "harm" to people. Within the same statement, there is an

allusion to the idea that human harm attributed to extremist animal activists could be partly

attributed to infiltration:

One of the fundamental guidelines of the extreme activists is that great care must be taken
not to inflict harm in carrying out the acts. This has been borne out in practice. On the very
rare occasions when harm has occurred, the mainstream AR [animal rights] groups have
condemned the acts. In some cases, the authors of the acts have been suspected to be those
allied against the AR movement; their motives would not require deep thought to decipher.
The dictionary defines "terrorism" as the systematic use of violence or acts that instill
intense fear to achieve an end. Certainly, harassment of fur wearers, or shouting "meat is
murder" outside a butcher shop, could not be considered to be terrorism. Even destruction
of property would not qualify under the definition if it is done without harming others.
Certainly, the Boston Tea Party raiders did not consider themselves terrorists. (Frequently
Asked Questions, #89, 2-3)

In an age when corporate scandals are not unheard of, the notion that a corporation that has

been heavily criticized or even harassed by animal activists might be willing to employ unethical

tactics to rid themselves of a group that is tarnishing its image is perhaps not likely, but it is









nonetheless conceivable. Kruse (2001) described an event in which an animal activist was

probably set up by a biomedical company:

In early November 1988, Fran Stephanie Trutt was arrested in Norwalk, Connecticut, after
she placed a pipe bomb outside the headquarters of the U.S. Surgical Corporation. Animal
protection advocates had long condemned the firm for its use of dogs to train doctors and
company salespeople to use surgical staples. In the weeks after the event information came
to light that U.S. Surgical's president, Leon Hirsch, had been instrumental in orchestrating
the event. (p. 81)

On May 18, 2004, John E. Lewis, FBI Deputy Assistant Director, Counterterrorism

Division, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. His testimony addressed the ALF's

effort to purposely avoid the injury of people as a result of its activities, yet also stated that an

increase in "violent rhetoric and tactics, particularly within the animal rights movement" (T 8),

had been seen.

The ALF is at one extreme end of the animal activism spectrum and it is not representative

of the animal advocacy movement as a whole. O'Neill (2001) illustrated the separation between

ALF and other pro-animal groups by stating that members of the ALF are "criminal fanatics"

and that theirer relentless international campaign of vandalism, arson and bombing has

marginalized them even among hardcore animal-rights crusaders" (T 1).

Although the minority status of extremists within the animal advocacy movement has been

discussed above, the number of incidents perpetrated by these extremists has apparently risen

enough to garner attention from certain members of Congress. On May 18, 2005, Sen. James

Inhofe (R-Okla.), then Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, held an

oversight hearing on eco-terrorism specifically investigating the ALF and the Earth Liberation

Front (ELF). By merging the two underground cells under the label of"Eco-Terrorism" in his

opening statement for the above-mentioned hearing, Senator Inhofe (2005) essentially explained

why he considered the ALF and the ELF to be a single threat:









Today the Committee on Environment and Public Works will highlight the findings of the
Committee's ongoing investigation into the issue of Eco-terrorism. The Patriot Act defines
terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against people or property to
intimidate or coerce government or civilian population in furtherance of a political or
social objective." The Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security
agree that eco-terrorism is a severe problem naming the most serious domestic terrorist
threat in the Untied [sic] States today as the Earth Liberation Front ("ELF") and the
Animal Liberation Front ("ALF"), which by all accounts, is a converging movement with
similar ideologies and common personnel. ( 1)

Although the FBI's congressional testimony in the above-mentioned Senate Judiciary

Committee (2004) and Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (2005) hearings

made an obvious effort to refer to "animal rights extremists" and "eco-terrorists" as similar but

separate entities, the incidents caused by each were merged when summarizing the damage that

they have caused, elevating the impact that each group would have if it were to be evaluated

separately. According to John E. Lewis, FBI Deputy Assistant Director, Counterterrorism

Division, fromrm January 1990 to June 2004, animal and environmental rights extremists have

claimed credit for more than 1,200 criminal incidents, resulting in millions of dollars in damage

and monetary loss" (Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 2005). Also

noteworthy is the observation that extremist right-wing attacks upon abortion clinics-which

have caused human injuries and death-are not classified as domestic terrorism. The Seattle

Times's listing of the FBI's chronological summary of terrorist incidents from 1980 to 2004

included the following statement:

Among domestic terrorists, the Animal Liberation Front, the Earth Liberation Front and
other militant animal-rights and environmental groups-categorized as Special [sic]
interest domestic terrorists-have been involved in the greatest number of incidents in the
past decade. But none of their actions have resulted in injuries or death. The FBI does not
classify the vast majority of attacks on abortion clinics as acts of domestic terrorism. Thus,
almost all of these attacks-tallied at more than 4,200 since 1979 by the National Abortion
Federation [italics added]-are not included in the data base. One notable exception is the
Eric Rudolph attacks on abortion clinics. (2006, 3-4)









Senator Inhofe's (2005) opening statement at the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment

& Public Works Oversight on Eco-terrorism specifically examining ELF and ALF sheds some

light on a possible reason for the divergence in attention from the extremist anti-abortion

movement to the eco-terrorism movement:

Today we will hear from federal law enforcement agencies, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, who will
discuss the problem of ELF and ALF and law enforcement's reaction to their dangerous
and destructive tactics. It is these tactics, particularly the widespread use of arson, which
make ELF and ALF the #1 domestic terror concern over the likes of white
supremacists. [sic] militias, or anti-abortion groups. ( 3)

Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty

The second "animal liberation" group to be discussed in this study is Stop Huntingdon

Animal Cruelty (SHAC). In response to the 1998 BBC broadcast of a graphic documentary

showing alleged mistreatment of research animals by Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), animal

rights activists began to pressure financial institutions connected with HLS to sever their ties to

the research firm by utilizing philosophy and strategies borrowed from ALF. An article in Satya

Magazine described the above-mentioned documentary:

In 1997, animal rights organizations in the U.S. and England infiltrated HLS and emerged
with shocking video coverage that would change the public's view of HLS forever.
Extensive footage from both locations showed laboratory workers taunting and abusing
animals as they were subjected to invasive procedures and chemical tests. In the UK, HLS
workers were caught on video punching beagle puppies in the face. Clandestine video
footage from the NJ facility showed workers shoving and throwing monkeys into cages,
jeering at them while performing procedures and in one gruesome scene, a supposedly
"post-mortem" dissection was performed on a monkey who was still alive. These video
clips are only a small segment of months of documentation proving callous abuse and
torture of defenseless animals at HLS. (Stagno, 2000, 3)

As illustrated by LEARN, the campaign against HLS garnered widespread momentum:

SHAC quickly become a transatlantic cause among radical animal rights activists, with
chapters in Germany, Italy, Portugal and the United States. To date, its activists have
claimed responsibility for several bombings and dozens of acts of vandalism and
harassment in both the U.S. and Europe. (Ecoterrorism, Extremism in the Animal Rights
and Environmentalist Movements, 40)









Although SHAC's aim is to cause economic rather than physical damage, in one instance

two men who belonged to a non-U.S. chapter of SHAC beat HLS's managing director with

baseball bats. SHAC condemned the act of violence, yet other occurrences characterized by

intimidation, destruction of property and firebombing gave the group notoriety. The following is

the FBI's description of the findings revealed by its scrutiny of SHAC:

Investigation of SHAC-related criminal activity has revealed a pattern of vandalism,
arsons, animal releases, harassing telephone calls, threats and attempts to disrupt business
activities of not only HLS, but of all companies doing business with HLS. Among others,
these companies include Bank of America, Marsh USA, Deloitte and Touche, and HLS
investors, such as Stephens, Inc., which completely terminated their business relationships
with HLS as a result of SHAC activities. Examples of SHAC activities include publishing
on its website as a regular feature "Targets of the Week" for followers to target with
harassing telephone calls and e-mails in order to discourage that company or individual
from doing business with HLS. (Lewis, 2004, 7)

According to LEARN, Kevin Kjonaas became involved with animal rights while studying

political science at the University of Minnesota, and he briefly served as the spokesman for ALF

in 1999 (Ecoterrorism, Extremism in the Animal Rights and Environmentalist Movements, 42).

Kevin Kjonaas established the U.S. headquarters for SHAC two years later. In an article about

Kjonaas and SHAC, magazine journalist Chris Maag (2006) wrote the following:

When you picture a dangerous terrorist, Kevin Kjonaas may not immediately spring to
mind. The 28-year-old Catholic-school graduate stands 5 feet 10 inches, weighs 120
pounds, and speaks in a mezzo-soprano voice. He uses the word "cute" a lot. Kjonaas pays
his rent by working at a doggy daycare; before that he went door to door for John Kerry's
presidential campaign but quit when he realized that his strained relationship with the law
could be a liability for his employer. Kjonaas is both a vegan and a preppy. He owns
almost 40 vegetarian cookbooks but is quick to point out that "I don't cook sprouted wheat
germ. It sounds so hippie-ish." His closet is filled with J. Crew hand-me-downs, and for his
birthday this year, he got a dress shirt with light pink and light blue stripes. "I really like
it," he says. "It goes really well with this sweater vest I have." ( 1)

A Toronto Star reporter explained that SHAC USA specifically used what it considered to

be legal tactics that were protected by the First Amendment. To SHAC, "a legal home protest

might involve a vanload of demonstrators arriving outside an employee's residence to scream









insults and pass out leaflets accusing the target of killing puppies" (Walkom, 2006, 42).

Kj onaas and five others ranging in age from 27 to 31 at the time (known as the SHAC 7) were

arrested in May 2004 for encouraging harassment and coercion of HLS employees. The term

SHAC 7 comprises the six activists and Stop Hungtindon Animal Cruelty USA Inc. Walkom

(2006) also described what some call SHAC's biggest success: In 2005, "at the last minute and

without explanation, the New York Stock Exchange refused to list Huntingdon on its big board"

( 37).

There is one significant difference between ALF and SHAC. While ALF is an entirely

underground group, the SHAC USA group exercised what it considered its freedom of speech

rights to find and release the names and contact information of people who did business with

HLS along with describing effective intimidation tactics. So, the SHAC 7 did not believe they

had the need to conceal their identities because they were not engaging in any activity that was

not protected by the Constitution. Although the animal liberation movement exists primarily in

opposition to cruelty toward helpless non-human animals, the animal liberation movement has

been linked to terrorism through its use of harassment and intimidation tactics upon not only

people not directly responsible for vivisection at HLS, but also those engaged in business with

that entity. Therefore, SHAC USA is largely responsible for the creation of AETA.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

The only "animal rights" group in this study's animal activism spectrum is People for the

Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which is, to the mainstream, largely synonymous with

radical animal rights. As an organization, PETA has radical goals and pursues them by using

sometimes scandalous, yet mostly legal, tactics. Unlike ALF and SHAC, PETA did not form in

the United Kingdom and develop chapters in the United States. According to the organization's

Web site, www.peta.org, PETA was created in 1980 and is "dedicated to establishing and









protecting the rights of all animals. PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are

not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment" (about us, 1). The organization's

methods rely on "public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation,

special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns" (about us, 3). PETA's publicity

stunts often try to invoke disturbing images, humor or sexuality in order to capture the attention

of the media. In today's Western society, animal rights activists are often associated with

radicalism; thus, accusations of inhumane practices against major corporations may often not be

sufficient to warrant belief from the public. That is why PETA's use of vivid images ostensibly

proving its claims, although unpleasant, speak clearly.

To outsiders, PETA's promotion of radical change is often confused with irrationality or

attack on human values. While PETA's tactics often get media coverage, the messages behind

those campaigns often get lost in the hype. For instance, a story in The Sunday Herald of

Scotland included the following: "Ingrid Newkirk, head [of PETA], provoked anger by pointing

out that although 'six million Jews died in concentration camps, six billion broiler chickens will

die this year in slaughterhouses'" (Allan, 2006, 25). Although one FBI official said that PETA,

as of 2005, was not considered to be a terrorist organization by the FBI, government records

have shown that the FBI launched a terrorism investigation of PETA for its alleged support of

ALF (Bridis, 2005).

The Humane Society of the United States

On the right side of the animal activism spectrum are two groups whose own

organizational descriptions are disassociated with the term "animal rights." The first of these two

groups is the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Although the name "humane

society" is often associated with local cat and dog shelters, HSUS was founded in 1954 and, as

conveyed by its current slogan, its focus is on promotingig the protection of all animals" (HSUS









home page, 2006). According to the "about us" section of the HSUS Web site, the organization

works heavily within the legal system to carry out its mission of defending all animals:

We work to reduce suffering and to create meaningful social change for animals by
advocating for public policies to protect animals, investigating cruelty and working to
enforce existing laws, educating the public about the issues, and conducting hands-on
programs, such as assisting animals when disasters strike. Our major campaigns target four
primary issues: 1) factory farming, 2) animal fighting and other forms of animal cruelty, 3)
the fur trade, and 4) inhumane sport hunting practices. Our other campaigns take on puppy
mills, the private ownership of exotic animals as pets, greyhound racing, and particularly
unacceptable animal research and testing practices, such as the use of great apes in
research. ( 2-3)

The HSUS openly "opposes violence and condemns groups and individuals who resort to

harassment, threats, and illegal activity" (Query, 2006, 10). However, O'Rourke (2004)

summarized a speech by Wesley Jamison, Ph.D., an animal agriculture industry advisor, in

which it was indicated that animal enterprises must also scrutinize the actions of law-abiding

animal advocacy groups:

Animal use groups must also remain vigilant in monitoring groups that are working toward
their goals using legitimate means. In the late 1990s, a switch from protest to process
occurred-many animal rights groups started using legislative, regulatory, and judicial
processes to work toward their goals. When animal use groups organize, they are usually
unable to succeed on a federal level, and this has shunted their efforts to state and local
levels. "That is where (animal rights groups) are having a quiet and very significant impact
on the way people use and view animals," Dr. Jamison said. "They have advantages. They
have better organization, they have intense activism, and they have local civic support." (
13-14)

In recent years, through their spearheading of ballot initiatives, HSUS has been successful

in promoting the ban on gestation crates for breeding sows, in 2002 in Florida and then in

November 2006 in Arizona. In January 2007, Smithfield Foods Inc., the largest producer of pork

in the United States, announced that it would phase out gestation crates within the next decade.

In response to the announcement, the CEO of the National Pork Producers Council (NPCC)

stated that the decision made by Smithfield Foods was "a market-based decision" and that the

association's policy on gestation stalls, which is recognized by the American Veterinary Medical









Association (AVMA), was not changed (Statement ofNPPC CEO, 2007, 1-2). The HSUS's

factory farming campaign, which is workingig to reduce the suffering of animals raised for

meat, egg and milk," explained what a gestation crate is.

Gestation crates are 2-foot by 7-foot metal cages that house breeding pigs. The sows have a
gestation period of four months, and are in the crates for nearly their entire pregnancy.
After giving birth, they are re-impregnated and placed back in the crates, enduring perhaps
eight or 10 successive pregnancies in the crates before the animals are reproductively
"spent." The crates are so restrictive that the animals can't even turn around for months on
end. Pigs confined in gestation crates suffer both leg and joint problems along with
psychosis resulting from extreme boredom and frustration. Confinement in gestation crates
is so abusive that the entire European Union is phasing out the practice, with a total ban
taking effect in 2013. (Nation's Largest Pig Producer Moves to Phase Out Confinement of
Pigs in Gestation Crates, 5-6)

The HSUS also succeeded in banning veal crates within the same Arizona ballot initiative

that prohibited the use of gestation crates for breeding pigs. In February 2007, two large

producers of veal both announced the phasing out of veal crates:

Strauss Veal, the leading U.S. veal producer, and Marcho Farms both pledged in January
to convert their operations to crate-free group housing systems within two to three years. In
these operations, while the calves most likely won't be able to go outside, they will be able
to turn around, walk and socialize with other calves-all behaviors permanently denied to
crated calves. Strauss Veal has also expressed interest in moving to free-range systems
after it converts its crate operations to group housing. (Strauss Veal and Marcho Farms
Eliminating Confinement by Crate, 2)

HSUS's effort to boost the demand for cage-free eggs is arguably the most rapidly

growing shift within the egg industry with companies like Wild Oats, Whole Foods, Trader

Joe's, Ben & Jerry's, AOL and Google all demanding that their suppliers provide them with eggs

from hens that did not live in battery cages. The HSUS's Web page on battery cages states the

following about the practice:

Arguably the most abused animals in all agribusiness, about 95% of the nearly 300 million
laying hens in the United States are confined in barren, wire "battery cages" so restrictive
the birds can't even spread their wings. With no opportunity to engage in many of their
natural behaviors, including nesting, dust bathing, perching, and foraging, these birds
endure lives wrought with suffering. Due to animal welfare concerns, countries such as









Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, and Austria have banned battery cages. The entire
European Union is phasing out conventional cages by 2012. (No Battery Eggs, 2)

These changes (phasing out of veal crates, gestation crates and battery cages) are not what

the American industry standards prescribe. Furthermore, making changes above the industry

standards is a costly effort. By requiring these changes in states in which those industries have a

small presence, the HSUS has succeeded in setting a priority on what it deems more humane

practices. Because these industries have standards that-regardless of how humane they are

considered to be-are agreed upon, the move of these producers of breaking away from the

industry standards serves as a marketing advantage for those companies. At least one of the

companies that has opted to adopt the HSUS's advocated modifications openly agrees with the

notion that there is a level of inhumaneness present in the veal industry standards: "In a written

statement, Randy Strauss, co-president and CEO of Strauss Veal, said veal crates are 'inhumane

and archaic' and 'do nothing more than subject a calf to stress, fear, physical harm and pain"'

(Strauss Veal and Marcho Farms Eliminating Confinement by Crate, 2007, 4).

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

The only animal welfare group included in this study's animal activism spectrum is the

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). The organization's section

on policies and positions available on its Web site describes the ASPCA's guiding principles,

which although focus on providing animals with humane treatment, vehemently condemn the use

of violence to reach those goals:

The ASPCA is guided today by the same belief on which it was founded in 1866, that
animals are entitled to kind and respectful treatment at the hands of humans, and that this is
not to be left to the compassionate impulses of humans, but is an entitlement that must be
protected under the law. Many things have changed in the 140 years since the ASPCA was
chartered, but the ASPCA believes that society's obligation toward animals remains. The
ASPCA continues its traditional role of preventing cruelty by direct action of law
enforcement. In addition, however, the ASPCA recognizes that achieving its vision of
humane communities across the United States will require education, advocacy and other









forms of intervention that support the beneficial relationship between people and animals.
The ASPCA has been and continues to be wholly committed to effecting change through
nonviolent approaches. The ASPCA does not believe that threats, destruction of property
or violence appropriately express the nature of a movement that endorses kindness and
respect. ( 1-2)

About AETA

AETA was created to amend the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 (AEPA), which

is the law that first addressed attacks specifically against animal enterprises. In 2002, by way of

the Animal Enterprise Terrorism statute described in 18 U.S.C. 43, "Congress increased

maximum penalties under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act" (Potter, 2006). As mentioned in

the previous section's description of ALF, Senator James Inhofe, then Chairman of the

Environment & Public Works Committee, held an oversight hearing on May 18, 2005. The

hearing focused on eco-terrorism, specifically investigating the effects of ALF and ELF. The

hearing (Full Committee Oversight on Eco-terrorism, May 2005) included testimonies from the

following witnesses:

* John Lewis, Deputy Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation

* Carson Carroll, Deputy Assistant Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives

* David Martosko, Director of Research, the Center for Consumer Freedom

* Bradley Campbell, Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

* Dr. David Skorton, President, University of Iowa

* Monty McIntyre, Esq., Garden Communities

The FBI's testimony as provided by Mr. Lewis (2005, May 18) included a statement

bringing attention to the need to separate law-abiding animal or environmental advocacy groups

from those employing criminal action. "The distinctions between constitutionally protected

advocacy and violent, criminal activity are extremely important to recognize, and law









enforcement officials should be solely concerned with those individuals who pursue animal

rights or environmental protection through force, violence, or criminal activity" ( 4). The

testimony by the director of research for the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) included an

assertion regarding some mainstream animal advocacy groups' apparent link to the animal

liberation extremists (Martosko, 2005). However, the motives of CCF do not lack disapproval:

"CCF doesn't represent consumers. It's just the new name for lobbyist Rick Berman's latest

front group" (Rampton and Stauber, 2002, 3). Also noteworthy is Senator Inhofe's (2005)

declaration of the need for tightening freedom of speech parameters for individuals and

organizations that do not engage in crimes of violence, as well as the hearing's purpose of

addressing the mainstream's connection to the extremists:

As with any other criminal enterprise, we can not allow individuals and organizations to, in
effect, aide [sic] and abet criminal behavior or provide comfort and support to them after
the fact. Just as we can not allow individuals and organizations to surf in between the laws
of permissible free speech and speech that incites violence when we know the goal is to
inspire people to commit crimes of violence. This hearing will begin the process of
scrutinizing criminally based activism as well as call into question the essential support
received from mainstream individuals and organizations. ( 9)

In addition to opening statements from Senator Inhofe, the hearing (Full Committee

Oversight on Eco-terrorism, May 2005) included opening statements from the following

senators:

* Sen. John W. Warner, of Virginia
* Sen. David Vitter, of Louisiana.
* Sen. James M. Jeffords, of Vermont.
* Sen. Frank Lautenberg, of New Jersey.
* Sen. Barack Obama, of Illinois.


A prepared opening statement for Senator Warner was not available on the Web site for U.S.

Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. However, from his prepared opening









statement, it is evident that Senator Jeffords (May 2005) had reservations about the reasoning

behind the hearing:

I am puzzled why the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is examining the
issue of animal rights and eco-terrorism since the Committee lacks jurisdiction over
criminal law enforcement issues. Such matters are more appropriately addressed by the
Judiciary or Homeland Security Committees. Nevertheless, I look forward to learning what
the Environment Committee can do to address the problems posed by domestic terrorism.
( 7)

Senator Lautenberg (2005) stated that "[t]o date, not a single incident of so-called environmental

terrorism has killed anyone" ( 7) and he cautioned about proclaiming guilt by association:

The National Right to Life Committee is opposed to legal abortion. Eric Rudolph bombed
a Birmingham abortion clinic, and he was involved with several anti-abortion groups. That
doesn't mean that the members of the National Right to Life Committee are terrorists.
Terror is a tactic. We must condemn that tactic whenever it raises its ugly head -
regardless of the ideology of those who would employ it. But we must take care not to
lump legitimate groups with terrorists. To do so would only minimize the very real threats
against our society. ( 10-11)

Finally, it is also valuable to examine the statement made by Senator Obama (2005), in which he

declared that Americans were more vulnerable to other threats that required more attention:

The FBI has indicated a downward trend in the number of crimes committed by these
groups approximately 60 in 2004. While I want these crimes stopped, I do not want
people to think that the threat from these organizations is equivalent to other crimes faced
by Americans every day. According to the FBI, there were over 7,400 hate crimes
committed in 2003 half of which [were] racially motivated. More directly relevant to this
committee, the FBI reports 450 pending environmental crimes cases involving worker
endangerment or threats to public health or the environment. So, while I appreciate the
Chairman's interest in these fringe groups, I urge the Committee to focus its attention on
larger environmental threats, such as the dangerously high blood lead levels in hundreds of
thousands of children. ( 4-5)

On October 26, 2005, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works had a

second hearing to discuss its investigation into eco-terrorism, but this time it focused on SHAC

rather than ALF or ELF (Full Committee Hearing on Eco-Terrorism, October 2005). This second

hearing included testimonies from the following witnesses:

* John Lewis, Deputy Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation









* Barry Sabin, Section Chief of Counterterrorism Division, Department of Justice

* Mark Bibi, General Counsel, Huntingdon Life Sciences

* Skip Boruchin, Legacy Trading Company

* Richard P. Bernard, Executive Vice President and General Counsel,
New York Stock Exchange

* Dr. Jerry Vlasak, M.D., Press Officer, North American Animal Liberation Press Office

In his opening statement, Senator Inhofe (October 2005) stated that the hearing's focal

point was SHAC, defining it as "a radical animal rights organization that relies on crimes of

violence and a campaign of fear to convey their message of animal liberation" ( 1).

Furthermore, he added that "testing [by HLS] may, some day, provide us the cure for cancer,

AIDS, blindness the possibilities are endless and we, as the Congress, have determined that this

testing is necessary to ensure the safety of our consumers" ( 1). In his submitted statement, Mr.

Lewis (October 2005) declared that the organizers of SHAC had been successfully charged:

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. ( 18)

However, Mr. Lewis's (October 2005) statement also claimed that the state of the law at that

time was not sufficient to prosecute SHAC:

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. ( 19)









Although Senator Jeffords (October 2005) was unable to attend the hearing focusing on

SHAC due to a scheduling conflict, he did submit an opening statement that included the

following declaration regarding the separation of mainstream animal or environmental groups

from the extremists within those movements:

These extremists do not represent the mainstream environmental or animal rights
community. Mainstream groups have been very effective in using lawful means to advance
their agenda. Educational outreach, shareholder resolutions and dedicated volunteers have
significantly improved the treatment of animals in the United States. Groups such as the
Humane Society of the United States, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PETA), the Doris Day League and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals have all submitted letters to the Committee denouncing violence in the name of
animal protection. I'd like to enter these letters into the official record of today's hearing.
( 4)

As listed above, one of the witnesses of the oversight hearing specific to SHAC was Dr.

Jerry Vlasak, a spokesman for ALF. During this hearing, Dr. Vlasak stated that he believed that

the homicide of researchers who conduct animal research would be "morally justifiable" within

the context of a liberation struggle (Appendix D). On the following day, October 27, 2005,

Senator Inhofe introduced S. 1926, the first version of AETA (Appendix E). As stated in the

Congressional records, the bill had four co-sponsors and was "read twice and referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary" (S. 1926 Summary of All Congressional Actions). Senator Inhofe

issued a press release on the following day, in which he included this statement:

The chilling testimony embracing assassination and destruction that we heard from the
"spokesman" of the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty eco-terror group only points to the
need for a tightening of current law for authorities to be to able to prevent future activities,
and to better investigate and prosecute eco-terror cases....S. 1926 specifically addresses
the "tertiary targeting" tactic employed by eco-terrorists by prohibiting intentional damage
of property belonging to a person or organization with ties to an animal enterprise.
Currently, only the animal enterprise itself is covered by law. The bill also increases
penalties for intentional economic disruption or damage, and for intentionally causing
bodily harm or placing a person in reasonable fear of death or bodily harm. (Holbrook,
2005, T 2)









In the House of Representatives, H.R. 4239 (Appendix F), also known as AETA, consisted

of the same text as S. 1926 and was introduced on November 4, 2005. It was sponsored by

Representative Thomas Petri (R-WI), along with 44 co-sponsors. The House bill was referred to

the House Committee on the Judiciary on the day that it was introduced and referred to the

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on February 6, 2006 (H.R. 4239

Summary of All Congressional Actions).

On March 6, 2006, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sent a letter to all

members of Congress, in which it urged opposition to the first version of AETA. The first

paragraph of the letter declared the following:

On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, a non-partisan organization with
hundreds of thousands of activists and members and 53 affiliates nation-wide, we write
today to explain our opposition to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, S. 1926 and H.R.
4239 (AETA), a bill that amends the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA), now 18
U.S.C. 43. The AETA criminalizes First Amendment activities such as demonstrations,
leafleting, undercover investigations, and boycotts. The bill is overly broad, vague, and
unnecessary because federal criminal laws already provide a wide range of punishments
for unlawful activities targeting animal enterprises. (Frederickson and Graves, 2006, T 1)

On May 23, 2006, the Committee on the Judiciary in the House of Representatives held a

hearing on H.R. 4239 before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

This hearing included testimonies from the following witnesses:

* Brent McIntosh, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice

* Michele Basso, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Physiology, University of
Wisconsin

* William Trundley, Vice President, Global Corporate Security and Investigations,
GlaxoSmithKline

* William Potter, Journalist

In the above-mentioned hearing, the first three witnesses provided their personal and

professional accounts as support for the passing of AETA. Although Mr. Potter's testimony









addressed what he had uncovered through his experience as journalist, a certain level of

irreverence was evident in the way in which Representative Tom Feeney (R-FL) addressed Mr.

Potter: "Mr. Potter, I appreciate that you don't have a legal background.... I want to assure you

and advise you to go talk to an attorney before you come and testify before the United States

Congress about what bills do when, in fact, they do not do" (H.R. 4239 hearing transcript, 2006,

p. 26). According to Mr. Potter, he was contacted by the staff of the judiciary committee and

offered the opportunity to testify, but he did not know if other people, particularly any lawyers,

were given the opportunity to testify in opposition to AETA (personal communication, February

2007).

According to an e-mail communication from the ACLU to the Equal Justice Alliance

(EJA), after its March 6, 2006 letter, "the ACLU Washington Legislative Office worked to gain

several important improvements to the bill, which was... reintroduced as S. 3880" (ACLU E-mail

Response to EJA, 2006). The changes were explained as follows:

The wiretapping provision was removed entirely from the Senate version. Under the
Senate bill, the "economic damage" that could trigger liability "does not include any lawful
economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public,
governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal
enterprise." The original bill did not address lawful boycotts, which are clearly protected
First Amendment activity. Another revision was aimed at protecting advocacy. The Senate
bill makes clear that only damage to "real or personal" property is the kind of economic
damage that triggers liability. The original bill used the term "any property," leaving open
the possibility of even claiming damage to intellectual property (trademark dilution and
tarnishment, for example). ( 5-6)

On September 8, 2006, Senators James Inhofe and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced

Senate bill S. 3880 (Appendix A). This bill was also called AETA. The bill was passed with an

amendment by unanimous consent in the Senate on September 30, 2006. According to the U.S.

Senate glossary, "[a] Senator may request unanimous consent on the floor to set aside a specified

rule of procedure so as to expedite proceedings. If no Senator objects, the Senate permits the









action, but if any one Senator objects, the request is rejected." The amendment made to S. 3880

is of particular interest because, as mentioned above, it addressed some concerns regarding the

first bill's potential infringement on freedom of speech. However, the amendment made was

sufficient for the ACLU to drop its official opposition of AETA, but it was not enough for the

ACLU to support it. On October 30, 2006, the ACLU sent a letter to Representatives F. James

Sensenbrenner (R-WI), then Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and John Conyers (D-

MI), then Ranking Member of the same committee. This second letter regarding AETA did "not

oppose the bill," but was seeking "minor changes" that were "necessary to make the bill less

likely to chill or threaten freedom of speech" (Fredrickson and Johnson, 2006, 1). In contrast,

the HSUS fact sheet on AETA stated that the changes that had been made to AETA were a step

in the right direction, but they were not enough to protect law-abiding animal rights and animal

protection groups from being silenced by this law: "Even with changes that have been

incorporated into the current version of the legislation, it is still seriously flawed" (HSUS Fact

Sheet on AETA, 2006, 1).

After S. 3880 was introduced in the Senate, the offices of Senators Inhofe and Feinstein

issued ajoint press release (Gantman, 2006). The press release included statements from each of

the two senators. In it, the following statement was featured by Senator Inhofe:

Our bi-partisan legislation will provide law enforcement the tools they need to adequately
combat radical animal rights extremists' [sic] who commit violent acts against innocent
people because they work with animals. This is terrorism and must not be tolerated. As a
result of my committee hearings on this topic, I became aware of the need for legislation to
combat this growing violent phenomenon. With eco-terrorist attacks in Oklahoma and
California, Senator Feinstein and I share a commitment to passing legislation that will help
end these terrorist attacks. ( 3)

Senator Feinstein included the following statement in the press release:

The tactics used by animal rights extremists have evolved in the face of our current laws,
and consequently, the scope of their terror is widening .... We need the Animal Enterprise
Terrorism Act to fight these tactics, including the latest trend of targeting any business and









associate working with animal research facilities Just three months ago, extremist
activists acting in the name of animal rights attempted to firebomb the home of a UCLA
primate researcher. The home where they placed their bomb actually belonged to a 70-
year-old neighbor of the scientist. Thankfully, the device did not ignite. But it did lead
another prominent UCLA researcher to quit in fear. We must recognize that scientific
research is not only a legitimate career, but also an invaluable facet of medical
advancement, conducted by respectable professionals deserving our support. The
deplorable actions of these eco-terrorists threaten to impede important medical progress in
California and across the country. ( 4-5)

On November 13, 2006, the House of Representatives had a "motion to suspend the rules"

and passed the same bill that was approved by the Senate (S. 3880) by a voice vote. The original

vote for this bill had been scheduled for 6:30 p.m. However, the voice vote took place earlier in

the day, with six members of the House of Representatives present (AETA Report, 2006).

According to the Library of Congress, the above-mentioned practice is reserved for measures

that lack controversy: "Because the rules may be suspended and the bill passed only by

affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being present, this procedure is

usually used only for expedited consideration of relatively noncontroversial public measures"

(How Our Laws Are Made, N.D.). On November 14, 2006, the National Pork Producers Council

issued a press release in which it applauded congressional passage of AETA by callingig it a

victory for animal agriculture and businesses that legally use animals" (Warner, 1). AETA was

signed by President George W. Bush on November 27, 2006. In response, the HSUS included

the following remarks on its AETA position statement:

Even with the changes that were incorporated into the Senate-passed version of the
legislation, it is still seriously flawed. Unfortunately, there was a rush to pass this by voice
vote in both the House and Senate, without any meaningful opportunity for committee
action to correct the problems in the bill and it was signed into law on Nov. 27. ( 1)

In its action alert flyer titled "Mission Accomplished! AETA Passes Both Houses!," Fur

Commission USA stated that AETA "sailed through the House of Representatives, after passing

the Senate unanimously on Sept. 30" ( 1). The above-mentioned flyer also contained a listing of









"[a]n unprecedented coalition of more than 170 organizations" that "formally pledged support

for the AETA" (Mission Accomplished, 2006, 2). These AETA-supporting organizations

included, among others, the National Pork Producers Council, the American Association for

Laboratory Animal Science, the American Mink Council, and the American Veal Association.

As seen in Appendix B, as of November 21, 2006, the Equal Justice Alliance's AETA

Opposition list included "180+ opposing groups." One of those groups, the National Lawyers

Guild (NLG), issued a letter in response to the November 13, 2006 passing of AETA in the

House of Representatives. In the letter, NLG's concerns about AETA's constitutionality were

raised:

We believe that the AETA deals a severe blow both to First Amendment protections of
free speech and assembly and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee that all people be
treated equally under the law. AETA would punish some activities more harshly than
others solely on the basis of the beliefs that motivate them. (Boghosian, 2006, 4)

In their communication efforts in support of AETA, a number of individuals and

organizations cited AETA in dismissing the opposition's concern about AETA's potential

infringement of First Amendment rights. For instance, in its analysis of AETA, the National

Association for Biomedical Research included the following statement:

The bill includes penalties based on the amount of economic damage which "does not
include any lawful economic disruption (including lawful boycott) that results from lawful
public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal
enterprise." ( 7)

In response to the above-mentioned assertion, however, Hoch and Wilkens (2007) avowed that

including that exemption in AETA was not sufficient protection:

"[T]he seeming exemptions for First Amendment rights are illusory, because the Act's
language emphatically restricts the very rights it later alleges to protect. Stating that lawful
boycotts are protected does not make it so. One person's boycott is another person's
interference, which, under AETA, spells terrorism." ( 8)









In the article titled "Response to Andrew Kohn: THE Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is

Invidiously Detrimental to the Animal Rights Movement (and Unconstitutional as Well)," Hoch

and Wilkens (2007) summarized some of the concerns that fostered opposition toward AETA.

For instance, activities that might seem harmless could be interpreted as being the opposite:

Under AETA, merely intending to engage in acts that cause no harm or damage, but
interfere with an animal enterprise, may result in fine and imprisonment. For example, if
two people living in different states exchange e-mails evidencing a clear intention to cause
"economic damage" to an animal enterprise, by persuading customers to purchase less veal
at a supermarket, their conduct may constitute both legal "attempt" and "conspiracy" under
AETA, subjecting the e-mailers to electronic surveillance [18 USC Section 2516(1)(c)] and
a fine and up to a year in prison. ( 16)

Next, the text of the act is, according to Hoch and Wilkens, insufficiently developed:

The language in AETA is unconstitutionally void for vagueness. The term "animal
enterprise" is subject to countless interpretations, and the word "interfere," which suffers
from similarly obfuscatory imprecision, could be used to chill and proscribe undercover
investigations and whistle-blowing activities that expose illegal animal enterprises. It may
also bar acts of civil disobedience. Under the provisions of this Act, Martin Luther King,
Jr. might have been convicted of animal enterprise terrorism if a lunch-counter he sat at
lost profits that day. The penalties for nonviolent acts of civil disobedience, such as sitting
in front of an office door, are "... a fine or imprisonment for not more than one year, or
both." ( 18)

Finally, a line of reasoning that seems unique to Hoch and Wilkens' analysis is AETA's potential

to cause harm to individuals who might be incorrectly castigated by it:

Glaringly absent from the Act are provisions for restitution for wrongful arrest or
prosecution, loss of reputation, lost wages, attorneys' fees, etc., although anyone
wrongfully arrested under the Act risks being humiliated, disgraced, and permanently
branded as a terrorist in the court of public opinion. The Act also serves as a predicate for
wiretapping animal rights advocates [18 USC Section 2516(1)(c)], as intent to interfere
with an animal enterprise appears to be sufficient cause to justify surveillance. ( 19)

The letter issued by the executive director of the NLG summarized what might be

considered AETA's overall problem:

Animal industry groups, corporations and the politicians that represent them pushed hard
for the passage of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), ostensibly to crack down
on violent animal and environmental rights extremists. But in fact, this bill may lead to a









crackdown on legal, constitutionally-protected [sic] political expression. (Boghosian, 2006,
3)

This overall problem could have apparently been corrected before it was voted on in the House

of Representatives. As mentioned above, on October 30, 2006, the ACLU sent a letter to the then

Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee. The letter's reference line

stated that the ACLU urged "Needed Minor Changes to AETA," but it did not oppose the bill

(Fredrickson and Johnson, 2006). Moreover, in the document titled "Major Flaws in S. 3880 (as

amended and passed by Senate), and Corrective Amendments," the HSUS suggested that the

same changes be made to AETA (Appendix G).

The first change addressed the assertion that in AETA's current form, it "threatens to

sweep up criminalizing as 'terrorism' or otherwise chilling a broad range of lawful,

constitutionally protected, and valuable activity undertaken by citizens and organizations seeking

change" (HSUS Fact Sheet on AETA, 2006, 1). The ACLU suggested that "'Real or Personal

Property' be defined as 'Tangible' Property to Avoid Lost Profits or Good Will Forming the

Basis for the Offense" (Fredrickson and Johnson, 2006, 3). As such, both the ACLU and the

HSUS suggested that section 43(d) be amended by inserting the following new section and have

current subsection (3)(B) removed, with appropriate renumbering:

* (3) the term 'intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property' -

* (A) means intentionally damaging or causing the loss of any tangible property; but

* (B) does not include damage or loss resulting from a boycott, protest, demonstration,
investigation, whistleblowing, reporting of animal mistreatment, or any public,
governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information concerning animal
enterprises

The ACLU and the HSUS both addressed the fact that in referring to "Animal

Enterprises," AETA did not define such entities as being protected only as long as they engage in

lawful behavior. However, while the ACLU's letter suggested that "Animal Enterprise" be









defined to only include lawful activities, The HSUS suggested the following correction to section

43(d)(1):

* (1) the term 'animal enterprise' means -

* (A) a lawful commercial or academic enterprise that uses or sells animals or animal
products for profit, food or fiber production, agriculture, education, research, or testing;

* (B) a lawful zoo, aquarium, animal shelter, pet store, breeder, furrier, circus, rodeo or other
lawful competitive animal event; or

* (C) any lawful fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences.

The third change would have remedied the declaration largely made by the AETA

opposition that, under AETA, a chilling effect could be imposed upon "those individuals

considering actions that would cause no harm, either physical or economic, nor instill any fear of

harm..." (Fredrickson and Johnson, 2006, 10). Once again, the ACLU and the HSUS both

suggested that section 43(b)(1)(A) be changed so that it could be clarified that penalties only

apply to conspiracies or attempts:

* (A) an offense under subsection (a)(2)(C) results in no economic damage or bodily injury

As mentioned above, the changes that AETA could have undergone in order to

significantly lower the concerns of much of the bill's opposition, as suggested by the ACLU and

The HSUS, did not occur. There are two main questions that cannot be adequately addressed by

analyzing the existing literature. First, the communication efforts put forth by an organization in

response to an issue are a crucial basis of the public relations discipline and a potentially

significant measurement of the organization's exerted force. The ultimate question here is the

following: What communication efforts did law-abiding animal advocacy organizations put forth

in response to AETA? Also, the notion that AETA could wrongfully affect law-abiding animal

advocacy groups is considerable contention evidenced within the AETA opposition. Therefore,









another subject that has yet to be addressed is as follows: Has the passing of AETA affected the

efforts of law-abiding groups dedicated to advocating for animals?









CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

In analyzing the communication strategies that law-abiding animal advocacy groups

enacted about and in response to AETA, studying the messages that were released on the

organizations' Web sites and printed materials solely would have led to results of a speculative

nature at best. Some of the organizations may have chosen to enact communications efforts that

seemed muted; yet, the best way to know whether there was a strategy involved in

communicating (or not communicating) about AETA would be by speaking with representatives

from the organizations directly. As Wimmer and Dominick asserted, whenhn compared to more

traditional survey methods, interviewing provides more accurate responses on sensitive issues"

(p. 135). Therefore, the communication efforts based on the delicate issue of law-abiding

organizations potentially being stigmatized based on the topic of their advocacy efforts were best

studied through in-depth telephone interviews.

As stated in Chapter 1, this study was conceived with the intention of analyzing the

politically motivated communication efforts made by law-abiding animal advocacy organizations

that opposed AETA prior to and after its passing. The researcher contacted a total of 22 entities

that advocated for animals to request that they participate in this study. Of those, 17

organizations agreed to participate in telephone interviews. Rather than agreeing to participate in

telephone interviews, two of the 22 organizations participated by submitting written answers to

the question guide, but one of the written answer sets was discarded due to lack of relevance.

The opportunity for probing during the interview was eliminated for the organization whose

written answers were e-mailed. However, the answers that were provided were appropriate and

relevant to the study. Based on each participant's expertise about AETA as well as varied

organizational structures, representatives from the legal departments, media relations









departments, and high-ranking officials agreed to be interviewed. Only one representative from

each of the 18 participating organizations was interviewed. Telephone interviews were

conducted between March 5, 2007 and March 21, 2007.

The process of determining which organizations would be contacted to participate in this

study began with the analysis of the AETA Opposition List compiled by the Equal Justice

Alliance. Animal advocacy organizations with an undisputed national presence were selected for

their ability to gain media coverage on the various issues that their campaigns might focus on.

Meanwhile, the remaining organizations were selected by visiting the organizations' Web sites

and following a two-step process: 1. organizations were automatically included when their Web

sites featured information on AETA; and 2. organizations were added when their Web site

communicated the organization's advocacy efforts on behalf of animals with what Reber and

Kim (2006) defined as high frequencies of media relation elements (i.e. organization history,

mission statement, press releases, etc.), dialogic features (i.e. general and expert contact

information, frequently asked questions, etc.), and involvement factors (i.e. calendar of events,

downloadable graphics, products for sale, etc.). The second phase in determining which

organizations would be contacted with study-specific interview requests followed the ideology

that, "by not taking advantage of the characteristics of Internet communication, activist

organizations are not advocating for their organizations at their maximum capacity" (Reber and

Kim, 2006, p. 330). Therefore, well-developed and well-maintained animal advocacy

organization Web sites served to identify groups that may have been more likely to have the

ability to effectively communicate about AETA over a medium as far-reaching as the Internet.

Also consulted in creating the list of organizations to be contacted for this study were a









representative of the Equal Justice Alliance, the journalist who testified against H.R. 4239, and

two animal rights advocates who have been involved with the movement for several years.

Selected organizations were reached primarily by calling the media relations or legal

departments' telephone numbers when such detailed information was available on the

organizations' Web sites. Otherwise, the organizations' main telephone numbers were called and

the appropriate staff member was contacted. If a telephone number was unavailable, an e-mail

was sent to either the media relations coordinator or general mailbox. After the organizational

representatives agreed to be a part of the study, telephone interviews were scheduled according

to the interviewees' availability. Several of the interviewees requested to see a sample of the

questions to be addressed during the interviews, with the understanding that such a sample would

outline the general themes to be addressed, while the interview itself would be more fluid.

Prior to each interview, the participants received an informed consent statement via e-mail.

The informed consent statement informed participants about the study's purpose and their right

to not answer any question that they did not feel comfortable with. Interviewees were granted

anonymity in order to encourage the greatest degree of frankness. Each interview was recorded

in order to facilitate transcription, thereby heightening interpretive validity.

Although the Equal Justice Alliance's list of the AETA opposition contained close to 200

organizations, the organizations that were not considered for this study consisted of those that

focused on civil rights rather than animal advocacy, as well as those organizations that focused

their efforts on promoting a vegetarian lifestyle rather than directly addressing animal issues. In

addition, organizations that did not have Web sites or whose Web sites did not fit the above-

mentioned criteria were also not approached. The AETA-opposing organizations that were









interviewed encompassed several well-established organizations within the animal advocacy

movement.

In essence, the question guide addressed what law-abiding animal advocacy groups said

and did regarding AETA. The questions posed pertained to each organization's position on

AETA, its communication efforts about AETA, its perception of AETA's intended effects, and

AETA's impact upon the organization's campaigns (Appendix H). A pre-test was conducted

with two long-time animal advocates who represented local organizations in order to assess

timing and question appropriateness. As stated by Babbie (2001):

A qualitative interview is essentially a conversation in which the interviewer establishes a
general direction for the conversation and pursues specific topics raised by the respondent.
Ideally, the respondent does most of the talking. If you're talking more than 5 percent of
the time, that's probably too much. (p. 292)

Data analysis was conducted by identifying emerging themes or categories based on participants'

responses to questions about AETA.

The researcher, a vegetarian and participant in the animal advocacy movement, believes

that the use of violence upon people is inexcusable. This analysis is not intended to provide any

degree of sympathy for anybody who is devoted to their cause deeply enough to opine that

hurting, harassing, threatening or any such action toward another is acceptable in the name of

their cause.











Table 3-1 Participant descriptions

General Organizational Description Interviewee Position


International animal protection organization focused on ending the Staff
exploitation and abuse of animals Writer

Animal protection organization specialized in video documentation and
President
investigations


Animal protection organization focusing on animal abuse in agriculture General Counsel


Animal rights organization whose mission is to generate letter Pri
campaigns for animal issues

Grassroots organization devoted to reducing cruelty towards fur-bearing S
animals and to the abolition of the fur trade S


Animal advocacy organization that works to end animal abuse through
public education and advertisement campaigns, research and Executive Director
E. Executive Director
investigations, rescues, working with news media, and grassroots
activism


National organization dedicated to fighting animal cruelty by
conducting in-depth undercover investigations and reporting abuses to Founder and President
authorities for prosecution.

National animal rights organization advocating plant-based diets for Prei
President
animal protection and organizer of a large animal rights conference


National animal advocacy organization dedicated to abolishing Executive Director
vivisection










Table 3-1. Continued

International animal advocacy organization that works toward the goal
of freeing animals from cruelty and institutionalized exploitation around Legal Director
the world


Nonprofit organization dedicated to ending the chaining of dogs Founder

Executive Vice President for
Large animal protection organization in the U.S. Ext i
External Affairs

Organization dedicated to ending the use of nonhuman primates in
biomedical and harmful behavioral experimentation

Senior Director of Program
Oldest animal welfare organization in the U.S. o o
Counsel

National provider of emergency animal sheltering and disaster relief P t ad
President and CEO
services

Charitable organization dedicated to reducing the the negative inflictions L
Legal Associate
that humans have upon animals


National farm animal protection organization President and Co-Founder

National animal advocacy organization whose primary campaign areas
currently include animals used in entertainment, captive exotic animals, Director of Legal and Government
companion animals, compassionate consumerism, farmed animals, and Affairs & General Council
wildlife protection.









CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS

Communication Efforts About AETA

The results detailed in this chapter were gathered through the participation of

representatives of 18 law-abiding animal advocacy organizations.

The Shunning of Extremism

The tragedy of 9/11 and the subsequent "War on Terror" have unquestionably impacted

America. More than what could have once been considered paranoid theory, today, as revealed

in Chapter 2, the confluence of the terms "animal rights extremism" and "terrorism" is a reality.

Therefore, all interviewees were asked whether their organizations make an effort to separate

themselves from animal liberation groups that employ violence, harassment or other illegal

tactics. Six participants responded with vehement affirmation and proceeded to explain their

organizations' opposition to and criticism of violence. Of those, the vice president of external

affairs for the largest animal protection organization in the United States said that peaceful civil

disobedience is not something to which the organization objects. Six other organizational

representatives stated that their organizations engage in and promote only nonviolent activities.

For example, the executive director of an animal advocacy organization that works to end animal

abuse through public education and advertisement campaigns, research and investigations,

rescues, working with news media, and grassroots activism elaborated as follows:

We focus on the tactics that we find effective. We don't spend time publicly bashing or
publicly criticizing organizations who use such tactics, but it is not something that we
publicly will support either. We sort of focus on work that we feel is effective in opening
the hearts and minds of consumers and we think that certain acts of vandalism or certain
acts of intimidation do more harm to the movement than good. So those aren't actions that
we choose to participate in or that we even chose or actions that we encourage our
members to participate in.









The president and co-founder of the nation's leading farm animal protection organization

was the only respondent to state that they neither actively associate nor dissociate with any other

animal activist group. Along with two of the above-mentioned organizations that solely promote

nonviolent activities, the same interviewee expressed the notion that the organization is more

concerned with focusing on its own actions rather than paying attention to what other animal

advocacy groups do.

The president of an animal rights organization dedicated to generating letter campaigns for

animal issues described the meticulous attention that is exerted in making it clear that the

organization does not endorse in any violence, harassment or threats in any of its campaigns.

However, the same participant explained that she inherited the role of SHAC spokesperson since

the SHAC 7 were sentenced to prison. This is because the president of this organization believes

that the SHAC 7 "did nothing more than design and implement a Web site" and "they themselves

are not in jail for committing vandalism or any of the crimes described on their Web site."

Four organizations stated that they do not make an effort to separate themselves from

animal liberation groups. Three of those four explained the distinction between being associated

with those who commit illegal activities and actually committing acts of violence upon people.

For example, the director of an organization dedicated to ending the use of nonhuman primates

in biomedical and harmful behavioral experimentation stated that the organization does not

engage in any illegal activities. However, on multiple occasions the respondent compared the

unlawful act of breaking into a laboratory and stealing animals used for experimentation with the

once-prohibited liberation of Jewish people during World War II: "If you had gone in and

opened the gates to Auschwitz and let the Jews out, that would have been illegal. And you would

have probably been shot. You would not have made it to trial."









Similarly, the president of a national animal rights organization dedicated to advocating

plant-based diets and organizing a large animal rights conference stated that the organization

does not engage in any illegal acts with the exception of civil disobedience. However, the

interviewee also expressed that the organization understands what could drive certain animal

extremists. Therefore, the organization does not dictate to nor make judgments on others

becauseue it is such a personal thing... just imagine, never mind your son or daughter, but if

your family dog was being vivisected or slaughtered you probably would not react very

rationally."

The founder and president of a national organization dedicated to conducting in-depth

undercover investigations and reporting abuses to authorities for prosecution was one of the four

organizations to state that a separation effort from animal liberation groups was not pursued.

This respondent declared the following:

I am not opposed to liberation of animals as I would not be opposed [to] liberation of
slaves during the 1800s. I am opposed to just random bombings or arson or anything where
people or animals could be hurt because it would set the whole movement back
decades....I am very much for the liberation of oppressed animals-animals being
exploited, animals being tortured or used for whatever reason.

Also, this interviewee was the only one who questioned the veracity of the notion that animal

activists rather than opposition infiltrators are responsible for the apparent rise in extremely

violent tactics that have the potential to harm people.

Of notable mention is the fact that a spokesperson for a grassroots organization devoted to

reducing cruelty toward fur-bearing animals and to the abolition of the fur trade was one of the

above-mentioned organizations that separate themselves from extremists by only engaging in

and promoting only nonviolent activities. This is because that spokesperson was the only one

within that group who made a distinction between illegal and immoral acts by saying that

immoral acts, which include all kinds of violence, are different from such actions as liberating









animals. The participant explained that although the group does not engage in nor endorse the

illegal removal of animals from animal enterprises, a line is drawn between stealing property and

actually harming people.

Lack of Awareness

An essential factor in evaluating the communication efforts employed in any situation in

which the actions of some could negatively affect an entire movement is the level of awareness

maintained by the group as a whole. Of the 18 interviewed organizations, only two were aware

of AETA when it was in its original form, S. 1926. Sixteen organizations became aware of

AETA after it was amended and reintroduced in the Senate as S. 3880. Of those, two

organizations admitted that they learned about AETA after September 30, 2006, the date on

which AETA passed with unanimous support in the Senate.

The two organizations that knew of AETA's existence before the amendment was passed

carried out individual efforts to oppose it. For instance, the interviewee representing the nation's

largest animal protection organization stated that the organization learned that Congress had an

interest in animal enterprise terrorism issues when the Senate committee hearings on eco-

terrorism were held. In response, the organization communicated with committee staff and

committee members on the issues that were raised during the hearings.

The other organization that knew of the S. 1926 version of AETA was a national animal

advocacy organization dedicated to abolishing vivisection. That organization's executive director

explained that S. 1926 was so blatantly unconstitutional that the organization was confident that

it would not pass. The participant also stated that in the event that it did pass, "it would be struck

down immediately when somebody tried to apply it." In response to the reintroduction of AETA

as S. 3880, this organization drafted a general letter of opposition to the Senate Judiciary

Committee before it held the vote on S. 3880.









One idea that emerged in relation to the level-of-knowledge aspect of the overall issue of

AETA is that small groups were relying on large groups with more resources and a national

presence to play the role of watchdog on behalf of the smaller animal advocacy groups. This

notion was put forth by two participants representing groups that did not learn about AETA

before it was reintroduced in the Senate as S. 3880. One of those two participants, a

spokesperson for an anti-fur grassroots organization explained the concept as follows:

Well, I know we were taken really off guard by how quickly [AETA] passed. I can't
remember exactly the chronology but I know when it first came up, we started trying to
organize our members to oppose the bill just like all these other big groups were, and I
think the small groups like ours, we were really counting on some of the bigger
organizations that have lobbyists and that have dedicated staff to deal with legislation. I
think we were really hoping they would put up the big resistance, and so before anybody
knew it, it was passed.

Enacted Communication Efforts

As discussed above, within the interviewed organizations, the large-scale communication

efforts that were enacted in response to AETA took place after S. 1926 was re-introduced as S.

3880. Representatives of 12 organizations stated that their organizations sent action alerts to their

members, and four organizations posted information about AETA on their Web sites. Both

organizations that admittedly learned about AETA after S. 3880 had passed in the Senate sent

memoranda to members of the House of Representatives in which they expressed their

opposition to H.R. 4239: The nation's oldest animal welfare organization sent two memoranda

prior to the November 13 vote in the House of Representatives and a charitable organization

dedicated to reducing the negative inflictions of humans upon animals launched a fax blast on

the day that AETA passed in the House.

Among participants, conventional media relations efforts were not abundant. Thirteen

organizational representatives stated that their organizations did not enact any mass media

campaigns. A staff writer for an international animal protection organization dedicated to ending









the exploitation and abuse of animals stated that he was uncertain about whether the organization

had sent out any press releases. The interviewee representing a national organization dedicated

conducting in-depth undercover animal cruelty investigations asserted that the organization sent

out national media releases, but it did not receive any inquiries from journalists. By contrast, the

largest animal protection organization in the United States did not enact a media campaign about

AETA, but it responded to media inquiries. Similarly, the senior director of program counsel for

the oldest animal welfare organization in the United States was the guest of a local call-in radio

show. Finally, the legal director for an international animal advocacy organization that works

toward the goal of freeing animals from cruelty and institutionalized exploitation around the

world wrote an article for a monthly publication focusing on vegetarianism, environmentalism,

animal advocacy, and social justice, as well as for an online newsletter focusing on civil rights.

Perceptions of AETA

The communication strategies enacted by an organization are, more often than not, related

directly to the organization's insight about an issue. All participants were asked to provide an

opinion about what could have been AETA's intended effects from the point of view of the Act's

sponsors. In addition, all interviewees were asked to describe their organizations' reactions to the

manner in which AETA passed. Rather than introducing speculation to the study, the value of

such queries was in abetting the effort to uncover some of the many factors that could have been

involved within each organization's choice of communications about AETA.

AETA's intended effects

Eight interviewees asserted that AETA's sponsors were probably focused on responding to

the lobbyists for the animal use industries that have been threatened by animal liberation

extremists by providing those industries with federal protection. Four participants stated that

AETA was written in a certain way to specifically intimidate animal activists in general.









Similarly, the founder of a nonprofit organization dedicated to ending the chaining of dogs

acknowledged that AETA was ostensibly reasonable, but also stated that there seem to be hidden

negative intentions.

On the other hand, two respondents said that they understood that AETA was written to

specifically halt the operations of SHAC. The president and CEO of the nation's leading

provider of emergency animal sheltering and disaster relief services declared that AETA's

intended effects were not to take away First Amendment rights, but mentioned that the wording

of the act was so vague that it is possible to interpret the law in that way. Two organizational

representatives chose not to answer that question because they felt that they could not speak for

the intention of others.

AETA's overreaching effects were discussed by two of the participants who stated that

AETA's purpose seems to have been to protect the interests of the animal use industries. The

interviewee representing the oldest animal welfare organization in the nation said that, as it was

introduced and even as it was passed, AETA "did a lot more than it intended to do." Similarly,

the representative of a national organization that organizes a large animal rights conference

expressed the feeling that because the organization's staff has such strong faith in the American

justice system, they thought that the Patriot Act was the limit to any violation to constitutionally

protected freedoms:

We had no idea. We just did not believe, we did not allow our consciousness to accept that
our government, our Congress could pass something so hideous as the Animal Enterprise
Terrorism Act. So I guess we were kind of in a state of blissful ignorance in which we will
not be in the future.

Aside from the inquiry discussed above, nine interviewees were specifically asked if they

thought that AETA was written with the intention of affecting law-abiding animal advocacy

organizations. Of those, four stated that they thought that hindering animal advocacy









organizations in general rather than only affecting extremists was a deliberate action. The

remaining five respondents answered that they did not think that the writers of AETA were

intentionally affecting law-abiding animal activists. Those same participants alluded to the

notion that some might think that hindering law-abiding groups was a deliberate action because

there was not a substantial amount of care throughout the legislative process focused on

protecting activists' rights. Of these five interviewees, the one speaking on behalf of the largest

animal protection organization in the United States declared that the legislators involved in

facilitating the passing of AETA stated that affecting law-abiding animal advocacy groups was

not their intention. Therefore, as an organization they chose to "take [the legislators'] word" so

that the organization can continue to work with the legislators on other issues.

The notion that AETA could serve in an effort to bundle the animal activism movement

with the term "terrorism" is an overarching theme in this study. Three organizational

representatives referred to the above-mentioned concept as essentially a "public relations

campaign" enacted by those putting forth that effort. One of those three participants was a staff

writer for an international animal protection organization. The interviewee supported that notion

by referring to an allegedly leaked pamphlet from the National Rifle Association in which animal

rights activists were portrayed as terrorists. Similarly, the founder and president of a national

organization dedicated to investigating animal cruelty explained that animal advocacy in general

has become combined with the destructive actions of the ALF and the ELF, yet AETA solely

targets animal groups. Another interviewee stated that the current state of AETA is reminiscent

of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) act of 1970, which was enacted

to target organized crime in the United States.









A theme that emerged in two of the interviews is the idea that AETA sets a precedent for

taking away the rights of protesters in general. The participant representing an animal rights

organization dedicated to generating letter campaigns for animal issues avowed the following:

"Anyone who values First Amendment rights should be worried; what people feared could

happen with the Patriot Act is happening with animal rights activists." A staff writer for an

international animal protection organization echoed those thoughts by saying, "[w]e deserve

better from our leaders and our country."

A related theme was voiced by three of the interviewees when they each declared that there

is no need for AETA. That notion was illustrated by the interviewee from an animal rights

organization dedicated to enacting letter-writing campaigns:

Disciplinary measures already exist. Laws are in the books for vandalism, property loss,
criminal trespass, harassment, assault, and bodily injury. We have laws for those at Federal
and State levels. So if a person who happens to be an animal advocate breaks one of these
laws, then they should be arrested for vandalism, not terrorism.

AETA's passing

As discussed in Chapter 2, AETA was passed in a stealthy manner. When asked about

what they would attribute to the quick passing of AETA, 14 participants cited a concerted effort

to characterize AETA as being reasonable and uncontroversial in order to fast-track the bill so

that it would undergo minimal debate. A legal associate for a charitable organization dedicated to

reducing the negative inflictions that humans have upon animals asserted the following:

Well, sometimes that will happen with legislation and in terms of AETA there [was] heavy
influence by big money industry groups and their lobby, so just by way of trying to push it
through without debate, that's the reason why it was passed. There was no significant
notice, very limited debate at least on the House level. I know that there was maybe fifteen
minutes of debate. So there really wasn't full scale hearing or debate on the issues. And it
was essentially just pushed through by the sponsors. And most likely that was the only way
they were going to get it through because the legislation itself was extremely controversial.
Then we believe that if there had been a full scale debate, the legislation would not have
passed through like it did.









Three participants ascribed the event to being a part of the terrorism bandwagon effect.

More specifically, one interviewee elaborated in this fashion: "AETA is packaged in a very sexy

way and it basically says, 'we are going to crack down on these domestic terrorists.' You put the

word 'terrorist' on anything and anyone is afraid to oppose it." As a further illustration, a

spokesperson for an anti-fur grassroots organization pointed out that for politicians pursuing

reelection, opposing what is "dubbed an anti-terrorism act, even though it has nothing to do with

terrorism" is an unpopular move.

The vice president for external affairs for the largest animal protection organization in the

United States illustrated what the organization determined to be "misplaced priorities" in

Congress. This explanation began with the description of a "very popular bipartisan bill

distracting the penalties for illegal dog fighting and cockfighting," which, like AETA, had been

assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. The animal fighting bill had 324 co-sponsors in the

House of Representatives and a hearing was held on the issue, but the then Chairman of the

committee, James Sensenbrenner, "refused to move the bill past this committee." According to

the interviewee, the animal fighting bill was supported by 400 law enforcement groups, the

National Chicken Counsel, USDA and every animal welfare group because it was a "very

modest, bipartisan, popular effort." The participant summarized the organization's arrival at the

conclusion that Congress had "misplaced priorities" by questioning why one would actively

block a very popular bill while simultaneously making a clear effort to facilitate the passing of

AETA, a bill that had less support and was "much more controversial and generating discussion

about civil liberties and appropriate tactics."

An additional emerging theme from the participants' statements regarding AETA's quick

passing was that the turn of events reflected the misuse of the American legislative system,









particularly in the House of Representatives. Five interviewees addressed the claim that there

were only about six people on the floor at the time AETA was passed by a voice vote in the

House of Representatives and four of those brought up the fact that only Rep. Dennis Kucinich

(D-OH) spoke in opposition to AETA. The executive director of a national animal advocacy

organization against vivisection detailed the experience from the point of view of a private

citizen:

I called my representative's office after I heard what the vote was and what had happened,
and I said, "why weren't you there?" I was told right out that it was scheduled for the
evening-that there was no reason to think that there were any votes being called in the
middle of the day.

Similarly, the interviewee representing an animal cruelty investigation organization uttered the

following phrase: "Shame on America."

Along the same lines, the organizer of a large animal rights conference actually disputed

the statement that AETA was passed by unanimous consent, "because that phrase implies

awareness," and there was probably no awareness of the bill or its language in the Senate, and

the House was misled about when the vote would take place. The participant concluded that

statement by mentioning what other bills were passed by voice vote in the House of

Representatives during the session in which AETA passed. This included items such as

"enlarging, adding a few acres to a national park or transferring some fishing rights to an Indian

tribe, you know the things that do not deserve prolonged debate."

In Retrospect

When asked if in retrospect they thought that their organization should have or could have

communicated differently regarding their positions on AETA, 10 participants said "no." Of

those, the one interviewee representing an organization dedicated to investigating animal cruelty

elaborated by stating that the organization did everything that it could have done. Furthermore,









the person speaking on behalf of an international animal protection organization asserted that

AETA was just too big an undertaking for the organization. In contrast, four organizational

representatives declared that they should or could have enacted different communication efforts.

In particular, the spokesperson for an anti-fur organization said that the group could have

organized a demonstration and alerted the media in order to attract attention to the topic.

Likewise, the president of a letter-writing-focused animal rights organization declared that

AETA did not come to the media's attention because the animal advocacy movement was not

sufficiently persistent.

Four interviewees declared that their organizations' communication efforts regarding

AETA could only have been different under dissimilar circumstances. Specifically, three

participants stated that their efforts could have been expanded if they had known about AETA

for a longer period of time than they did. Also, the president and CEO of an emergency response

organization for animal issues asserted that the organization might have heightened its direct

lobbying effort without involving its members if it had known how quickly AETA was going to

move through the legislative process.

Impact of AETA

Uncertainty

As detailed in Chapter 2 and discussed in earlier portions of this chapter, whether AETA's

broad language will hinder the activities of non-extremist animal activists is unclear. All

participants were asked if the passing of AETA had affected their organization up to the point of

the interview. The unanimous answer was "no." Nevertheless, when asked if they thought that

any future campaigns could be affected, seven interviewees asserted that it would depend on how

the law will be implemented.









When asked if they thought that law-abiding animal rights and animal protection groups in

general understood the potential effects that AETA could have on their organizations, ten

interviewees responded by saying "no" as well as asserting the belief that, even though AETA

has been signed into law, most animal activists still did not know how AETA could affect them.

Three participants stated that animal advocacy groups in general understood how AETA could

affect them. Meanwhile, one interviewee opined that the level of understanding an animal

activism group has about AETA depends on how much the group knows about AETA's

background. Along similar lines, another interviewee said that animal advocacy groups may have

initially thought that AETA was ineffective (and thereby worth ignoring), but the same groups

probably became worried as it progressed through the system.

In response to the above-discussed inquiry, the president of an animal protection

organization specializing in video documentation and investigation stated that whether they

understood it or not, AETA was definitely designed to affect law-abiding animal rights and

animal protection groups. However, the participant also explained that there are only two reasons

to be intimidated by AETA: fear that the law will be misused and intention to commit a criminal

act. Unfortunately, the above-mentioned concept was inadvertently not discussed with one of the

organizational representatives.

Hysteria

Another emerging theme throughout the interview process was the idea that AETA has had

a somewhat chilling effect among individual animal activists because people do not want to be

arrested. For instance, a legal associate for an animal-focused charitable organization explained

that the organization's members have voiced their worry and one undercover investigator in

particular is "extremely concerned about the effects of this legislation." Similarly, the executive

director of an animal advocacy organization focused on ending animal abuse said that the









organization has been doing "damage control" to assure activists that they do not have as much

to worry about as they might believe.

Another participant echoed the above-mentioned sentiment as follows: "...let's say I put

out a letter campaign and so many people send letters that a CEO's e-mail system breaks or shuts

down. Is that a new form of harassment under AETA that's going to send me to jail?"

Wait and See

All interviewees were asked about their organizations' intentions to continue

communicating their positions on AETA. Fifteen participants affirmed that their organizations

would continue to communicate about AETA. The participant representing an animal emergency

services organization stated that they would acknowledge their position on AETA if they were

approached, but also said that they would not take any action related to AETA because at the

point of the interview they were going to "wait and see what actually happens." On the other

hand, two participants stated that their organizations would not continue to communicate about

AETA because they did not want to fuel the hysteria that has developed around AETA.

One of the 15 organizational representatives who avowed their organizations' continuing

communication efforts about AETA, the senior director of program counsel for the nation's

oldest animal welfare organization, said that a legal firm had been hired to determine the exact

level of threat that AETA presented to the organization. This means that the organization might

become involved with litigation once the full implications of the law are determined.

There is Hope

Regardless of AETA's past, two interviewees expressed the idea that the outlook for

animal advocacy groups as a result of AETA is not filled with doom. The president and CEO of

a national provider of emergency services for animal said that the United States was founded

with the pursuit of the rights that were eventually granted within the First Amendment and









expressed the belief that AETA's true test will be "how it will hold up in court." On a similar

note, the executive vice president for external affairs at the nation's largest animal protection

organization asserted the belief that AETA can be amended to "correct the flaws in the

language" because "the leadership of Congress has changed hands and the committee chairmen

are much friendlier to animal issues, also to other social issues."









CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Two-way Communication between Activists and Corporations

In her case study, Anderson (1992) assessed that two-way symmetrical public relations,

instead of press agentry, would have been the best way to prevent a corporate crisis situation

from developing as a result of activist communication efforts. Dozier and Lauzen (2000)

emphasized that, because of their many linkages to the public relations profession, as well as the

corporations that fund the research, scholars in public relations have developed an "intellectual

myopia" (p. 7) when studying activist publics. This is because scholars study activism from the

point of view of the organization being affected by the social movement rather than from the

activist perspective (Dozier & Lauzen, 2000). The same theoretical study also addresses the

notion that activist publics cannot be compared to normative publics:

Unlike corporations that essentially buy the loyalty of their employees, activist
organizations have little to force the compliance of their members to the win-win solutions
they negotiate. Savvy activist leaders know this. Members of activist organizations are
primarily loyal to a larger social movement or "cause," not the transitory organization that
serves as a vehicle for their passion. (Dozier and Lauzen, 2000, p. 14)

That assertion is preceded by the example of one group of activists pursuing immediate, radical

goals (Greenpeace) and unfortunately did not mention the clout that can become developed by

activist groups that purposely align themselves with measures that are reasonable to the

mainstream public. These activist groups are often successful in reaching and garnering

significant support for win-win solutions.

For instance, HSUS worked with two well-known food chains to modify the corporations'

animal welfare demands from their suppliers. On March 22, 2007, celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck

announced that his companies would be enacting strict animal welfare standards. An article in

The New York Times summarized the modifications:









He [Wolfgang Puck] has directed his three companies, which together fed more than 10
million people in 2006, to buy eggs only from chickens not confined to small cages. Veal
and pork will come from farms where animals are not confined in crates, and poultry meat
will be bought from farmers using animal welfare standards higher than those put forth by
the nation's largest chicken and turkey producers. Mr. Puck has also vowed to use only
seafood whose harvest does not endanger the environment or deplete stocks. (Severson,
2007, 3)

The following week, on March 27, 2007, Burger King (BK) announced that it would begin

buying some eggs and pork from suppliers that did not confine their animals in cages and crates,

as well as, when available, choosing suppliers of chicken that use "'controlled-atmospheric

stunning,' rather than electric shocks to knock birds unconscious before slaughter" (Martin,

2007, T 2). It is important to note that PETA had a high-profile campaign against BK named

"Murder King," which ended in 2001 after the corporation agreed to demand that its suppliers

adhere to some of the activist group's proposed animal welfare modifications. The campaign's

communication efforts featured several telephone conversations among PETA staff, press

releases, provocative advertisements, celebrity support and "more than 800 protests at Burger

King restaurants worldwide" (Murder King Campaign, 2007, 1). PETA continued dialogue

with BK after the campaign officially ended and praised the corporation for its 2007

announcement of changes.

According to a featured article in The New York Times about BK's 2007 modifications,

HSUS "began its own efforts to encourage Burger King to improve its farm animal standards"

(Martin, 2007, 20) about one year prior to the announcement. The same article addressed the

evidently increasing strength of, and support for, the efforts of law-abiding animal advocacy

groups: "Burger King's announcement is the latest success for animal welfare advocates, who

were once dismissed as fringe groups, but are increasingly gaining mainstream victories"

(Martin, 2007, T 8).









On March 29, 2007, the Animal Agriculture Alliance (AAA) issued a press release titled

"Puck Falls Prey to Misdirection from Activist Groups" in response to the announcement made

by Wolfgang Puck a week earlier. In it, AAA referred to HSUS as having misled the celebrity

chef in an inappropriate manner:

He also announced that he had teamed with the vegan-driven Humane Society of the
United States (HSUS) to adopt its proposed farm animal care agenda. This change will
stop his company from serving meat, eggs and other products from animals that aren't
raised to standards approved by animal rights groups-groups that believe we shouldn't
eat any animal products at all. ( 1)

This is one possible example of the defensive sentiment that can be developed by corporate

entities and industries when they are negatively affected by activist groups. Similarly, AAA

featured Ricardo Solano Jr. as the keynote speaker at its stakeholders' summit, which was held

March 19-21, 2007, in Arlington, Virginia. Mr. Solano "successfully tried [emphasis added] one

of the first prosecutions under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, which charged... [SHAC]

with terrorizing an [HLS] as well as several pharmaceutical, financial, and insurance companies

that did business with it" (AETA Sends a Clear Signal Says Leading Prosecutor, 2007, 2).

A press release issued on March 23, 2007, by meatingplace.com, an online community for

red meat and poultry processors in North America, publicized Solano's talk at the AAA summit.

Although the headline for the press release used the term "animal rights extremists," the first

paragraph did not explicitly make that distinction:

Federal prosecutor Richard [sic] Solano, who once served in the Terrorism Unit at the U.S.
attorney's office, served notice to animal rights activists that recent passage of the Animal
Enterprise Terrorism Act means the federal government has every intention of prosecuting
activists who intimidate, stalk and harass with the intention of shuttering farms, ranches,
research labs and other facilities that use and care for animals. (Gregerson, 2007)

This is noteworthy because, as addressed in Chapter 2, AETA's use of the phrase "interfere

with" lacks specificity to the point that the precise actions mentioned in the quote above

(intimidating, stalking and harassing) can, depending on interpretation, occur through









constitutionally protected events such as demonstrations in front of executives' homes or even e-

mail campaigns that disable company servers.

Mainstream vs. Extremists in the Animal Advocacy Movement

The fact that social movements have different groups pursuing goals ranging from

extremely radical to overly moderate can be a benefit to the mainstream-focused groups within

any given movement because their objectives are comparatively more reasonable to those

pursued by the radical groups (Derville, 2005). However, such is apparently not the case with

AETA because the actions of a few extremists could potentially become a heavy hit for the entire

cause. This study's results shed light on one of the many possible explanations by revealing that,

while all are opposed to violent activities that could potentially harm people, only six out of the

18 interviewed organizations make an overtly forceful attempt to shun the animal liberation

groups that employ and support violence aimed at property destruction, but can also harm people

under the wrong circumstances.

The concept that the incidents caused by animal liberation extremists may serve to link the

animal rights movement with terrorism did not begin with AETA. For example, in his study

about the framing of the debate over animal experimentation, Kruse (2001) found that news

magazines and news television programming from 1984 to 1993 mostly presented opponents of

vivisection negatively, with the terrorist/criminal frame being presented most often.

SHAC's Professed Legality

As revealed by the statements of Senator Inhofe (outlined in the section titled "About

AETA" in Chapter 2) and confirmed by some participants, there is an understanding (albeit

scattered) that AETA was principally created in response to SHAC USA. In his study about

terrorism, interest group politics and public policy, Congleton (2002) avowed that there is a









largely lucid difference between those who are considered to be terrorists and the groups that

convey terrorist messages:

[T]he distinction between terrorist networks and ordinary interest group politics is
generally clear. Although both types of groups send political messages and in some cases
may advocate similar public policies or forms of governance, ordinary interest groups
make their case with words rather than with violence. As a consequence, the losses
generated by ordinary interest-group politics tend to be much smaller than those associated
with terrorism. Because of the extreme costs of terrorist acts, those acts, in spite of their
political motivation, are and should be treated as crimes. Consequently, even in the U.S.
context, where an absolute right of political speech is affirmed by the First Amendment,
some methods [emphasis in original] of transmitting political sentiments are illegal,
although the messages themselves are not. (p. 65)

As stated in Chapter 2 and addressed by one interviewee, SHAC USA specifically

employed what it considered to be its First Amendment rights to inform the world about which

people worked for companies that were associated with HLS in business and what events had

taken place in attempting to "Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty." On October 3, 2006, the day that

his sentence was to begin, the daily radio and television news program "Democracy Now!"

interviewed Andrew Stepanian, one of the SHAC 7. When the interviewer (Goodman, 2006)

asked Stepanian about the claim that SHAC had crossed the line between constitutionally

protected rights and violence, the interviewee stated the following:

[W]hen it comes down to it, at the end of the day, no one was hurt. SHAC USA, on their
website, never advocated for anyone to be hurt. SHAC USA, at the bottom of every page,
when you load up the html, always had a disclaimer that said that we do not advocate any
form of violent activity, and in fact, we urge people that when they write letters or they
send emails, that they're polite, they're to the point, they're not threatening in nature. And,
obviously, all that happened on the SHAC USA website was a legal form of reporting. It
wasn't, "You go and go do this or go annoy these people or go harass these people," but
rather, "These are the people that are supporting this laboratory. This is how they put bread
on the table. And this is how this company exists ... ." Whether or not people took that
information and did less than savory things or things that even made myself feel
uncomfortable, well, that wasn't necessarily the business of SHAC USA to be responsible
for. The only business that they had was reporting on the facts. And all that, no matter how
uncomfortable you might say it is, is protected underneath the First Amendment. (T 20)









Stepanian's lawyer, Andrew Erba, was also part of the above-referenced interview. In it, Erba

avowed that many activist groups are affected by an issue that has arisen with the popularity of

the Internet because several Web sites "say things which may be somewhat rhetorical, may be

somewhat passionate...." Erba continued to ask, "as a result of posting that, if someone should

act on that, should that website, should that activist group be held responsible? I think not, under

the First Amendment" (Goodman, 2006, 24).

The earlier-referenced press release issued by AAA after Solano's keynote speech featured

AAA's account of the prosecutor's explanation of America's necessity of AETA: "Solano

explained that the recent amendments to the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 explicitly

include acts like intimidation, stalking and harassment designed to put an end to farms, ranches,

researchers and others who use and care for animals" (AETA Sends a Clear Signal Says Leading

Prosecutor, 2007, 2). In contrast, EJA claims that there are laws that "already exist to protect

industries against illegal actions, regardless of who commits the acts" (AETA Talking Points,

N.D.) and that AETA's penalties are remarkably severe, considering what the U.S. Sentencing

Commission revealed to be the 2005 median sentences in federal courts for the following illegal

activities:

* larceny = 4 months
* embezzlement = 4 months
* sexual abuse = 4.5 years
* manslaughter = 3 years

As avowed by EJA, "AETA proposes one year for an offense involving no threatened or actual

economic damage or bodily harm, and up to 20 years for economic damage! [boldface in

original]" (AETA Talking Points, N.D.)









The Legislative Process for AETA

Regardless of its moral implications, it is no secret that lobbying efforts play a large role in

America's Congressional operations. Therefore, it is only logical for a corporation or even an

entire industry to exert a great amount of support for a piece of legislation that can positively

affect its situation. For this reason, it is understandable that AETA could have been a heavily

lobbied effort on the part of animal use industries that might feel threatened by animal liberation

extremists. Nevertheless, allowing AETA to undergo serious congressional debate could have

ensured that the bill only affected extremists.

Inviting Dr. Jerry Vlasak to speak on behalf of SHAC during the second hearing of the

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works' investigation into eco-terrorism

could be considered inappropriate for a number of reasons. In particular, Dr. Vlasak's ideology

was too extreme to accurately represent not only the animal activist movement, but arguably

even SHAC, which, as claimed in the previous section by one of the SHAC 7 members, did not

advocate the use of violence upon people on its Web site. Dr. Vlasak's remarks could have

understandably horrified members of Congress to the point that the passage of AETA, even in its

early form, could have seemed urgent enough to pass without detailed inspection to ensure that

civil liberties were fully protected.

Next, as first mentioned in Chapter 2, the Committee on the Judiciary in the House of

Representatives held a hearing on H.R. 4239 before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and

Homeland Security on May 23, 2006. Inviting Will Potter, a journalist who is neither a First

Amendment scholar nor a lawyer, to testify against AETA's potential unconstitutionality was an

ineffective way to make certain that H.R. 4239's flaws were equitably discussed. This in no way

questions Mr. Potter's merit or ability; however, it addresses the point that a lawyer would have

been a more effective witness in addressing concerns about AETA's constitutionality.









The changes that were made to AETA (from S. 1926 to S. 3880) were largely

accomplished through the collaborative efforts of the ACLU and the staff members of the Senate

Judiciary Committee. According to Marvin Johnson (personal communication, April 6, 2007), a

legislative counsel for the ACLU, the second letter issued to members of Congress by the ACLU

(Fredrickson and Johnson, 2006) featured a more agreeable tone than the first letter of opposition

in an effort to not harm a mutually beneficial relationship among the two parties. Mr. Johnson

also explained that Dr. Vlasak's testimony hindered the ACLU's ability to press for the

additional changes that were suggested by the ACLU and HSUS because the testimony had been

disturbing to members of Congress.

Several interviewees summarized the order of events in which AETA passed in the House

of Representatives as being a salient example of a questionable aura in relation to AETA's

sponsors. The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Sensenbrenner, enacted a

"motion to suspend the rules" to pass S. 3880 by a voice vote. As avowed by the EJA, AETA

was placed on the suspension calendar late on Friday, November 10, 2006, and scheduled for

6:30 p.m. on Monday, November 13 (AETA Report, 2006). However, while AETA-opposing

groups enacted their lobbying efforts on that Monday, the voice vote took place, as evidenced in

the Congressional Record, from about 2:46 to 3:16 p.m. During the short debate, Rep. Dennis

Kucinich articulated his concern for debating the bill under suspension:

This bill has an inherent flaw that I am pointing out. In addition, when that flaw is held up
against the constitutional mandate to protect freedom of speech, what we have done here is
we have crippled free expression. I am not and never have been in favor of anyone using a
cloak of free speech to commit violence .... On the other hand, the chairman's recitation
of the statements of animal rights activists, statements that I, myself, would disagree with,
those statements, in and of themselves, are constitutionally protected speech. Yet under
this bill they suddenly find themselves shifting into an area of doubt, which goes back to
my initial claim that this bill was written to have a chilling effect upon a specific type of
protest. (Cong. Rec., p. H8594)









In response to Rep. Kucinich's claim about AETA's defective status, Rep. Sensenbrenner

cited the ACLU's second letter about AETA in stating that the organization did not oppose the

bill and, while minor amendments were requested, "they did not express one concern about

constitutionally protected first amendment rights being infringed upon or jeopardized in any way

by this bill" (Cong. Rec., p. H8594). It is important to note that, while the ACLU's second letter

about AETA stated that the ACLU did not oppose the bill, it did not state that the ACLU

supported the bill either. Moreover, the letter specified that the suggested changes were

"necessary to make the bill less likely to chill or threaten freedom of speech" (Fredrickson and

Johnson, 2006, 1).

As revealed in Chapter 4, the concept that AETA is not only an animal rights issue, but a

civil liberties problem, was one of the emerging themes of this study. AETA's sponsors had the

opportunity to ameliorate the concerns of the AETA opposition by simply allowing the bill to

undergo markup so that the changes suggested by the ACLU and HSUS (listed in Chapter 2)

were enacted before it was voted on. Had that happened, AETA's questionable language could

have been corrected at least to the point that the HSUS, a large organization known for its

mainstream-oriented approach, would have dropped its opposition of the bill.

Amending AETA to make it certain that constitutionally protected rights (such as boycotts,

protests and whistleblowing) would not qualify as offenses, to abstain protection from unlawful

animal enterprises (such as dog-fighting rings or puppy mills), and to clarify that penalties only

apply to conspiracies would not have stopped extremists from being brought to justice, yet would

have closed the contention that the activities of law-abiding activists can be unjustly harmed.

The problem of using the suspension calendar to pass controversial legislation has been

contended since at least the 108th Congress. For instance, on June 25, 2003, the Committee on









Rules voted to have House Resolution 297 adopted. This resolution focused on "providing for

consideration of motions to suspend the rules" (H. Rep. No. 108-179, 2003). The statement by

James P. McGovern, the House Ranking Member, addressed a "serious concern about not only

the suspension process, but about the way [the] House [was] being managed" (T 3).

Additionally, AETA was not the first bill in the 109th Congress to be intended for the

House of Representatives' suspension calendar amid questioning of the appropriateness of such

action. H.R. 4975 was a House bill that raised objections of a similar nature to those brought up

by the AETA opposition. On April 13, 2006, Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House at the

time, and David Dreier, the then-Chairman for the Committee on Rules, were sent a letter by a

coalition of organizations consisting of the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy

21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, and the federation of state Public Interest

Research Groups (U.S. PIRG) (Various Organizations, 2006). In essence, the groups opined that

the bill in question failede] to effectively address the lobbying, ethics and corruption scandals in

Congress" (T 1) and had "been considered and reported by a number of House Committees

without making the necessary changes to strengthen the bill and effectively address the existing

problems" (T 3).

This alliance had previously expressed its strong opposition to H.R. 4975 to all members

of the House of Representatives via a letter dated March 26, 2006. However, this second letter

specifically stated that there had been "reports that consideration [was] being given to bringing

up this legislation, or portions of it, on the suspension calendar" (T 14). In that regard, the letter

continued to state the following: "There is no conceivable justification for placing these

controversial issues on the suspension calendar, which, as you know, is reserved for non-

controversial proposals" (T 14). According to the Congressional Record, several amendments









were made to H.R. 4975 on April 25, 2006, and, unlike AETA, the bill passed by a recorded vote

of 217 213 (H.R. 4975 Major Congressional Actions, 2006).

Information Dissemination by Animal Advocacy Groups

As summarized by one of this study's participants, the communication efforts that law-

abiding animal advocacy groups enacted in order to inform stakeholders about AETA's

potentially damaging language can be interpreted as being "too little too late." In particular, one

could also wonder if enacting aggressive news media campaigns addressing the potential First

and Fourteenth Amendment violations within AETA could have exerted enough pressure on

legislators to halt the passing of the bill until the corrections were made. The fact that AETA's

language was vague enough to make the prosecuting of constitutionally protected activities

contingent upon interpretation instead of impossible played a likely part in delaying the reaction

time for law-abiding animal advocacy groups because a considerable amount of time was

probably spent deciphering the meaning of the bill. However, considering the timing with which

most interviewees learned about AETA, it is evident that an effort was made in order to

disseminate information about AETA's potential effects upon animal activists.

It is important to note, however, that because most of the organizational representatives

participating in this study learned of AETA's existence after it was reintroduced as S. 3880, the

15 business days in between the dates of reintroduction and vote by unanimous consent in the

Senate could have conceivably been consumed by interpreting the bill. This notion was

confirmed by several participants. Consequently, in asking their members and constituents to

lobby in opposition to AETA's vague language at the grassroots level, many of the enacted

action alerts focused on stopping AETA from passing in the House of Representatives. This

created another possible roadblock in the effort to ensure that law-abiding animal advocacy

groups were not negatively affected by AETA because the House version of AETA, H.R. 4239,









contained more obvious unconstitutionalities. Therefore, without knowing that the motion to

suspend the rules in the House of Representatives was going to utilize the version that was

approved in the Senate, a number of action alerts directed people to speak in opposition to

AETA, but also featured bill number H.R. 4239. This may not have been a heavy blow to the

effort, but coupled with not only the fact that the House vote for AETA was held on the Monday

after Veterans Day weekend (a day on which numerous representatives were likely absent on

account of the long weekend), but also the earlier-than-scheduled voice vote, it is certainly

understandable that, to say the very least, this effort had many barriers.

A Chilling of Animal Activism Has Occurred

AETA is now public law number 109-374. The concern that AETA could wrongfully deny

constitutionally protected rights to law-abiding animal activists has been a contention addressed

throughout this study. As revealed in Chapter 4, the passing of AETA has not significantly

affected the efforts of law-abiding animal advocate groups that participated in this analysis.

However, it is also apparent that the lack of clarity surrounding AETA has brought about a level

of fear that has been sufficient to encourage non-extremist animal activist groups and individuals

to re-evaluate their connection to the cause itself.

Practical Implications

This analysis of the communication efforts enacted by law-abiding animal advocacy

groups in response to AETA has brought about several implications for not only those involved

in animal activism, but those involved in the study and practice of law, public relations, and

activism in America. The notion that scholars and students of law are relied upon to look out for,

uphold, and defend civil liberties so that such indeterminate legislation as AETA is not created

has been reinforced. This study has provided a detailed explanation of how, under the right









circumstances, ambiguous legislation can have an unnecessary effect of worry upon a social

movement.

In analyzing activist relations, scholars and practitioners of public relations must be aware

of the defensive sentiment that can emerge from corporate entities and industries when they

consider themselves negatively affected by activist groups. This mindset can become so strong

that a willingness to actually engage in dialogue with an activist public can be replaced with a

focus on offensive strategies. One possible example of this additional barrier to activist relations

can be seen in the unfavorable response that AAA had toward Wolfgang Puck's collaboration

with HSUS.

This study also suggests the important responsibility that all activist groups have of

remaining vigilant about not only their cause, but about all legislation that can affect those

advocating on behalf of the cause-even if a bill seems too broad to be of concern. In the event

that a piece of legislation that can negatively affect a the constitutionally protected rights of a

social movement is successfully introduced and carried through the legislative process, activist

groups within that movement must make sure to enact effective methods of communication

available to ensure that the greatest force has been applied to correcting the faults associated with

the proposed law.

The very core of animal liberation extremism, as avowed by the ALF, is based on

compassion toward helpless living creatures. That their frustrations or emotions have led animal

liberation extremists to take part in actions that should be brought to justice is unquestionable.

Yet, it is imperative that the animal liberation extremist sect keeps a clean track record in the

United States related to human injury. Even if just one zealot or a successful sabotage effort were

to so much as injure a person in the United States in the name of animal liberation, the entire









animal activist movement (regardless of ideology related to the terms "rights," "welfare,"

"protection," etc.) could be negatively affected by more than one arguably vague law.

Limitations

One limitation of this analysis is that the list of participants did not include every single

animal advocacy group listed in the AETA opposition list gathered by the EJA. Similarly, this

study's results were gathered from assessments based on organizational experiences with AETA.

This means that, although guarded against, a minimal level of speculation is inevitable. Another

limitation is that this study focused on the point of view of the AETA opposition.

Areas for Future Research

Several areas for future research have emerged through the development of this study.

First, the first interview was conducted exactly 13 weeks after AETA became law. It is also

notable that the holiday season fell during this period. Consequently, a follow-up study

conducted after the one-year mark of AETA's signing can either provide confirmation for or

disprove the notion that AETA has not affected the operations of law-abiding animal advocacy

groups.

Next, as alluded to in the above section on limitations, a cross-examination is in order in

which AETA supporters are interviewed about why they believe AETA was necessary,

questioned about their level of awareness about AETA's potentially damaging language, asked

about their communication efforts in response to AETA, and quizzed on the impact that AETA

has had upon their operations. Also, a valuable addition to the literature on this topic would be a

language study focusing on the framing of animal activism with relation to AETA specifically

looking at how often the terms extremism, radicalism or militant are included in referring to the

social movement.









Finally, the advent of the Internet has unquestionably affected American society. Another

worthwhile analysis would examine if, excluding the RICO act, any other social movements

have undergone experiences similar to AETA, particularly if the statements made on a Web site

rather than actions have led to the creation of federal legislation or convictions.

Conclusion

Even before AETA was introduced, animal protection and animal welfare groups made an

effort to become disassociated with the term animal rights. This effort could likely be based on

differences in ideology. However, there are numerous significant differences between radicals

and moderates within one social movement (Derville, 2005). Unfortunately, AETA has been

partly successful in grouping those involved with animal rights advocacy into one category, and

associating it with terrorism. Continually analyzing one's relationship to a movement could be

considered a not-so-detrimental occurrence as long as it is done with an air of self-protection,

which is, after all, human nature. Nevertheless, doing so in direct fear of governmental

prosecution should not happen in the United States, a country in which the very definition of

being American is based on civil liberties.












APPENDIX A
ANIMAL ENTERPRISE TERRORISM ACT (S. 3880)








S.3880--
S.3880
One Hundred Ninth Congress
ofthe
United States ofAmerica
AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the third day of January, two thousand and six
An Act
To provide the Department of Justice the necessary authority to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals committing
animal enterprise terror
Be it enacted by the Senate and House ofRepresentatives of the United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the 'Animal Enterprise Terronsm Act'.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF ECONOMIC DAMAGE TO ANIMAL ENTERPRISES
AND THREATS OF DEATH AND SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO
ASSOCIATED PERSONS.
(a) In General- Section 43 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows.
'Sec. 43. Force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises
'(a) Offense- Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any facility of
interstate or foreign commerce--
'(1) for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise; and
'(2) in connection with such purpose-
'(A) intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property (including animals or
records) used by an animal enterprise, or any real or personal property of a person or entity having a
connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise;
'(B) intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to that
person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or a spouse or
intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property
damage, criminal trespass, harassment, or intimidation; or
'(C) conspires or attempts to do so;
shall be punished as provided for in subsection (b).
'(b) Penalties- The punishment for a violation of section (a) or an attempt or conspiracy to violate subsection (a) shall
be--
'(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment not more than 1 year, or both, if the offense does not instill in
another the reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death and--
'(A) the offense results in no economic damage or bodily injury; or
'(B) the offense results in economic damage that does not exceed $10,000;
'(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, if no bodily injury occurs and--
'(A) the offense results in economic damage exceeding $10,000 but not exceeding $100,000; or
'(B) the offense instills in another the reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death;
'(3) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if--
'(A) the offense results in economic damage exceeding $100,000; or
'(B) the offense results in substantial bodily injury to another individual;
'(4) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, if--
'(A) the offense results in serious bodily injury to another individual; or
'(B) the offense results in economic damage exceeding $1,000,000, and
'(5) imprisonment for life or for any terms of years, a fine under this title, or both, if the offense results in
death of another individual.



















'(c) Restitution- An order of restitution under section 3663 or 3663A of this title with respect to a violation of this
section may also include restitution-
'(1) for the reasonable cost of repeating any experimentation that was interrupted or invalidated as a result of
the offense;
'(2) for the loss of food production or farm income reasonably attributable to the offense; and
'(3) for any other economic damage, including any losses or costs caused by economic disruption, resulting
from the offense.
'(d) Definitions- As used m this section--
'(1) the term 'animal enterprise' means--
'(A) a commercial or academic enterprise that uses or sells animals or animal products for profit,
food or fiber production, agriculture, education, research, or testing;
'(B) a zoo, aquarium, animal shelter, pet store, breeder, furrier, circus, or rodeo, or other lawful
competitive animal event; or
'(C) any fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences;
'(2) the term 'course of conduct' means a pattern of conduct composed of 2 or more acts, evidencing a
continuity of purpose;
'(3) the term 'economic damage'--
'(A) means the replacement costs of lost or damaged property or records, the costs of repeating an
interrupted or invalidated experiment, the loss of profits, or increased costs, including losses and
increased costs resulting from threats, acts or vandalism, property damage, trespass, harassment, or
intimidation taken against a person or entity on account of that person's or entity's connection to,
relationship with, or transactions with the animal enterprise; but
'(B) does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from
lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal
enterprise;
'(4) the term 'serious bodily injury' means--
'(A) injury posing a substantial risk of death;
'(B) extreme physical pain;
'(C) protracted and obvious disfigurement; or
'(D) protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; and
'(5) the term 'substantial bodily injury' means--
'(A) deep cuts and serious burs or abrasions;
'(B) short-term or nonobvious disfigurement;
'(C) fractured or dislocated bones, or torn members of the body;
'(D) significant physical pain;
'(E) illness;
'(F) short-term loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or
'(G) any other significant injury to the body.
'(e) Rules of Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed--
'(1) to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration)
protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution;
'(2) to create new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or free exercise
clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution, regardless of the point of view expressed, or to limit any
existing legal remedies for such interference; or
'(3) to provide exclusive criminal penalties or civil remedies with respect to the conduct prohibited by this
action, or to preempt State or local laws that may provide such penalties or remedies.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The item relating to section 43 m the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 3 of title
18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
'43. Force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises.'.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the Umted States and
President of the Senate.
END














APPENDIX B

ANIMAL ENTERPRISE TERRORISM ACT OPPOSITION LIST








EQUAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE





Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) Opposition List


Action for Animals Austin
Action for Animals Oakland
All Creatures
Alley Cat Allies
Alley Cat Rescue
Alliance for Animals Milwaukee
American Anti-Vivisection Society
Am. Society Prot. Animals (ASPCA)
Animal Acres
Animal Advocates of Inland NW
Animal Concerns
Animal Control Welfare Commission (SF)
Animal Defense League Arizona
Animal Friendly NYC
Animal Law Coalition
Animal Place
Animal Protection Institute
Animal Rights Alliance
Animal Rights Coalition (MN)
Animal Rights Hawaii
Animal Rights International
Animal Sanctuary Foundation
Animal Switchboard
Animal Voices Radio
Animal Welfare Advocacy
Animal Welfare Federation of CT
Animal Welfare Institute
Animals Voice
AnimaNaturalis Arizona
Anti-Fur Society
APES (Abolish Primate Experiments...)
Arizona State Univ. Animal Welfare Assn.
Association of Sanctuaries
Assn. of Veterinarians for Animal...
Avian Welfare Coalition
AZVegan.com
Baltimore Animal Rights Coalition
Bay Area Vegetarians
BEAR League
Big Cat Rescue
Break the Chains
Cats Meow Animal Shelter
Catskill Animal Sanctuary
Coalition for Animal Rights Education
Christian Vegetarian Association
Coal. for Action in the Interest of Animals
Coal. for NYC Animals
Coal. to Ban Horse-Drawn Carriages
Compassion over Camden
Compassion Over Killing
Compassionate Carnivores
Compassionate Consumers
Compassionate Cooks
Compassionate Living Project


DawnWatch
Defenders of the Wild
Dogs Deserve Better
Dogsters
East Bay Animal Advocates
Eastern Shore Sanctuary and Ed. Center
Equal Justice Alliance
FARM (Farm Animal Reform Movement)
Farm Sanctuary
Farmed Animal Net
Friends of Animals and Their Environment
Faunavision
Feathers Foundation
Florida Voices of Animals
Foster Parrots
Friends of Animals
Go Vegan TexasI Radio Collective
Great Lakes Rabbit Sanctuary
Green Bloggers
Herbivore Magazine
Humane Society of the US
In Defense of Animals
In Solidarity with Animals
Indy Media
International Anti-Fur Coalition
International Fund for Animal Welfare
Jewish Vegetarians of North America
K9 Magazine
Kinship Circle
Kitty Liberation Front
LA Lawyers for Animals
Last Chance for Animals
League of Humane Voters (USA)
League of Humane Voters CA
League of Humane Voters NY
Little Cats Rescue
Maryland Animal Advocates
Massachusetts Animal Rights Coalition
Memphis Area Animal Rights Activists
Mercy for Animals
MI Soc. Prevention Cruelty to Animals
Mid-Hudson Vegetarian Society
Midwest Avian Adoption & Rescue Serv.
Mobilization for Animals Pennsylvania
Music United for Animals
National Anti-Vivisection Society
National Lawyers Guild
National Resource Defense Council
NE Ohio Vegetarian Advocates
New England Anti-Vivisection Society
New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance
Northwest Animal Rights Network
NY Champion Bird Club


NY State Humane Association
NYC Indymedia
Peace River Refuge and Ranch
Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary
People for Ethical Treatment of Animals
Pet Finder
PetStoreCruelty.org
Physicians Com. Responsible Medicine
Primate Freedom Project
Public Eye: Artists for Animals
Puppy Mill Awareness Day
Quest Ministries
RabbitWise
Rainforest Action Network
Rational Animals
Rochester Animal Protection Society
San Diego Animal Advocates
Sasha Farm Animal Sanctuary
Satya Magazine
Senior Citizens for Humane Legislation
Showing Animals Respect and Kindness
Simply Enough
Society Animal Protective Legislation
Society for Peace
Sonoma People for Animal Rights
Stop Animal Exploitation NOWI
StopAETA.org
Students for Education on Animal Lib
SuperVegan.com
United Animal Nations
United Fed. Teachers Humane Ed.
United Poultry Concerns
Unitarian Unlversalists for Ethical...
Valley Vegan Society
VeganFreak.com
Veganica
Vegan Outreach
Vegan Radio
Vegetarian Advocates
Vegetarian Information Group- Rochester
Vegetarian Society of El Paso
Veggle Jews
VegNews Network
VegNews Magazine
VivalUSA
VivaVegie Society
Voice for a Viable Future
Wildlife Watch
Woodstock Animal Rights Movement
Woodstock Farm Animal Sanctuary
World Animal Net
World Orchard Project
World Society for Protection of Animals


The Equal Justice Alliance is a national coalition of social advocacy organizations preserving free speech and equal treatment under the law.

List compiled from multiple sources, including but not limited to. Animals Voice, EJA, Green is the New Red, Kinship Circle, Satya, and StopAETA.
Last updated 11-12-06- Call 800-632-8688 or 202-468-4834 for more Info.









APPENDIX C
ANIMAL ACTIVISM SPECTRUM












Animal Activism Spectrum


Radical Goals


Moderate Goals


SHAC
Animal Liberation


PETA
Animal Rights


HSUS
Animal Protection


ASPCA
Animal Welfare


Militant Tactics


Legal Tactics


ALF
Animal Liberation









APPENDIX D
PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF DR. VLASAK'S STATEMENTS

The following partial transcript was retrieved from Fur Commission USA's Web site containing
resources about AETA (Transcript of the Full Committee Hearing on Eco-terrorism, 2005). A
multimedia file of the entire hearing is available on the Web site for the U.S. Senate Committee
on Environment & Public Works (SHAC Hearing Multimedia, 2005).


Senator Inhofe. Okay. Dr. Vlasak, do your fellow animal rights activists understand that animal
testing is required by law and therefore the people who are performing this testing are merely
following the law. Do they understand that, and do you understand that?

Dr. Vlasak. I understand that they are merely following the law, and the law in this case is
wrong, just like the law that allowed slavery was wrong at one time.

Senator Inhofe. Well, you mentioned slavery, you also mentioned slavery in several of the
comments that you made, as well as your testimony. You analogized the plight of animals to that
of the African-American slaves of early American history, asserting that the animal rights
movement is similar to that of the Underground Railroad. You even at one time or several times
have talked about the Jews in Nazi Germany.

It sounds to me, in looking at this, like you're evaluating the lives of human beings in a similar
way that you are animals. Do you think animals' lives are as precious as human life?

Dr. Vlasak. Non-human lives, non-human animal lives, are as precious as animal lives. At one
time, racism and sexism and homophobism were prominent in our society. Today speciesism is
prominent in our society. It is just as wrong as racism.

Senator Inhofe. So you do put them in the same category, the animals of non-human and human
lives? Is that correct?

Dr. Vlasak. They are morally equal.

Senator Inhofe. They are morally equal?

Dr. Vlasak. They are.

Senator Inhofe. One of the statements you made at the animal rights convention when you were
defending assassinating people, murdering people, you said, let me put it up here to make sure
I'm not misquoting you, "I don't think you'd have to kill, assassinate too many. I think for five
lives, ten lives, fifteen human lives, we could save a million, two million, or ten million
nonhuman lives." You're advocating the murder of individuals, isn't that correct?

Dr. Vlasak. I made that statement, and I stand by that statement. That statement is made in the
context that the struggle for animal liberation is no different than struggles for liberation
elsewhere, whether the struggle for liberation in South Africa against the apartheid regime,









whether the liberation against the communists, whether it was the liberation struggles in Algeria,
Viet Nam or Iraq today, liberation struggles occasionally or usually, I should say, usually end up
in violence. There is plenty of violence being used on the other side of the equation. These
animals are being terrorized, murdered and killed by the millions every day. The animal rights
movement has been notoriously non-violent up to this point.
But I don't believe that I believe as my statement says _

Senator Inhofe. Let me interrupt. You said it has been notoriously non-violent up to this time?

Dr. Vlasak. That is correct.

Senator Inhofe. You don't think there is violence in the testimony you've heard?

Dr. Vlasak. I think when you compare the 500 animals being murdered every single day at
Huntingdon Life Sciences, which is just one company, I think when you look at the amount of
violence that goes on at Mr. Boruchin's house, getting a little spray paint on the wall, I think if
you look at the amount of violence that went on at this yacht club in New York, where again
some spray paint was slapped up on a wall, I don't think you can compare that kind of vandalism
with the murder of millions of animals.

Senator Inhofe. And so you call for the murders of researchers and human life?

Dr. Vlasak. I said in that statement and I meant in that statement that people who are hurting
animals and who will not stop when told to stop, one option would be to stop them using any
means necessary and that was the context in which that statement was made.

Senator Inhofe. Including murdering them, is that correct?

Dr. Vlasak. Pardon?

Senator Inhofe. Including murdering them?

Dr. Vlasak. I said that would be a morally justifiable solution to the problem.

Senator Inhofe. Senator Lautenberg.

Senator Lautenberg. Dr. Vlasak, you approve of these dastardly acts in the name of liberation,
of a liberation movement. Do you have any children?

Dr. Vlasak. I have no children. And just to be clear, I don't approve of any unnecessary
suffering. And I wish these things didn't have to happen.

Senator Lautenberg. Fine. You do. And what you have said confirms it. So I just want to go
there. I want to know who you are, what makes you tick. Because it is so revolting to hear what
you say about the murder. These aren't extermination camps. What's being done, whether you
like it or not, is to try and improve the quality of life for human beings. This isn't Germany.









How do you feel about people, you said you think people who have a cause have a right to
violence. How about the guys who kill our soldiers and who killed the people in the Trade
Towers? They have a cause. Is that okay with you?

Dr. Vlasak. No. Unnecessary loss of life is never okay with me. I extend that loss of life to
animal life, non-human animal life as well.










APPENDIX E
S. 1926, 109TH CONGRESS

109TH CONGRESS
1ST ESSION1926

To provide the Department of Justice the necessary ..,,rl,.-. r- t.-. apprehend,
prosecute, and convict individuals .. ....r tr.... animal enterprise terror.




IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER 27, 2005
Mr. INHOPE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary




A BILL
To provide the Department of Justice the necessary authority
to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals commit-
ting animal enterprise terror.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States ofAmerica in C.1,m,1. assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the "Animal Enterprise
5 Terrorism Act".














2
1 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF ECONOMIC DISRUPTION TO ANIMAL

2 ENTERPRISES AND THREATS OF DEATH AND

3 SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO ASSOCIATED

4 PERSONS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.-Section 43 of title 18, United

6 States Code, is amended to read as follows:

7 "43. Force, violence, and threats involving animal

8 enterprises

9 "(a) OFFENSE.-Whoever travels in interstate or for-

10 eign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or

11 any facility of interstate or foreign commerce-

12 "(1) for the purpose of damaging or disrupting

13 an animal enterprise; and

14 "(2) in connection with such purpose-

15 "(A) intentionally damages, disrupts, or

16 causes the loss of any property (including ani-

17 mals or records) used by the animal enterprise,

18 or any property of a person or entity having a

19 connection to, relationship with, or transactions

20 with the animal enterprise;

21 "(B) intentionally places a person in rea-

22 sonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily

23 injury to that person, a member of the imme-

24 diate family (as defined in section 115) of that

25 person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that

26 person by a course of conduct involving threats,
*S. 1926 IS













3
1 acts of vandalism, property damage, trespass,

2 harassment, or intimidation; or

3 "(C) conspires or attempts to do so;

4 shall be punished as provided for in subsection (b).

5 "(b) PENALTIES.-

6 "(1) ECONOMIC DAMAGE.-Any person who, in

7 the course of a violation of subsection (a) causes

8 economic damage not exceeding $10,000 shall be

9 fined under this title or imprisoned not more than

10 1 year, or both.

11 "(2) SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC DAMAGE OR ECO-

12 NOMIC DISRUPTION.-Any person who, in the course

13 of a violation of subsection (a), causes economic

14 damage or economic disruption exceeding $10,000

15 but not exceeding $100,000 shall be fined under this

16 title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

17 "(3) MAJOR ECONOMIC DAMAGE OR ECONOMIC

18 DISRUPTION.-Any person who, in the course of a

19 violation of subsection (a), causes economic damage

20 or economic disruption exceeding $100,000 shall be

21 fined under this title or imprisoned not more than

22 10 years, or both.

23 "(4) SIGNIFICANT BODILY INJURY OR

24 THREATS.-Any person who, in the course of a vio-

25 lation of subsection (a), causes significant bodily in-


*S. 1926 IS













4
1 jury to another individual or intentionally instills in

2 another the reasonable fear of death or serious bod-

3 ily injury shall be fined under this title or impris-

4 oned not more than 5 years, or both.

5 "(5) SERIOUS BODILY INJURY.-Any person

6 who, in the course of a violation of subsection (a),

7 causes serious bodily injury to another individual

8 shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not

9 more than 20 years, or both.

10 "(6) DEATH.-Any person who, in the course of

11 a violation of subsection (a), causes the death of an

12 individual shall be fined under this title and shall be

13 punished by death or imprisoned for life or for any

14 term of years.

15 "(7) CONSPIRACY AND ATTEMPT.-Any person

16 who conspires or attempts to commit an offense

17 under subsection (a) shall be subject to the same

18 penalties as those prescribed for the substantive of-

19 fense.

20 "(c) RESTITUTION.-An order of restitution under

21 section 3663 or 3663A of this title with respect to a viola-

22 tion of this section may also include restitution-

23 "(1) for the reasonable cost of repeating any

24 experimentation that was interrupted or invalidated

25 as a result of the offense;


*S. 1926 IS













5
1 "(2) the loss of food production or farm income

2 reasonably attributable to the nii' II-, and

3 "(3) for any other economic damage, including

4 any losses or costs caused by economic disruption,

5 resulting from the offense.

6 "(d) DEFINITIONS.-As used in this section-

7 "(1) the term 'animal enterprise' means-

8 "(A) a commercial or academic enterprise

9 that uses or sells animals or animal products

10 for profit, food or fiber production, agriculture,

11 research, or -l ii-.

12 "(B) a zoo, aquarium, animal shelter, pet

13 store, breeder, furrier, circus, or rodeo, or other

14 lawful competitive animal event; or

15 "(C) any fair or similar event intended to

16 advance agricultural arts and sciences;

17 "(2) the term 'course of conduct' means a pat-

18 tern of conduct composed of 2 or more acts, evidenc-

19 ing a continuity of purpose;

20 "(3) the term 'economic damage' means the re-

21 placement costs of lost or damaged property or

22 records, the costs of repeating an interrupted or in-

23 validated experiment, or the loss of profits;

24 "(4) the term 'economic disruption'-




*S. 1926 IS













6
1 "(A) means losses and increased costs that

2 individually or collectively exceed $10,000, in-

3 eluding losses and increased costs resulting

4 from threats, acts of vandalism, property dam-

5 age, trespass, harassment or intimidation taken

6 against a person or entity on account of that

7 person's or entity's connection to, relationship

8 with, or transactions with the animal enter-

9 prise; and

10 "(B) does not include any lawful economic

11 disruption that results from lawful public, gov-

12 ernmental, or business reaction to the disclo-

13 sure of information about an animal enterprise;

14 "(5) the term 'serious bodily injury' means-

15 "(A) injury posing a substantial risk of

16 death;

17 "(B) extreme physical pain;

18 "(C) protracted and obvious disfigurement;

19 or

20 "(D) protracted loss or impairment of the

21 function of a bodily member, organ, or mental

22 faculty; and

23 "(6) the term 'significant bodily injury'

24 means-




*S. 1926 IS














7
1 "(A) deep cuts and serious burns or abra-

2 sions;

3 "(B) short-term or nonobvious disfigure-

4 ment;

5 "(C) fractured or dislocated bones, or torn

6 members of the body;

7 "(D) significant physical pain;

8 "(E) illness;

9 "(F) short-term loss or impairment of the

10 function of a bodily member, organ, or mental

11 faculty; or

12 "(G) any other significant injury to the

13 body.

14 "(e) NoN-PREEMPTION.-Nothing in this section

15 preempts any State law.".

16 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.-Section 2516(1)(c)

17 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting

18 "section 43 (force, violence and threats involving animal

19 enterprises)," before "section 201 (bribery of public offi-

20 cials and witnesses)".
0










*S. 1926 IS










APPENDIX F
H.R. 4239, 109TH CONGRESS


109TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION


H. R. 4239


To provide the Department of Justice the necessary authority to apprehend,
prosecute, and convict individuals committing animal enterprise terror.




IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NOVEMBER 4, 2005
Mr. PETRI (for himself, Mr. ISSA, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. CANNON, Mr.
BONILLA, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. OTTER, Mr. BOREN,
Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. DOOLITTLE, and Mr. SENSENBRENNER) intro-
duced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Ju-
diciary




A BILL
To provide the Department of Justice the necessary authority
to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals commit-
ting animal enterprise terror.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the "Animal Enterprise

5 Terrorism Act".














2
1 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF ECONOMIC DISRUPTION TO ANIMAL

2 ENTERPRISES AND THREATS OF DEATH AND

3 SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO ASSOCIATED

4 PERSONS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.-Section 43 of title 18, United

6 States Code, is amended to read as follows:

7 "43. Force, violence, and threats involving animal

8 enterprises

9 "(a) OFFENSE.-Whoever travels in interstate or for-

10 eign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or

11 any facility of interstate or foreign commerce

12 "(1) for the purpose of damaging or disrupting

13 an animal enterprise; and

14 "(2) in connection with such purpose-

15 "(A) intentionally damages, disrupts, or

16 causes the loss of any property (including ani-

17 mals or records) used by the animal enterprise,

18 or any property of a person or entity having a

19 connection to, relationship with, or transactions

20 with the animal enterprise;

21 "(B) intentionally places a person in rea-

22 sonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily

23 injury to that person, a member of the imme-

24 diate family (as defined in section 115) of that

25 person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that

26 person by a course of conduct involving threats,
*HR 4239 IH













3
1 acts of vandalism, property damage, trespass,

2 harassment, or intimidation; or

3 "(C) conspires or attempts to do so;

4 shall be punished as provided for in subsection (b).

5 "(b) PENALTIES.-

6 "(1) ECONOMIC DAMAGE.-Any person who, in

7 the course of a violation of subsection (a) causes

8 economic damage not exceeding $10,000 shall be

9 fined under this title or imprisoned not more than

10 1 year, or both.

11 "(2) SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC DAMAGE OR ECO-

12 NOMIC DISRUPTION.-Any person who, in the course

13 of a violation of subsection (a), causes economic

14 damage or economic disruption exceeding $10,000

15 but not exceeding $100,000 shall be fined under this

16 title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

17 "(3) MAJOR ECONOMIC DAMAGE OR ECONOMIC

18 DISRUPTION.-Any person who, in the course of a

19 violation of subsection (a), causes economic damage

20 or economic disruption exceeding $100,000 shall be

21 fined under this title or imprisoned not more than

22 10 years, or both.

23 "(4) SIGNIFICANT BODILY INJURY OR

24 THREATS.-Any person who, in the course of a vio-

25 lation of subsection (a), causes significant bodily in-


*HR 4239 IH













4
1 jury to another individual or intentionally instills in

2 another the reasonable fear of death or serious bod-

3 ily injury shall be fined under this title or impris-

4 oned not more than 5 years, or both.

5 "(5) SERIOUS BODILY INJURY.-Any person

6 who, in the course of a violation of subsection (a),

7 causes serious bodily injury to another individual

8 shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not

9 more than 20 years, or both.

10 "(6) DEATH.-Any person who, in the course of

11 a violation of subsection (a), causes the death of an

12 individual shall be fined under this title and shall be

13 imprisoned for life or for any term of years.

14 "(7) CONSPIRACY AND ATTEMPT.-Any person

15 who conspires or attempts to commit an offense

16 under subsection (a) shall be subject to the same

17 penalties as those prescribed for the substantive of-

18 fense.

19 "(c) RESTITUTION.-An order of restitution under

20 section 3663 or 3663A of this title with respect to a viola-

21 tion of this section may also include restitution-

22 "(1) for the reasonable cost of repeating any

23 experimentation that was interrupted or invalidated

24 as a result of the offense;




*HR 4239 IH













5
1 "(2) the loss of food production or farm income

2 reasonably attributable to the nii' II-, and

3 "(3) for any other economic damage, including

4 any losses or costs caused by economic disruption,

5 resulting from the offense.

6 "(d) DEFINITIONS.-As used in this section-

7 "(1) the term 'animal enterprise' means-

8 "(A) a commercial or academic enterprise

9 that uses or sells animals or animal products

10 for profit, food or fiber production, agriculture,

11 research, or -l ii-.

12 "(B) a zoo, aquarium, animal shelter, pet

13 store, breeder, furrier, circus, or rodeo, or other

14 lawful competitive animal event; or

15 "(C) any fair or similar event intended to

16 advance agricultural arts and sciences;

17 "(2) the term 'course of conduct' means a pat-

18 tern of conduct composed of 2 or more acts, evidenc-

19 ing a continuity of purpose;

20 "(3) the term 'economic damage' means the re-

21 placement costs of lost or damaged property or

22 records, the costs of repeating an interrupted or in-

23 validated experiment, or the loss of profits;

24 "(4) the term 'economic disruption'-




*HR 4239 IH













6
1 "(A) means losses and increased costs that

2 individually or collectively exceed $10,000, in-

3 eluding losses and increased costs resulting

4 from threats, acts or vandalism, property dam-

5 age, trespass, harassment or intimidation taken

6 against a person or entity on account of that

7 person's or entity's connection to, relationship

8 with, or transactions with the animal enter-

9 prise; and

10 "(B) does not include any lawful economic

11 disruption that results from lawful public, gov-

12 ernmental, or business reaction to the disclo-

13 sure of information about an animal enterprise;

14 "(5) the term 'serious bodily injury' means-

15 "(A) injury posing a substantial risk of

16 death;

17 "(B) extreme physical pain;

18 "(C) protracted and obvious disfigurement;

19 or

20 "(D) protracted loss or impairment of the

21 function of a bodily member, organ, or mental

22 faculty; and

23 "(6) the term 'significant bodily injury'

24 means-




*HR 4239 IH














7
1 "(A) deep cuts and serious burns or abra-

2 sions;

3 "(B) short-term or nonobvious disfigure-

4 ment;

5 "(C) fractured or dislocated bones, or torn

6 members of the body;

7 "(D) significant physical pain;

8 "(E) illness;

9 "(F) short-term loss or impairment of the

10 function of a bodily member, organ, or mental

11 faculty; or

12 "(G) any other significant injury to the

13 body.

14 "(e) NoN-PREEMPTION.-Nothing in this section

15 preempts any State law.".

16 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.-Section 2516(1)(c)

17 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting

18 "section 43 (force, violence and threats involving animal

19 enterprises)," before "section 201 (bribery of public offi-

20 cials and witnesses)".
0










*HR 4239 IH










APPENDIX G
CHANGES SUGGESTED BY THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES

Major Flaws in S. 3880 (as amended and passed by Senate), and Corrective Amendments

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) was intended to protect people from violence, threatening
behavior, and vandalism by imposing harsh penalties, and providing a strong tool for federal prosecutors.
But it should not make it a federal crime to engage in peaceful acts such as to participate in a boycott,
investigate animal cruelty, or for employees to blow the whistle on criminal activities. As currently
written the bill does just that, criminalizing and chilling a broad range of activities engaged in by millions
of law-abiding Americans every day, including the actions of local law enforcement and humane officers.

We believe that most of the flaws in the bill are a result of careless drafting, as the measure was rushed
through the Senate without a markup, without a committee vote, and without floor debate. As a result, the
bill contains such obvious errors as using terms that are unconstitutionally vague and failing to define
them, and even including language that could be used as a shield by criminal animal enterprises.

At minimum, the following drafting errors need to be resolved:

1) The Bill Lacks a Clear Prohibition, and Relies on Vague and Confusing Exemptions

The bill revises the existing AETA to criminalize any conduct that "intentionally damages or causes the
loss of any real or personal property." However, the bill does not provide any definition of the terms "real
or personal property," leaving open the question of whether this vague language requires the actual loss of
tangible property, or would criminalize legitimate advocacy that causes an enterprise to lose intangible
property like future profits, business good will, etc. The sponsors could not have intended to criminalize
any speech or action that might affect sales or business good will.'

Moreover, although the bill exempts from the definition of "economic damage" "any lawful economic
disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction
to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise," no such exemption exists from the undefined
term "real or personal property." Since the phrase "economic damage" appears only in the penalty
provisions of the bill, the exemption for "lawful economic disruption" may not function as an exemption
from the bill's broad prohibition on "the loss of any real or personal property."

The would-be exemption for "lawful economic disruption" is also too narrow. There are many
circumstances where legitimate advocates use information that is not necessarily "about" an enterprise to
try and convince the public not to patronize certain industries, and thereby cause those industries to suffer
"the loss of any real or personal property." (For example, someone may advocate against puppy mills by
talking about overpopulation, which is a consequence of puppy mills but not "about" a particular puppy
mill enterprise). The exemption is also dependent on whether a public, governmental, or business
audience reacts in a "lawful" way, something out of the activist's control.




1 The bill's exemption for "expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration)
protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment" is also insufficient, since it is expressly limited to
"expressive" conduct, and many local humane society investigations and other important law enforcement actions,
as well as employee whistleblowing, may not be considered "expressive" conduct within the protections of the First
Amendment. This ambiguity regarding First Amendment protection will result in a significant chilling effect.










Proposed Revision: Amend section 43(d) to insert the following new section and remove current
subsection (3)(B), with appropriate renumbering:

'(3) the term 'intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property' -

(A) means intentionally damaging or causing the loss of any tangible property; but

(B) does not include damage or loss resulting from a boycott, protest,
demonstration, investigation, whistleblowing, reporting of animal mistreatment, or any
public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information concerning
animal enterprises

2) The Bill's Penalty Provisions Are Unclear, and Will Chill Legitimate Advocacy

The bill's first penalty provision applies to offenses that cause no reasonable fear of bodily harm, no
actual bodily harm or any economic damage. Presumably, this is meant to address conspiracies or
attempts, but the bill fails to explicitly make that connection, creating a chilling effect on ordinary citizens
considering actions that will cause no harm (physical or economic) nor instill any fear of harm.

Proposed Revision:

Amend section 43(b)(1)(A), as follows:

(A) an offense under subsection (a)(2)(C) results in no economic damage or bodily injury'

3) The Bill Could Protect Criminal Animal Enterprises

The bill is so over-broad that it could be used to shield those using animals unlawfully e.g., criminal
dog fighting and cockfighting syndicates from enforcement efforts. Local humane societies or other
law enforcement officials considering investigating illegal abuse might well be deterred from doing so by
the threat of being charged as terrorists. Moreover, employees, regular citizens, and legitimate animal
activists will be afraid to cooperate or provide information to law enforcement agencies for fear of
prosecution under the sweeping terms of this bill.

Proposed Revision:

Amend section 43(d)(1), as follows:

S(1) the term 'animal enterprise' means -
'(A) a lawful commercial or academic enterprise that uses or sells animals or animal
products for profit, food or fiber production, agriculture, education, research, or
testing;
'(B) a lawful zoo, aquarium, animal shelter, pet store, breeder, furrier, circus, rodeo
or other lawful competitive animal event; or
'(C) any lawful fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts and
sciences.










APPENDIX H
QUESTION GUIDE

Pre-AETA Strategies

o What was your organization's position on AETA before it passed?
o Oppose: Has your position changed since then?
o Support: Did you oppose it at any time in the process or did you always have the same
position?
o Did your organization put forth a communications effort to advocate the rejection of AETA by
members of Congress? If so, what were the key messages conveyed in that effort?

o Did you organization enact a media campaign regarding its position on AETA? If so, what was
the response of journalists and your membership to your position?

o If you opposed AETA, did you enlist the support of non-animal activist groups? If so, what was
their reaction towards AETA?

o Does your organization make an effort to separate itself from animal liberation groups that
employ violence, harassment or other illegal tactics? In what way?

Perceptions of AETA
o What do you think were the intended effects of AETA from the sponsors' points of view?
o Why do you think that AETA passed with unanimous consent in the Senate? Why do you think
that AETA passed with nearly unanimous support in the House of Representatives?
o AETA seemed to have passed quickly through Congress. Why do you think that is?
o Do you think that AETA was written with the intention of affecting law-abiding animal rights and
animal protection groups?
o Do you think that law-abiding animal rights and animal protection groups understood how this act
would affect them?

AETA's Effects
o Has the passing of AETA affected the way in which your organization advocates for animals? If
so, how? If not, do you think that your organization's future campaigns could be affected by
AETA?
o In retrospect, do you think that your organization should have or could have communicated
differently regarding its position on AETA? If so, in what way?

o Will your organization continue to communicate its position on AETA? Try to repeal? If so,
how?









LIST OF REFERENCES


ACLU e-mail response to EJA (2006, November 20) Retrieved March 15, 2007 from
http://www.noaeta.org/aclu.htm.

AETA's passing in the House of Representatives, S. 3880, 109th Cong. Rec. H8590 -
H8595.(2006, November 13). Library of Congress. Retrieved March 8, 2007 from the
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?rl09:./temp/-rl09eHrbZ4

AETA Report (2006, November 13). Equal Justice Alliance. Retrieved March 15, 2007 from
http://www.noaeta.org/report.htm.

AETA sends a clear signal says leading prosecutor. Animal Agriculture Alliance. Retrieved
April 4, 2007 from
http://www.animalagalliance.org/main/home.cfm?Section=2007_0321_AETA&Category=
PressReleases

AETA talking points (N.D.) Equal Justice Alliance. Retrieved April 9, 2007 from
http://www.noaeta.org/talkingpoints.htm

Allan, V. (2006, March 12) The mild bunch; threats of violence, the desecration of graves,
incendiary devices this is the stuff of headlines. But are animal rights activists really
the obsessive extremists that such stories suggest? Vicky Allan went on the anti-
vivisection campaign trail to find out. The Sunday Herald of Scotland, Pg. 4. Retrieved
from the LexisNexis database: http://web.lexis-
nexis.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/universe/document?_m=35a060f6f96571c03e5b798ea7a752e9&
docnum=l&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkVA&_md5=8604c216f4a4c4541500136bb1cdacl5.

Anderson, D. S. (1992) Identifying and responding to activist publics: A case study. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 4 (3), 151-165.

Animal Agriculture Alliance Web site, Frequently Asked Questions:
http://www.animalagalliance.org/main/home.cfm? Section=Main&Category=QandAs

Annonymous, Senators clash over terrorist priorities. Issues in Science & Technology,
07485492. Summer 2005, Vol. 21, Issue 4. Retrieved March 2006
http://web.ebscohost.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid= 11 &sid=39ec7027-
Oald-456f-824e-5267678000b6%40sessionmgr 09

The Association of the Bar of the City of New York Disapproval of AETA. (2006, March 9)
Retrieved March 16, 2007 from
http://www.nycbar.org/pdf/report/AnimalsCommAETAComments_v11.pdf.

ASPCA policies and positions (N.D.). Retrieved December 8, 2006 from
http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pp_pc_guide









Babbie, E. (2001) Qualitative field research. In The Practice of Social Research (pp. 274-302).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Babington, C. (2006, July 19) Senate passes stem cell bill; Bush vows veto. The Washington
Post. Retrieved April 7, 2007 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/AR2006071800182.html

Bridis, T. (2005, December 20) ACLU says FBI misuses terror powers to track political groups.
The Associated Press State & Local Wire. Retrieved from the LexisNexis database:
http://web.lexis-
nexis.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/universe/document?_m=2c534f5a6f082312ad48ed2334cf2f8e&
docnum= 1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkVA&_md5=d846037d51cd718827eb0aa99d2c7c60

Behind the Mask (2006). Uncaged Films, Studio City, CA. Retrieved March 26, 2007 from
http://www.uncagedfilms.com/index.php

Bernton, H. (2006, May 16) Is ecosabotage terrorism? The Seattle Times. Retrieved March 11,
2007 from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002977626_terrorist07.html.

Boghosian, H. (2006) National Lawyers Guild letter in response to AETA's passing in the House
of Representatives by a voice vote. Retrieved March 15, 2007 from
http://www.nlg.org/ActionItems/AETAActPassed.htm.

Congleton, R. D. (2002, Summer). Terrorism, interest-group politics, and public policy:
Curtailing criminal modes of political speech. The Independent Review, 7(1), 47- 67.

Definition of "Unanimous Consent." U.S. Senate Glossary. Retrieved March 15, 2007 from
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary term/unanimousconsent.htm.

Derville, T. (2005) Radical activist tactics: Overturning public relations conceptualizations.
Public Relations Review, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp. 527-533 Retrieved from the
ScienceDirect database:
http://www.sciencedirect.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6W5W-
4H8MNRX-2-
1&_cdi=6581&_user=2139813&_orig=search&_coverDate= 11%2F30%2F2005&_sk=999
689995&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtz-
zSkzk&md5=62ed6al7888f0d2ed95749e66b0ee8d5&ie=/sdarticle.pdf

Dierks, N. (2007, January 25) Statement ofNPPC CEO Neil Dierks on Smithfield decision to
use group sow housing. Retrieved March 12, 2007 from
http://www.nppc.org/wm/show.php?id=642&c=1

Dozier, D. M. & Lauzen, M.M. (2000) Liberating the intellectual domain from the practice:
Public relations, activism, and the role of the scholar. Journal of Public Relations Research,
12(1), 3-22.









Ecoterrorism: Extremism in the animal rights and environmentalist movements. Law
Enforcement Agency Resource Network Web site. Retrieved December 10, 2005 from
http://www.adl.org/Lear/ExtUS/Ecoterrorism. asp

Forstner, G., & Bales, J. (1992) Building dialogue into the public consultation process. (part
two). In Public Relations Quarterly, 37, p. 33 (5).

Fredrickson, C., Johnson, M. J., (October 30, 2006) ACLU urges needed minor changes to
AETA, but does not oppose bill (S. 3880, the "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act")
Retrieved November 2006 from
http://www.aclu. org/images/general/asset uploadfile809_27356.pdf

Fredrickson, C., Graves, L. (March 6, 2006). ACLU letter to Congress urging opposition to the
Animal Enterprise Act, S. 1926 and H.R. 4239. Retrieved November 2006 from
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/256201eg20060306.html

Freidman, J. (2007) Why the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act became law. Animal Voice
Magazine. Retrieved March 15, 2007 from
http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/writes/editorial/essays/activism/friedmanAETA.ht
ml.

Frequently Asked Questions (N.D.) Animal Liberation Front Web site. Retrieved March 15,
2007 from http://animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/FAQs/activism faq.htm#89.

Full committee oversight on eco-terrorism specifically examining the Earth Liberation Front
("ELF") and the Animal Liberation Front ("ALF") (2005, May 18). U. S. Senate
Committee on Environment & Public Works. Retrieved March 14, 2007 from
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&HearingID= 1D5
08A50-DF5D-4A19-8F41-E76D0536406D.

Full committee hearing on eco-terrorism (2005, October 26). Environment and Public Works
Committee Retrieved March 14, 2007 from
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&HearingID=0939
30CB-F66E-420D-8C37-1780ED2C7F3C.

Gantman, H., (September 8, 2006) Inhofe-Feinstein introduce bi-partisan Animal Enterprise
Terrorism Act. Retrieved from the LexisNexis database: http://web.lexis-
nexis.com.1p.hscl.ufl.edu/universe/document? m=fflbc53ddcd243fd9c402713d6ddac6e&
docnum=52&wchp=dGLbVzW-zSkVb&_md5=bc7d6958ce8ed4fe85d594dl72f603be

Goodman, A. (2006, October 3) First member of SHAC 7 heads to jail for three year sentence.
Democracy Now! Retrieved April 8, 2007 from
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/03/142235

Gregerson, J. (2007, March 23) Feds to crack down on animal rights extremists, prosecutor
vows. Meating Place Legal/Regulatory News. Retrieved April 8, 2007 from
http://www.meatingplace.com/MembersOnly/webNews/details.aspx?item=17664









Grunig, L.A., Grunig, J.E. & Dozier, D.M. (2002). In Excellent public relations and effective
organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Activism and the
environment (pp. 442-478). Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E. & Dozier, D.M. (2002). In Excellent public relations and effective
organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. The value of
public relations (pp. 90-138). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Hoch, D., Wilkens, O. (2007). Response to Andrew Kohn: THE Animal Enterprise Terrorism
Act is Invidiously Detrimental to the Animal Rights Movement (and Unconstitutional as
Well). Vermont Journal of Environmental Law. Retrieved from
http://www.vjel.org/editorials/2007S/Hoch.Wilkens.Editorial.htm.

Holbrook, B. (2005) Inhofe Introduces Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Majority Press
Release. Retrieved March 15, 2007 from
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentR
record id=6DB45723-2ACF-4E21-B2F6-D93DCA5B8F8B.

Home page for the Humane Society of the United States (N.D.). Retrieved November 2006, from
http://www.hsus.org.

House of Representatives floor debate on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (2006, November
16) Congressional Record-House, H8590. Retrieved March 8, 2007 from
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?rl 09:3 :./temp/-rl095picEq::.

How Our Laws Are Made (N.D.). Library of Congress. Retrieved March 15, 2007 from
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.bysec/obtaining.html#suspend.

H.R. 4239 summary of all Congressional actions. The Library of Congress. Retrieved March 14,
2007 from http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-
bin/bdquery/z?dl09:HR04239:@@@X|/bss/dl09query.html|.

H.R. 4239 hearing transcript (2006, May 23). Committee on the Judiciary House of
Representatives, Committee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Retrieved
March 14, 2007 from http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/printers/109th/27742.pdf.

H.R. 4975 major Congressional actions. Library of Congress. Retrieved April 7, 2007 from
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR04975:@@@R

The Humane Society of the United States fact sheet on AETA. Retrieved November 2006 from
http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/109_AETAfactsheet.pdf.

The Humane Society of the United States position statement on AETA Retrieved December 9,
2006 from
http://www.hsus.org/legislationlaws/federal legislation/animals in research/animalente
rprise terrorism.html.









Illia, L. (2003, November) Passage to cyberactivism: How dynamics of activism
change. In Journal of Public Affairs, 3 (4) p. 326-337.

Inhofe, J. M. (2005, May 18) Statement by Senator James M. Inhofe for the Oversight on Eco-
terrorism specifically examining the Earth Liberation Front ("ELF") and the Animal
Liberation Front ("ALF"). U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
Hearing Statements. Retrieved March 13, 2007 from
http://epw.senate.gov/public/hearing_statements.cfm?id=247266.

Jeffords, J. M. (2005, May 18) Statement by Senator James M. Jeffords for the Oversight on
Eco-terrorism specifically examining the Earth Liberation Front ("ELF") and the Animal
Liberation Front ("ALF"). U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
Hearing Statements. Retrieved March 13, 2007 from
http://epw.senate.gov/public/hearing_statements.cfm?id=237832.

Kruse, C. R. (2001) The movement and the media: Framing the debate over animal
experimentation. Political Communication, 18, 67-87.

Kirkland, E. (2002, June 10) Corporate America vs. activist groups: winner takes all? Extremist
activist groups could have sights set on Mississippi. (Focus: Attorneys & Business
Law). In Mississippi Business Journal, 24 (23), p. 20(2). University of Florida General
Business File ASAP. Retrieved April 13, 2007 from
http://infotrac.galegroup.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/itw/infomark/466/836/4353750wl9/purl=rcl
GBFM_0_A87710843&dyn=12!xm_59_0_A87710843?swaep=gain40375

Lautenberg F. (2005, May 18) Statement by Senator Frank Lautenberg for the Oversight on Eco-
terrorism specifically examining the Earth Liberation Front ("ELF") and the Animal
Liberation Front ("ALF"). U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
Hearing Statements. Retrieved March 14, 2007 from
http://epw. senate.gov/public/hearing_statements. cfm?id=238235.

Lewis, J. (2005, May 18) Statement by John Lewis, Deputy Assistant Director, Federal Bureau
of Investigation to Oversight on Eco-terrorism specifically examining the Earth Liberation
Front ("ELF") and the Animal Liberation Front ("ALF") U.S. Senate Committee on
Environment & Public Works Hearing Statements. Retrieved March 11, 2007 from
http://epw.senate.gov/public/hearing_statements. cfm?id=237817.

Lewis, J. (2005, October 26) Statement by John Lewis, Deputy Assistant Director, Federal
Bureau of Investigation on Eco-terrorism specifically examining Stop Hungtindon Animal
Cruelty, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Hearing Statements.
Retrieved March 14, 2007 from
http://epw.senate.gov/public/hearing_statements.cfm?id=247787.

Li, G. (2001, Winter). An analysis: The impact of non-governmental organizations on the
practice of public relations. In Public Relations Quarterly, 46 (4) p. 11-14. Winter2001,
Vol. 46 Issue 4, p1 1-14, 4p, lbw









Library of Congress Thomas Web site: Retrieved December 2, 2006 from
http://www.thomas.gov.

Maag, C. (2006, January/February) America's #1 threat. Mother Jones, Vol. 31, Issue 1
Retrieved from the Academic Search Premier database:
http://web.ebscohost.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid= 112&sid=67d42225-
6clb-42dd-8f03-f430442efbe4%40sessionmgrl06

Martin, A. (2007, March 28) Burger King shifts policy on animals. The New York Times.
Retrieved April 8, 2007 from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/28/business/28burger.html

Martosko, D. (2005, May 18) Environmental and animal-rights terrorism and its above-ground
support system. Testimony before the United States Senate Committee on the Environment
and Public Works. Retrieved March 14, 2007 from
http://epw.senate.gov/public/109th/MARTOSKO_TESTIMONY.pdf

Mission Accomplished! AETA Passes Both Houses! (2006, November 14) Fur Commission
USA. Retrieved March 16, 2007 from
http://www.furcommission.com/resource/Resources/AETA.pdf.

Munro L. (2001) Caring about blood, flesh, and pain: Women's standing in the animal protection
movement. Society & Animals Vol. 9 Issue 1, 43-61, 19.

Murder King Campaign (2007) People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Retrieved April 8,
2007 from http://www.goveg.com/corpmurderk.asp.

Murphy, P. & Dee, J. (1996). Reconciling the preferences of environmental activists and
corporate policymakers. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8(1), 1-33.

NABR Analysis of AETA. (N.D.) National Association for Biomedical Research. Retrieved
March 16, 2007 from http://www.nabr.org/pdf/AETAanalysis.pdf

Nation's largest pig producer moves to phase out confinement of pigs in gestation crates (2007,
January 25). HSUS Factory Farming Campaign Victories Web page. Retrieved March 12,
2007 from http://www.hsus.org/farm/news/ournews/smithfield_phases_outcrates.html.

Obama B. (2005, May 18) Statement by Senator Barack Obama for the Oversight on Eco-
terrorism specifically examining the Earth Liberation Front ("ELF") and the Animal
Liberation Front ("ALF"). U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
Hearing Statements. Retrieved March 14, 2007 from
http://epw.senate.gov/public/hearing_statements.cfm?id=237833.

O'Neill, T. (2001, February 5) Bambi's vigilantes. Report /Newsmagazine (National Edition),
Vol. 28, Issue 3. Retrieved from the Business Source Premier database:
http://web.ebscohost.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/bsi/detail?vid=3&hid=3&sid=124bc508-b210-
4fl 5-8276-77f0c0def069%40sessionmgr3









O'Rourke, K. (2004, May 15) The animal rights struggle. Journal of the American Veterinary
Medical Association News. Retrieved March 12, 2007 from
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/j avma/may04/040515j. asp

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals mission statement (N.D.). Retrieved December 9,
2006, from http://www.peta.org/about/

Petri, T. E., Scott, R.C. (2006, November 13) The FACTS on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism
Act (AETA) (H.R. 4239/S.3880) Retrieved March 16, 2007 from
http://www.house.gov/petri/AETAFACTS_2.pdf.

Potter, W. (2006, July 29) The Animal Enterprise Protection Act: Using an obscure law to charge
nonviolent activists with terrorism. Retrieved March 16, 2007 from
http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/aepa/.

Puck falls prey to misdirection from activist groups (2007, March 29). Animal Agriculture
Alliance. Retrieved April 4, 2007 from
http://www.animalagalliance.org/main/home.cfm?Section=2007_0329_Puck&Category=P
ressReleases

Query, R. (2006, December 11) Some major gains for animals ushered in by 109th Congress, but
other major reforms blunted by Republican leaders. Retrieved March 11, 2007 from
http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/pressreleases/somemaj or_gainsforanimal
s.html.

Rampton, S. and Stauber, J. (2002) ConsumerFreedom.org: Tobacco money takes on activist
cash. PR Watch, Volume 9, No. 1. Retrieved March 14, 2007 from
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2002Q1/ddam.html

Reber, B.H. and Kim, J.K. (2006). How activist groups use Websites in media relations:
Evaluating Online Press Rooms. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18 (4), 313-333.

Rept. No. 108-179. H. Res. 297, 108th Cong., (2003, June) Statement of Rules Subcommittee on
Technology and the House Ranking in Providing for Consideration of Motions to Suspend
the Rules. The Library of Congress. Retrieved April 7, 2007 from
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=hr179&dbname=108&

Rose, M. (1991) Activism in the 90s: changing roles for public relations. In Public Relations
Quarterly, 36, p. 28 (5).

S. 1926 summary of all Congressional actions. The Library of Congress. Retrieved March 14,
2007 from http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-
bin/bdquery/D?d109: 1:./temp/-bdaFD8:@@@Xl/bss/dl09query.html|.

S. 3880 summary of all Congressional actions with amendments. The Library of Congress.
Retrieved March 14, 2007 from http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-
bin/bdquery/D?d109: 1:./temp/-bdl9w3:@@@S|/bss/dl09query.html|.









The Seattle Times (2006, May 7), Chronological FBI summary of terrorist incidents, 1980-2004.
Retrieved March 11, 2007 from
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/links/fbitable.html.

SHAC hearing multimedia (2005, October 26). U.S. Senate Committee on Environment &
Public Works Web site. Retrieved April 6, 2007 from
http://epw.senate.gov/epwmultimedia/epwmultimedia.htm

Severson, K. (2007, March 22) Celebrity chef announces strict animal-welfare policy. The New
York Times. Retrieved April 8, 2007 from
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/dining/22puck.html

Stagno, B. (2000) life science or living hell? Satya Magazine. Retrieved March 11, 2007 from
http://www.satyamag.com/novdec00/stagno.html.

Stallman, B. (2007) Animal warfare: Coming to your state soon. American Farm Bureau.
Retrieved March 20, 2007 from
http://www.fb.org/index.php?fuseaction=newsroom.agenda

Stauber, J. C., & Rampton, S. (1995, Sept-Oct)."Democracy" for hire; public relations and
environmental movements. In The Ecologist, 25(2), 173-180. Retrieved April 13,
2007, from Expanded Academic ASAP via Thomson Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-
Documents&type=retrieve&tablD=T002&prodId=EAIM&docld=A 7789605&source=gal
e&userGroupName=gain40375&version=1.0

Strauss Veal and Marcho Farms eliminating confinement by crate (2007, February 27) HSUS
Factory Farming Campaign Victories Web page. Retrieved March 12, 2007 from
http://www.hsus.org/farm/news/oumews/straussandmarchovealcrates.html.

Suspension of the Rules (N.D.) U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Rules Majority
Office. Retrieved April 8, 2007 from
http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/suspendrules.htm

Text of S. 3880, The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Retrieved December 9, 2006 from
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname= 109_congbills&docid=f: s3880enr.txt.pdf

Three militant animal rights activists sentenced to between four and six years in prison (2006,
September 12). Retrieved April 5, 2007 from
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/files/pdffiles/shac0912rel.pdf

Tombs, S. & Smith, D. (1995, September). Corporate social responsibility and crisis
management: The democratic organization and crisis prevention. Journal of Contingencies
and Crisis Management, 3(3), 135-148.









Transcript of the Full Committee Hearing on Eco-terrorism (2005, October 26). Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works Retrieved March 14, 2007 from
http://www.furcommission.com/resource/pressSFbills.htm#Anchor-GOVERNMENT-
14210.

Tucker, L. & Melewar, T. C. (2005). Corporate reputation and crisis management: The threat and
manageability of anti-corporatism. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(4), 377-387.

Various Organizations (2006, April 13) Letter about H.R. 4975. League of Women Voters.
Retrieved April 7, 2007 from
http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm? Section=LeaguEVoiceArchive&TEMPLATE=/
CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=4948

Walkom, T. (2006, March 13) Kevin Kjonaas set up a website with details about businesses that
use animals for research information, and now he and five other activists have been
convicted of inciting terrorism. The Toronto Star. Pg. A06. Retrieved from the LexisNexis
database: http://web.lexis-
nexis.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/universe/document?_m=2fd78f2e4d782972b0bf2ca7fc 10e981&
docnum=l&wchp=dGLzVlz-zSkVb&_md5=656a9eb0384157266ad70a2634ec425e.

Warner, D. (2006, November 14) NPPC hails passage of bill protecting animal enterprises from
'Terrorist' acts. Media Release retrieved March 12, 2007 from
http://www.nppc.org/wm/show.php?id=620&c=1.

Wimmer, R.D. and Dominick, J.R. (2006) Mass Media Research, An Introduction, Eigth Edition,
Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Nadya Michelle Vera was born in Santurce, Puerto Rico on November 30, 1981. She grew

up mostly in Miami, Florida. She graduated from Miami Sunset Senior High School and earned

her bachelor's degree in Theatre from Florida International University (FIU). While attending

FIU, Nadya worked at Complete Conference Management, Inc. (CCM) as a part-time marketing

assistant and later as a marketing coordinator. After earning her bachelor's degree, Nadya

continued to work at CCM, but on a full-time basis.

Nadya began her master's studies in mass communications with an emphasis in public

relations in August 2005. During the months of June through August 2006, Nadya worked as an

intern in the public relations department of the Humane Society of the United States in

Gaithersburg, MD.





PAGE 1

1 AN ANALYSIS OF THE COMMUNICATION EFFORTS MADE BY LAW-ABIDING ANI MAL ADVOCACY GROUPS ABOUT THE ANIMAL ENTERPRISE TERRORISM ACT By NADYA M.VERA A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN MASS COMMUNICATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Nadya M. Vera

PAGE 3

3 To my Family

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank m y parents for always being so w onderfully supportive. I thank my baby brother for being so sweet and complimentary for so many years. I thank my Jon for being so much of my life during this period of the big picture. Most of all, I thank my little baby for changing my life entirely. I promise every suffering creature that I will dedicate my life to helping others understand and lessen your plight.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................................... 8 ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................9 CHAP TER 1 PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE........................................................................................ 10 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........10 Purpose............................................................................................................................10 Significance................................................................................................................... ..11 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE........................................................................................ 13 Activism Theory and Research in Public Relations...............................................................13 The Animal Activism Spectrum............................................................................................. 18 Animal Liberation Front..................................................................................................19 Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty....................................................................................23 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.................................................................. 25 The Humane Society of the United States....................................................................... 26 The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals................................... 29 About AETA...........................................................................................................................30 3 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................. 44 4 FINDINGS....................................................................................................................... .......50 Communication Efforts About AETA.................................................................................... 50 The Shunning of Extremism............................................................................................ 50 Lack of Awareness..........................................................................................................53 Enacted Communication Efforts..................................................................................... 54 Perceptions of AETA...................................................................................................... 55 AETAs intended effects..........................................................................................55 AETAs passing.......................................................................................................58 In Retrospect....................................................................................................................60 Impact of AETA.....................................................................................................................61 Uncertainty.................................................................................................................... ..61 Hysteria....................................................................................................................... .....62 Wait and See....................................................................................................................63 There is Hope..................................................................................................................63

PAGE 6

6 5 DISCUSSION.........................................................................................................................65 Two-way Communication between Activists and Corporations ............................................65 Mainstream vs. Extremists in the Animal Advocacy Movement........................................... 68 SHACs Professed Legality.................................................................................................... 68 The Legislative Process for AETA.........................................................................................71 Information Dissemination by Animal Advocacy Groups..................................................... 75 A Chilling of Animal Activism Has Occurred....................................................................... 76 Practical Implications......................................................................................................... ....76 Limitations.................................................................................................................... ..........78 Areas for Future Research......................................................................................................78 Conclusion..............................................................................................................................79 APPENDIX A ANIMAL ENTERPRISE TERRORISM ACT (S. 3880).......................................................80 B ANIMAL ENTERPRISE TERRORISM ACT OPPOSITION LIST ..................................... 82 C ANIMAL ACTIVISM SPECTRUM...................................................................................... 83 D PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF DR VLASAKS STATEMENTS.........................................85 E S. 1926, 109TH CONGRESS...................................................................................................88 F H.R. 4239, 109TH CONGRESS..............................................................................................95 G CHANGES SUGGESTED BY THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES 102 H QUESTION GUIDE.............................................................................................................104 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................105 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................114

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Participant descriptions......................................................................................................48

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AAA Animal Agriculture Alliance ACLU American Civil Liberties Union AETA The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act AEPA Animal Enterpri se Protection Act of 1992 ALF Animal Liberation Front ASPCA The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals AVMA American Veterinary Medical Association BM Band of Mercy BK Burger King CCF Center for Consumer Freedom EJA The Equal Justice Alliance ELF Earth Liberation Front HSUS The Humane Society of the United States HSA Hunt Saboteurs Association HLS Huntingdon Life Sciences NLG The National Lawyers Guild NPCC National Pork Producers Council LEARN Law Enforcement Agency Resource Network PETA People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals RICO Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations SHAC Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Mast er of Arts in Mass Communication AN ANALYSIS OF THE COMMUNICATION EFFORTS MADE BY LAW-ABIDING ANI MAL ADVOCACY GROUPS ABOUT THE ANIMAL ENTERPRISE TERRORISM ACT By Nadya M. Vera August 2007 Chair: Linda Childers Hon Major: Mass Communication The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA ) was signed by President George W. Bush on November 27, 2006 amid claims that the language of the bill featured oversights that could threaten certain civil liberties for those involved specifically with animal advocacy. Seventeen telephone interviews were conducted with representatives of law-abiding animal advocacy groups in order to analyze the communication effo rts that were made by these groups regarding AETA. Instead of participating in a telephone interview, one organizational representative provided written answers to a list of sample questions. The responses of the 18 participants revealed that, generally speaking, law-abidi ng animal advocacy groups communication efforts about AETA were not enacted until AETA was cl ose to being passed in both houses of Congress and that the passing of the bill has not hindered their campaign e fforts up to the point of this study. This study reveals implications for those in volved in the study or practice of law, public relations, or activism.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE Introduction While m ost animal rights and animal protec tion groups condemn the use of violence or intimidation to incite change, like other social movements, the animal advocacy movement has an extremist sect. As stated in its preamble, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) was written [t]o provide the Departme nt of Justice the necessary au thority to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals committing anim al enterprise terror (Appendix A). According to the bills sponsors, AETA was de signed to stop terrorism activities employed by animal rights extremists (Gantman, 2006, 1). However, the bills opposition, which consisted, among others, of such organizations as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), New York City Bar Association, and the Natural Resources Defens e Council, claims that the language of the act was far-reaching enough to negatively affect la w-abiding animal rights and animal protection groups by potentially squelching First Amendment rights including (but not limited to) boycotts, peaceful protests and media campaigns using video footage. Purpose The purpose of this study is to analyze the political advocacy comm unication efforts m ade by animal advocacy organizations that, accordin g to the Equal Justice Alliance (EJA), oppose AETA (Appendix B). The EJA was created in Se ptember 2006 in an effort to prevent AETAs potentially harmful effects upon law-abiding anim al advocacy organizations. In this study, the term law-abiding is reserved for organizations whose sole purpos e is to advocate on behalf of animals in the United States, and in doing so do not engage in any violent, law-breaking

PAGE 11

11 activities. Particularly, these groups do not ut ilize the tactics used by what Chapter 2 will describe as being part of an animal liberation agenda. Significance This study will con tribute to the body of know ledge available with regard to activism theory by illustrating the significan t differences in the ways that distinctive groups within one social movement induce change. Furthermore, a strong case will be made for encouraging outside parties not to define so cial movements by the acts that fringe groups may take or be assigned responsibility for. Within the study of public relations, it is understood that the field is in need of a dose of its own reputation management. Although ethically driv en practitioners know that a bad reputation for the public relations field is not representative of the discipline, that does not mean that outsiders to the field do not ha ve a negative perception about it. As Rampton and Stauber (1995) claimed, PR companies have also become adep t at manufacturing apparent support from ordinary people for the goals of industry ( p. 174). Similarly, the animal advocacy movement has a situation in which outsiders may often bundl e the entire movement based on the actions of its unethical pr actitioners. The idea that the practice of public relations might have a negative image in American culture is not only an obstacle for those in the field of public relations, but it could be a magnified problem for those conducting public relations for animal advocacy groups. As mentioned above, this study will serve to analyze what communication strate gies were put forth by groups that utilized what could be considered a more mainstream-frien dly form of activism, yet could be negatively affected by a law that wa s not officially designed to hinder them. Leaders and communicators of non-animal-focused social movements can benefit from this analysis by analyzing this situation in the way they would a case study. This would allow similar

PAGE 12

12 circumstances to be identified at an early st age and would perhaps even prevent an analogous turn of events. Communications educators and stud ents can also benefit from evaluating the role that their communications efforts played in responding to and addressing a law that could arguably hinder them. Law educators and students st and to gain an understanding of the type of reaction that a social movement group can have toward a law th at is accused of being too vague or poorly written. Hearing from organizational representatives directly, rather than forming conclusions based on available samples of their communication, can provide far greater assessment of their communication strategies than the sole evaluation of the released written materials (i.e., Web site content on the subject, press releases, direct ma iling pieces, letters to th e editor, brochures, email blasts, newsletter communications, official statements, etc.). This is a benefit for not only the methodology, but for every one of the above -mentioned individuals who can gain an advantage by familiarizing themselves with this study.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Activism Theory and Research in Public Relations Activis t groups are entities within social m ovements that often exis t to incite change by informing people about the practices that the groups deem as being in need of modification or abolition. Unfortunately, communica tion efforts between activist gr oups and the bodies that they try to change are often unproduc tive. As declared by Grunig et al. (2002), many organizations try to ignore activist groups. When they are willing to communicate, they practice either oneway or two-way asymmetrical pub lic relations. This approach ra rely works . Failure to establish good relationships with these often-belligerent groups may result in crisis situations (p. 447). The spreading of information about an activist groups cause(s) helps to garner support from people who were not previously aware of the issue in question. That support helps to put pressure on, among others, corporate and governmental entities that form the offending party or parties. The essence of public relations is often said to be the practice of managing mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and its publics. Alt hough activist groups can sometimes seem to be a hindrance, as stated above, it is imperative that the public relations field recognizes them among its lists of stak eholders. As Anderson (1992) stated, activist groups are strategic publics because th ey constrain an organizations ability to accomplish its goals and mission. Activists create issues; they appeal to government, the courts, or media for litigation, regulation, or other forms of pressure. As a result, research on activism has become one of the most importa nt domains of public relations research. (p. 1) In fact, the value of public relations as a practice is often highly attributed to its ability to deal with activists. As Grunig et al. (2002) stated, why is managed communication valued so highly? What, exactly, is it worth? The answ er lies primarily with activism (p. 114).

PAGE 14

14 Negotiations between corporations and ac tivist groups can sometimes seem nearly impossible to attain because the two often have different values or misunderstandings about the other. Murphy and Dee (1996) studied the conf lict between environmental activists and corporate policymakers. They concluded that although each side often had similar priorities, neither side had the accurate in formation about the others positi on that is needed to negotiate well (p. 25). However, constructive dialogue with activists can transform a crisis situation into a positive learning experience. In an age in which corporate scandal is not unheard of, this could increase the chances of survival for an organizati on after a crisis situation. For instance, the labor conditions in its South Asian factories brought in ternational protests to the Nike Corporation. As part of its response to the crisis, Nike crea ted official policies on corp orate responsibility and involved local NGOs in factory monitoring. Nike was clearly in the wrong, and its subsequent decisions were responsible ones (Li, 2001, p. 13). Furthermore, a co rporate and activist interchange can even serve to discover unexpect ed financial benefits. In describing Haddens findings, Tombs and Smith (1995) asserted, in certain cases, citizen groups have negotiated with companies to reduce emissions following whic h the latter have then realized considerable cost savings (p. 144). Not only can engaging in dialogue with activ ist groups be a beneficial action for an organization, but it is also importa nt to note that activist groups within the same social movement do not operate in the same way. While one gr oup might be demanding the eradication of a practice, another activist group might be willing to make some compromises as long as they can take steps in the right direction. Interestingly, the range in the feasibility of activist groups goals or demands might actually be responsible for progress within the entire movement. The relationship among

PAGE 15

15 different activist groups within the same movement is remarkab le in that the radical and moderate goals sometimes need each other to incite change. For instance, Derville (2005) illustrated this concept within the animal advocacy movement as follows: By making demands that powerholders are unlikel y to accept, radical activist organizations stay faithful to their vision and redefine wh at people consider moderate by moving the ends of the spectrum. By arguing for much mo re radical demands than mainstream activist organizations request, they increase the reasonableness of mainstream activist organizations demands. (p. 531) When it comes to engaging in two-way symm etrical communication with corporations, individual animal activist groups are often faced with not only the challenge of being an activist group, but also coping with accusations of i rrationality. As Munro (2001) explained, a movement predominantly female in membership is likely to attract criticism as being emotional (stereotypical feminine trait) as opposed to rational (the ma sculine opposite) (p. 45). Such allegations can often serve as a way to deter th e mainstream from paying attention to animal activist groups messages. In his framing analysis of the debate on animal experimentation, Kruse (2001) exemplified that notion as follows: If a social movement is to effect social ch ange, it must promote awar eness of the issues it seeks to address. To do this effectively, movements must garner mass media coverage. Unfortunately, such attention is difficult to co me by, and individuals are forced to engage in disruptive behavior, which then be comes the focus of attention. (p. 85) Even though activist groups might have a hard time getting their communication efforts to be validated by the industries that they are acti ng against, as well as having access to the media that can largely disseminate their message, all is not lost. The American p ublics general distrust of governmental agencies and co rporations (Forstner and Bales, 1992) sometimes gives activist groups credibility when providing information about a subject. Although the general suspicions about governmental agencies and corporations have provided leverage for some activist groups, the funding that activist group s receive from their

PAGE 16

16 supporters is significantly smaller by comparison. Th is means that activist groups are forced to make their funds last as long as possible if they want to gain the so rt of attention that will incite the change that they desire. The confidence th at activist groups are bestowed today was not available until activists began using media-specifi c tactics in order to prove their accusations. Rose (1991) illustrated that turning point as follows: The limited dollars which a fledgling group might once have invested in a mimeograph machine and flyers to post at the supermarke t are now more likely to be spent for video production. In a surprising move to many observers in 1988, H.J. Heinz, Van Camps and Bumble Bee announced they would stop buying tuna caught using methods which kill dolphins. The issue was nothing new. Activists had been urging protection for dolphins for more than a decade. What was new was the advocacy tools used to bring pressure for reform. (p. 30) Activist groups have become mo re effective over the years by first using video footage and later taking advantage of the power of the Internet. As Li (2001) st ated, [t]he Internet has given rise to a new kind of advocate: the virtual activ ist (p. 12). The simplicity of launching e-mail blasts and facilitating the access of fact sheets and streami ng video via the Internet has significantly cut down the time, manpower and funding needed to disseminate information to large audiences; this has been e ssential in facilitating the spread of activist groups messages. As Illia (2002) stated, cyberactivists make exce llent use of the web by following online dynamics and logic by utilizing the internet as a relati onship medium as well as an information medium (p. 334). As they become more effective, activists can cost corporations thei r reputations and, even worse, their money. Tombs and Smith (1995) suggested that even though corporations increasingly have the right id ea about pursuing corporate social responsibility, activist groups also increasingly expose c ontrary actions by corporat ions in the light of local, or increasingly global, problems (p.135). Kirk land (2002) quoted Nichols in expressing the common, highly defensive corporate sentiment that can de velop in response to activist groups:

PAGE 17

17 By giving in, companies are setting themselves up as an easy target for other groups . Challenging tax exemptions is only one way corporate America can fight back against these so-called attack groups. if youre in the right and co nducting business legally and ethically you ought to defend yourself and not assume theyre going to go away because theyre not going to go away. (-35) Corporations can become disheartened and resentful when their seemingly good actions are overshadowed or dismissed when activists attack them, which ofte n leads to the abovereferenced defense mechanisms from those indus tries. This is the case in the biomedical industry, which creates life-saving advances for humans but is at the same time criticized and even attacked by animal rights activists for in flicting pain and suffering upon living creatures. Kruse (2001) explained that notion as follows: Although active, organized opposition to vivisection has existed since the mid-1800s, scientists who performed experiments upon an imals could, until relatively recently, look forward to overwhelming approval from th e public for providing knowledge that could ease human suffering and improve the human condition. Such opposition as did exist was confined primarily to the fringes. In the last quarter century, all of this has changed as support for the rights of nonhuman animals has increased. Grassroots animal advocacy groups have sprung up in many areas, and member ship in national organizations has risen dramatically. (p. 70) This is also the case for the agricultural industry, which provides large and affordable quantities of food, yet is also criticized and attacked by the animal advocacy movement for inflicting pain and suffering upon sentient animals. Such sentiments were clearly stated in March 2007 by the president of the American Farm Bureau: Animal agriculture is under fire. I call it animal warfar e. Special interest groups campaigning around the nation under the banner of animal rights, and using emotion to trump fact-based science, are changing the way the livestock industry has legally and humanely operated for years. While wrapping th emselves in a warm and fuzzy flag, these groups employ sophisticated, big-money ta ctics to misinform the uninformed. The campaign is spreading across the country. An imal activists are rallying throughout the nation behind ballot initiatives, legal action and lobbying to shut down animal agriculture. These groups are going stateby-state campaigning on emotion, leaving many producers concerned with who will be the ne xt target. (Stallman, 2007, 1-2)

PAGE 18

18 The Animal Activism Spectrum The anim al activism spectrum (Appendix C) is included in this study with the purpose of illustrating the fact that there are different facets within the animal activism movement. It is not meant to be a definitive explanation of the social movement that focuses on alleviating the suffering of animals nor is it a representation of the law-abiding organizations that have been interviewed in this study. Instead, it is the re searchers way of visually representing the organizations that are popularly associated w ith the animal advocacy movement. In this study, the terms animal advocacy and animal activism refer broadly to all groups within the animal-focused social movement. Most social movements comprise distinctive groups that utilize diffe rent approaches to arrive at similar goals. Alt hough different activist groups within one social movement may ultimately have the same concerns, their tactics range from extreme (seeking immediate, radical change) to conservative (realizi ng that change is a slow and gradual process). Activist groups that carry out violent or i llegal actions often do so because they believe that such fundamentalism is the only force that eventually creates room for reform. As Derville (2005) stated, The first distinction among activist organiza tions involves the degree of change sought, which determines whether they are more radi cal or more mainstream on the classification spectrum. Radical activist organizations are mo re fundamentalist than mainstream activist organizations. They challenge the status quo wh ile trying to prevent it from worsening. (p. 528) Sometimes, as in the case of the Underground Railroad, that immoderate ideology is responsible for truly contributi ng to the greater good. On the ot her hand, actions carried out by extremist groups can oftentimes be detrimental to the mainstream or more conservative, lawabiding groups within the same movement becau se outsiders often categorize movements in a collective manner.

PAGE 19

19 Animal Liberation Front At one end of the anim al activism spectrum is the underground force known as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), which is characterized by radical goals and militant tactics. In this study, the two groups that conduct harassment of i ndividuals and employ illegal activities such as property damage in the name of animal rights ideology will be referred to as the animal liberation movement. Derville (2 005) illustrated the reasoning that some activist groups employ when conducting illegal activities: Some activist organizations justify highly militant tactics such as vandalizing property and harassing targets because attempts to work through the political system are unlikely to achieve their minimum demands. Aside from attempting to immediately improve the situation, these methods have the more relia ble effect of giving members a sense of fulfillment through the reaction they get from the target. (p. 532) According to the Law Enforcement Agency Resource Network (LEARN), a division of the Anti-Defamation League, ALF began in England dur ing the 1960s (Ecoterrorism, Extremism in the Animal Rights and Environmenta list Movements, 8). At that time, a group called the Hunt Saboteurs Association (HSA) disrupted fox hunt s using road blocks, bullhorns and other troublemaking tactics. Some members of HSA formed the group Band of Mercy (BM) because they felt that more aggressive tactics were needed to help an imals. In 1974, Ronnie Lee and Cliff Goodman, two of the original members of BM, were jailed for firebombing a vivisection research center in England. (Merriam-Websters dictionary broadly de fines vivisection as follows: animal experimentation especially if co nsidered to cause distress to the subject.) ALF was created upon the release of Ronnie Lee, which took place in 1976 (Ecoterrorism, Extremism in the Animal Rights and Environm entalist Movements, 9). The shift of ALF from England to the United States is not well-documented. Howe ver, Kruse (2001) cited Sperling in describing the effect of AFL upon the American biomedical industry during the 1980s:

PAGE 20

20 In 1984 the Animal Liberation Front (ALF ) raided a research project at the University of Pennsylvania funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). On the basis of information gathered in the raid, and subs equent protest to NIH, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services suspended funding to th e laboratory. For the first time, an administration official had interv ened in the allocation of a grant from NIH, the largest source of funding for biomedical research in the United States. (Sperling, 1988, p. 4). (p. 71) As stated by LEARN, in the United States, ALF has claimed incidents of break-ins, vandalism, arson and thefts committed in the name of animal rights between 1979 and 1993 (Ecoterrorism, Extremism in the Animal Rights and Environmentalist Movements 11). The 2006 documentary film titled Behind the Mask took a deep look into the lives of the people who risk their freedom to engage in activities with the ALF. In it, examples of ALF incidents included break-ins and vandalizations of equipm ent in research laboratories or fur farms, removal of animals from the facilities, and sometim es arson of the facilities in order to inflict significant economic damage. According to the ALF Web site, ALFs actions are carried out with the intention of not causing harm to people. Within the same statement, there is an allusion to the idea that human ha rm attributed to extremist animal activists could be partly attributed to infiltration: One of the fundamental guidelines of the extreme activists is that great care must be taken not to inflict harm in carrying out the acts. This has been borne out in practice. On the very rare occasions when harm has occurred, the mainstream AR [animal rights] groups have condemned the acts. In some cases, the authors of the acts have been suspected to be those allied against the AR movement; their motives would not require deep thought to decipher. The dictionary defines "terrorism" as the syst ematic use of violence or acts that instill intense fear to achieve an end. Certainly, harassment of fur wearers, or shouting "meat is murder" outside a butcher shop, could not be cons idered to be terrorism. Even destruction of property would not qualify under the defini tion if it is done without harming others. Certainly, the Boston Tea Party raiders did not consider themselves terrorists. (Frequently Asked Questions, #89, 2-3) In an age when corporate scandals are not unhe ard of, the notion that a corporation that has been heavily criticized or even harassed by anim al activists might be wi lling to employ unethical tactics to rid themselves of a group that is ta rnishing its image is perh aps not likely, but it is

PAGE 21

21 nonetheless conceivable. Kruse ( 2001) described an event in which an animal activist was probably set up by a biomedical company: In early November 1988, Fran Stephanie Trutt was arrested in Norw alk, Connecticut, after she placed a pipe bomb outside the headquarter s of the U.S. Surgical Corporation. Animal protection advocates had long condemned the firm for its use of dogs to train doctors and company salespeople to use surgical staples. In the weeks after the event information came to light that U.S. Surgicals president, Leon Hirsch, had been instrumental in orchestrating the event. (p. 81) On May 18, 2004, John E. Lewis, FBI Deput y Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, testified before the Senate Judiciar y Committee. His testimony addressed the ALFs effort to purposely avoid the injury of people as a re sult of its activities, yet also stated that an increase in violent rhetoric and tactics, partic ularly within the animal rights movement ( 8), had been seen. The ALF is at one extreme end of the animal activism spectrum and it is not representative of the animal advocacy movement as a whole. ONeill (2001) illustrated the separation between ALF and other pro-animal groups by stating that members of the ALF are criminal fanatics and that [t]heir relentless international campaign of vandalism, arson and bombing has marginalized them even among hardcore animal rights crusaders" ( 1). Although the minority status of extremists with in the animal advocacy movement has been discussed above, the number of incidents perpetrated by these extremists has apparently risen enough to garner attention from certain me mbers of Congress. On May 18, 2005, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), then Chairman of the Envi ronment and Public Works Committee, held an oversight hearing on eco-terrorism specifically investigating the ALF and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). By merging the two underground cell s under the label of E co-Terrorism in his opening statement for the above-mentioned heari ng, Senator Inhofe (2005) essentially explained why he considered the ALF and th e ELF to be a single threat:

PAGE 22

22 Today the Committee on Environment and Public Works will highlight the findings of the Committees ongoing investigation in to the issue of Eco-terrori sm. The Patriot Act defines terrorism as the unlawful use of force and violence against pe ople or property to intimidate or coerce government or civilian population in furtherance of a political or social objective. The Department of Justic e and the Department of Homeland Security agree that eco-terrorism is a severe problem naming the most serious domestic terrorist threat in the Untied [ sic ] States today as the Earth Li beration Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), which by al l accounts, is a converging movement with similar ideologies and common personnel. ( 1) Although the FBIs congression al testimony in the above-mentioned Senate Judiciary Committee (2004) and Senate Committee on Envir onment and Public Works (2005) hearings made an obvious effort to refer to animal right s extremists and eco-terrorists as similar but separate entities, the incidents caused by each we re merged when summarizing the damage that they have caused, elevating the impact that each group would have if it were to be evaluated separately. According to John E. Lewis, FB I Deputy Assistant Dire ctor, Counterterrorism Division, [f]rom January 1990 to June 2004, animal and environmental rights extremists have claimed credit for more than 1,200 criminal incident s, resulting in millions of dollars in damage and monetary loss (Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 2005). Also noteworthy is the observation that extremist right-wing attacks upon abortion clinicswhich have caused human injuries and deathare not classified as do mestic terrorism. The Seattle Timess listing of the FBIs chronological su mmary of terrorist incidents from 1980 to 2004 included the following statement: Among domestic terrorists, the Animal Libera tion Front, the Earth Liberation Front and other militant animal-rights and environmen tal groupscategorized as Special [sic] interest domestic terroristshave been involve d in the greatest number of incidents in the past decade. But none of their actions have re sulted in injuries or death. The FBI does not classify the vast majority of attacks on abortion clinics as acts of domestic terrorism. Thus, almost all of these attacks tallied at more than 4,200 since 1979 by the National Abortion Federation [italics added]are not incl uded in the data base. On e notable exception is the Eric Rudolph attacks on abortion clinics. (2006, 3-4)

PAGE 23

23 Senator Inhofes (2005) opening statement at the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Oversight on Eco-terrorism sp ecifically examining ELF and ALF sheds some light on a possible reason for the divergence in attention from the extremist anti-abortion movement to the eco-terrorism movement: Today we will hear from federal law enforcement agencies, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, who will discuss the problem of ELF and ALF and law enforcements reaction to their dangerous and destructive tactics. It is these tactics, particularly the widespread use of arson, which make ELF and ALF the #1 domestic te rror concern over the likes of white supremacists.[ sic ] militias, or anti-abortion groups. ( 3) Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty The second anim al liberation group to be discussed in this study is Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC). In response to th e 1998 BBC broadcast of a graphic documentary showing alleged mistreatment of research animals by Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), animal rights activists began to pressure financial institutions connected with HLS to sever their ties to the research firm by utilizing philosophy and strate gies borrowed from ALF. An article in Satya Magazine described the above-mentioned documentary: In 1997, animal rights organizations in the U. S. and England infiltrated HLS and emerged with shocking video coverage that would ch ange the publics view of HLS forever. Extensive footage from both locations showed laboratory workers taunting and abusing animals as they were subjected to invasive procedures and chemical tests. In the UK, HLS workers were caught on video punching beagle puppies in the face. Clandestine video footage from the NJ facility showed workers shoving and throwing monkeys into cages, jeering at them while performing procedures and in one gruesome scene, a supposedly post-mortem dissection was performed on a monkey who was still alive. These video clips are only a small segment of months of documentation proving callous abuse and torture of defenseless animals at HLS. (Stagno, 2000, 3) As illustrated by LEARN, the campaign against HLS garnered widespread momentum: SHAC quickly become a transatlantic cause among radical animal ri ghts activists, with chapters in Germany, Italy, Portugal and the United States. To date, its activists have claimed responsibility for several bombings and dozens of acts of vandalism and harassment in both the U.S. and Europe. (Ecoterrorism, Extremism in the Animal Rights and Environmentalist Movements, 40)

PAGE 24

24 Although SHACs aim is to cause economic rath er than physical damage, in one instance two men who belonged to a non-U.S. chapter of SHAC beat HLSs managing director with baseball bats. SHAC condemned the act of violence, yet other occurrences characterized by intimidation, destruction of property and firebombing gave the group notoriety. The following is the FBIs description of the findings revealed by its scrutiny of SHAC: Investigation of SHAC-related criminal ac tivity has revealed a pattern of vandalism, arsons, animal releases harassing telephone calls, threats and attempts to disrupt business activities of not only HLS, but of all companies doing business with HLS. Among others, these companies include Bank of America, Marsh USA, Deloitte and Touche, and HLS investors, such as Stephens, Inc., which comp letely terminated their business relationships with HLS as a result of SHAC activities. Examples of SHAC activ ities include publishing on its website as a regular feature Targets of the Week for followe rs to target with harassing telephone calls and emails in order to discourage that company or individual from doing business with HLS. (Lewis, 2004, 7) According to LEARN, Kevin Kjonaas became i nvolved with animal rights while studying political science at the Univers ity of Minnesota, and he briefly served as the spokesman for ALF in 1999 (Ecoterrorism, Extremism in the Animal Rights and Environmentali st Movements, 42). Kevin Kjonaas established the U.S. headquarters fo r SHAC two years later. In an article about Kjonaas and SHAC, magazine journalist Chris Maag (2006) wrote the following: When you picture a dangerous terrorist, Kevi n Kjonaas may not immediately spring to mind. The 28-year-old Catholic-school gradua te stands 5 feet 10 inches, weighs 120 pounds, and speaks in a mezzo-soprano voice. He uses the word "cute" a lot. Kjonaas pays his rent by working at a doggy daycare; before that he went door to door for John Kerrys presidential campaign but quit wh en he realized that his strained relationship with the law could be a liability for his employer. Kjonaas is both a vegan and a preppy. He owns almost 40 vegetarian cookbooks but is quick to point out that I don' t cook sprouted wheat germ. It sounds so hippie-ish. His closet is fi lled with J. Crew hand-me-downs, and for his birthday this year, he got a dress shirt with light pink and light blue stripes. I really like it, he says. It goes really well with this sweater vest I have. ( 1) A Toronto Star reporter explained that SHAC USA specifically used what it considered to be legal tactics that were protected by the First Amendment. To SH AC, a legal home protest might involve a vanload of demonstrators arrivi ng outside an employee's residence to scream

PAGE 25

25 insults and pass out leaflets accusing the target of killing puppies (Walkom, 2006, 42). Kjonaas and five others ranging in age from 27 to 31 at the time (known as the SHAC 7) were arrested in May 2004 for encouraging harassmen t and coercion of HLS employees. The term SHAC 7 comprises the six activ ists and Stop Hungtindon Animal Cruelty USA Inc. Walkom (2006) also described what some call SHACs bi ggest success: In 2005, at the last minute and without explanation, the New York Stock Exchan ge refused to list Huntingdon on its big board ( 37). There is one significant difference between ALF and SHAC. While ALF is an entirely underground group, the SHAC USA group exercised wh at it considered its freedom of speech rights to find and release the names and contac t information of people who did business with HLS along with describing effective intimidation t actics. So, the SHAC 7 did not believe they had the need to conceal their identities because they were not engaging in any activity that was not protected by the Constitution. Although the animal liberation movement exists primarily in opposition to cruelty toward helpless non-human animals, the animal liberation movement has been linked to terrorism through its use of ha rassment and intimidation tactics upon not only people not directly responsible fo r vivisection at HLS, but also those engaged in business with that entity. Therefore, SHAC USA is larg ely responsible for th e creation of AETA. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals The only anim al rights group in this studys animal activism spectrum is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which is to the mainstream, largely synonymous with radical animal rights. As an organization, PETA has radical goals and pursues them by using sometimes scandalous, yet mostly legal, tactics. Unlike ALF and SHAC, PETA did not form in the United Kingdom and develop chap ters in the United States. A ccording to the organizations Web site, www.peta.org, PETA was created in 1 980 and is dedicated to establishing and

PAGE 26

26 protecting the rights of all animals. PETA operates under th e simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment (about us, 1). The organizations methods rely on public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and prot est campaigns (about us, 3). PETAs publicity stunts often try to invoke disturbing images, humor or sexuality in order to capture the attention of the media. In todays Western society, anim al rights activists are often associated with radicalism; thus, accusations of inhumane practices against major corporations may often not be sufficient to warrant belief from the public. That is why PETAs use of vivid images ostensibly proving its claims, although unpleasant, speak clearly. To outsiders, PETAs promotion of radical change is often co nfused with irrationality or attack on human values. While PETAs tactics often get media coverage, the messages behind those campaigns often get lost in the hype. For instance, a story in The Sunday Herald of Scotland included the following: Ingrid Newkir k, head [of PETA], pr ovoked anger by pointing out that although six million Jews died in concen tration camps, six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses (Allan, 2006, 25). Although one FBI official said that PETA, as of 2005, was not considered to be a terror ist organization by the FBI, government records have shown that the FBI launched a terrorism i nvestigation of PETA fo r its alleged support of ALF (Bridis, 2005). The Humane Society of the United States On the righ t side of the animal activ ism spectrum are two groups whose own organizational descriptions are di sassociated with the term animal rights. The first of these two groups is the Humane Societ y of the United States (HSU S). Although the name humane society is often associated with local cat and dog shelters, HSUS was founded in 1954 and, as conveyed by its current slogan, its focus is on [ p]romoting the protection of all animals (HSUS

PAGE 27

27 home page, 2006). According to the about us s ection of the HSUS Web site, the organization works heavily within the legal system to carry out its mission of defending all animals: We work to reduce suffering and to create meaningful social change for animals by advocating for public policies to protect anim als, investigating cr uelty and working to enforce existing laws, educating the public about the issues, and conducting hands-on program s, such as assisting animals when disasters strike. Our major campaigns target four prim ary issues: 1) factory farming, 2) animal fighting and other forms of animal cruelty, 3) the fur trade, and 4) inhumane sport hunting practices. Our other campaigns take on puppy m ills, the private ownership of exotic animals as pets, greyhound racing, and particularly unacceptable animal research and tes ting practices, such as the use of great apes in research. ( 2-3) The HSUS openly opposes violence and conde mns groups and individuals who resort to harassm ent, threats, and illegal activity (Query, 2006, 10). However, ORourke (2004) summarized a speech by Wesley Jamison, Ph.D., an animal agriculture industry advisor, in which it was indicated that animal enterprises must also scrutinize the actions of law-abiding animal advocacy groups: Animal use groups must also remain vigilant in monitoring groups that are working toward their goals using legitimate means. In the late 1990s, a switch from protest to process occurredmany animal rights groups started using legislative, re gulatory, and judicial processes to work toward their goals. When animal use groups organize, they are usually unable to succeed on a federal level, and this has shunted their efforts to state and local levels. That is where (animal rights groups) are having a quiet and very significant impact on the way people use and view animals, Dr. Jamison said. They have advantages. They have better organization, they have intense activism, and they have local civic support. ( 13-14) In recent years, through their spearheading of ballot initiatives, HSUS has been successful in promoting the ban on gestation crates for breeding sows, in 2002 in Florida and then in November 2006 in Arizona. In January 2007, Smithfi eld Foods Inc., the largest producer of pork in the United States, announced that it would phase out gestation crates within the next decade. In response to the announcement, the CEO of the National Pork Producers Council (NPCC) stated that the decision made by Smithfield Foods was a market-based decision and that the associations policy on gestation stalls, which is recognized by th e American Veterinary Medical

PAGE 28

28 Association (AVMA), was not changed (State ment of NPPC CEO, 2007, 1). The HSUSs factory farming campaign, which is [w]orking to reduce the suffering of animals raised for meat, egg and milk, explained what a gestation crate is. Gestation crates are 2-foot by 7-foot metal cages that house br eeding pigs. The sows have a gestation period of four months, and are in the crates for ne arly their entire pregnancy. After giving birth, they are re-impregnated a nd placed back in the crates, enduring perhaps eight or 10 successive pregnancies in the cr ates before the animals are reproductively "spent." The crates are so rest rictive that the animals can't even turn around for months on end. Pigs confined in gestation crates suffer both leg and joint problems along with psychosis resulting from extreme boredom and fr ustration. Confinement in gestation crates is so abusive that the entire European Union is phasing out the practice, with a total ban taking effect in 2013. (Nations Largest Pig Pr oducer Moves to Phase Out Confinement of Pigs in Gestation Crates, 5) The HSUS also succeeded in banning veal crat es within the same Arizona ballot initiative that prohibited the use of gestation crates for breeding pigs. In Fe bruary 2007, two large producers of veal both announced th e phasing out of veal crates: Strauss Veal, the leading U.S. veal producer and Marcho Farms both pledged in January to convert their operations to crate-free group housing systems within two to three years. In these operations, while the calves most likely won' t be able to go outside, they will be able to turn around, walk and socia lize with other calvesall behaviors permanently denied to crated calves. Strauss Veal has also expresse d interest in moving to free-range systems after it converts its crate operations to group housing. (Str auss Veal and Marcho Farms Eliminating Confinement by Crate, 2) HSUSs effort to boost the demand for cagefree eggs is arguably the most rapidly growing shift within the egg industry with co mpanies like Wild Oats, Whole Foods, Trader Joes, Ben & Jerrys, AOL and Google all demandi ng that their suppliers pr ovide them with eggs from hens that did not live in battery cages. Th e HSUSs Web page on ba ttery cages states the following about the practice: Arguably the most abused animals in all agri business, about 95% of the nearly 300 million laying hens in the United States are confined in barren, wire battery cages so restrictive the birds can't even spread th eir wings. With no opportunity to engage in many of their natural behaviors, includi ng nesting, dust bathing, perc hing, and foraging, these birds endure lives wrought with suffering. Due to anim al welfare concerns, countries such as

PAGE 29

29 Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, and Austria ha ve banned battery cages. The entire European Union is phasing out conventi onal cages by 2012. (No Battery Eggs, 2) These changes (phasing out of veal crates, gest ation crates and battery cages) are not what the American industry standards prescribe. Fu rthermore, making changes above the industry standards is a costly effort. By requiring these changes in states in which those industries have a small presence, the HSUS has succeeded in se tting a priority on what it deems more humane practices. Because these industries have standa rds thatregardless of how humane they are considered to beare agreed upon, the move of these producers of br eaking away from the industry standards serves as a marketing advant age for those companies. At least one of the companies that has opted to a dopt the HSUSs advocated modifi cations openly agrees with the notion that there is a level of inhumaneness presen t in the veal industry st andards: In a written statement, Randy Strauss, co-president and CEO of Strauss Veal, said veal crates are inhumane and archaic and do nothing more than subject a calf to stress, fear, physical harm and pain (Strauss Veal and Marcho Farms Eliminating Confinement by Crate, 2007, 4). The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals The only anim al welfare group included in this studys animal activism spectrum is the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). The organizations section on policies and positions available on its Web s ite describes the ASPCAs guiding principles, which although focus on providing animals with hu mane treatment, vehemently condemn the use of violence to reach those goals: The ASPCA is guided today by the same belief on which it was founded in 1866, that animals are entitled to kind and re spectful treatment at the hands of humans, and that this is not to be left to the compassionate impulses of humans, but is an entitlement that must be protected under the law. Many things have changed in the 140 years since the ASPCA was chartered, but the ASPCA believes that societ ys obligation toward animals remains. The ASPCA continues its traditional role of pr eventing cruelty by direct action of law enforcement. In addition, however, the A SPCA recognizes that ach ieving its vision of humane communities across the United States will require education, advocacy and other

PAGE 30

30 forms of intervention that support the benefici al relationship between people and animals. The ASPCA has been and continues to be wholly committed to effecting change through nonviolent approaches. The ASPCA does not believe that threats, destruction of property or violence appropriately expr ess the nature of a movement that endorses kindness and respect. ( 1) About AETA AETA was created to am end the Animal Ente rprise Protection Act of 1992 (AEPA), which is the law that first addressed attacks specifically against animal enterprises. In 2002, by way of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism statute desc ribed in 18 U.S.C. 43, Congress increased maximum penalties under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (Potter, 2006). As mentioned in the previous sections descrip tion of ALF, Senator James Inhofe, then Chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, he ld an oversight hearing on May 18, 2005. The hearing focused on eco-terrorism, specifically in vestigating the effects of ALF and ELF. The hearing (Full Committee Oversight on Eco-terrori sm, May 2005) included testimonies from the following witnesses: John Lewis, Deputy Assistant Director Federal Bureau of Investigation Carson Carroll, Deputy Assistan t Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives David Martosko, Director of Research, the Center for Consumer Freedom Bradley Campbell, Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Dr. David Skorton, President, University of Iowa Monty McIntyre, Esq., Garden Communities The FBIs testimony as provided by Mr. Le wis (2005, May 18) included a statement bringing attention to the need to separate law-abiding animal or environmental advocacy groups from those employing criminal action. The dis tinctions between constitutionally protected advocacy and violent, criminal activity are extremely important to recognize, and law

PAGE 31

31 enforcement officials should be solely concer ned with those individua ls who pursue animal rights or environmental protecti on through force, violence, or cr iminal activity ( 4). The testimony by the director of re search for the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) included an assertion regarding some mainstream animal advocacy groups apparent link to the animal liberation extremists (Martosko, 2005). However, the motives of CCF do not lack disapproval: CCF doesnt represent consumers. Its just th e new name for lobbyist Rick Bermans latest front group (Rampton and Stauber, 2002, 3). Also noteworthy is Senator Inhofes (2005) declaration of the need for tightening freedom of speech parameters for individuals and organizations that do not engage in crimes of violence, as well as the hearings purpose of addressing the mainstreams connection to the extremists: As with any other criminal enterprise, we can not allow individuals a nd organizations to, in effect, aide [ sic ] and abet criminal behavior or provi de comfort and support to them after the fact. Just as we can not allow individuals and organizations to surf in between the laws of permissible free speech and speech that incites violence when we know the goal is to inspire people to commit crimes of violence. This hearing will begin the process of scrutinizing criminally based activism as well as call into question the essential support received from mainstream indivi duals and organizations. ( 9) In addition to opening statements from Senator Inhofe, the hearing (Full Committee Oversight on Eco-terrorism, May 2005) incl uded opening statements from the following senators: Sen. John W. Warner, of Virginia Sen. David Vitter, of Louisiana. Sen. James M. Jeffords, of Vermont. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, of New Jersey. Sen. Barack Obama, of Illinois. A prepared opening statement for Senator Warner was not available on the Web site for U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Work s. However, from his prepared opening

PAGE 32

32 statement, it is evident that Senator Jeffords (May 2005) had re servations about the reasoning behind the hearing: I am puzzled why the Senate Environment a nd Public Works Committee is examining the issue of animal rights and eco-terrorism since the Committee lacks jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement issues. Such matte rs are more appropria tely addressed by the Judiciary or Homeland Security Committees. Ne vertheless, I look forward to learning what the Environment Committee can do to address the problems posed by domestic terrorism. ( 7) Senator Lautenberg (2005) stated that [t]o date, not a single incident of so-called environmental terrorism has killed anyone ( 7) and he cautioned about proclaiming guilt by association: The National Right to Life Committee is oppos ed to legal abortion. Eric Rudolph bombed a Birmingham abortion clinic, and he was invol ved with several anti-abortion groups. That doesnt mean that the members of the Nati onal Right to Life Committee are terrorists. Terror is a tactic. We must condemn that t actic whenever it raises its ugly head regardless of the ideology of those who woul d employ it. But we must take care not to lump legitimate groups with terrorists. To do so would only minimize the very real threats against our society. ( 10) Finally, it is also valuable to examine the statement made by Senator Obama (2005), in which he declared that Americans were more vulnerable to other threats that require d more attention: The FBI has indicated a downward trend in the number of crimes committed by these groups approximately 60 in 2004. While I wa nt these crimes stopped, I do not want people to think that the threat from these orga nizations is equivalent to other crimes faced by Americans every day. According to the FBI, there were over 7,400 hate crimes committed in 2003 half of which [were] racially motivated. More directly relevant to this committee, the FBI reports 450 pending envir onmental crimes cases involving worker endangerment or threats to public health or the environment. So, while I appreciate the Chairmans interest in these fringe groups, I urge the Committee to focus its attention on larger environmental threats, such as the dangerously high bl ood lead levels in hundreds of thousands of children. ( 4) On October 26, 2005, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works had a second hearing to discuss its inve stigation into eco-te rrorism, but this time it focused on SHAC rather than ALF or ELF (Full Committee Heari ng on Eco-Terrorism, October 2005). This second hearing included testimonies fr om the following witnesses: John Lewis, Deputy Assistant Director Federal Bureau of Investigation

PAGE 33

33 Barry Sabin, Section Chief of Counterte rrorism Division, Department of Justice Mark Bibi, General Counsel, Huntingdon Life Sciences Skip Boruchin, Legacy Trading Company Richard P. Bernard, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, New York Stock Exchange Dr. Jerry Vlasak, M.D., Press Officer, North American Animal Liberation Press Office In his opening statement, Senator Inhofe (Oct ober 2005) stated that the hearings focal point was SHAC, defining it as a radical animal rights organization that relies on crimes of violence and a campaign of fear to convey their message of animal liberation ( 1). Furthermore, he added that testing [by HLS] may, some day, provide us the cure for cancer, AIDS, blindness the possibilities are endless and we as the Congress, have determined that this testing is necessary to ensure the safety of our consumers ( 1). In his submitted statement, Mr. Lewis (October 2005) declared that the organizer s of SHAC had been successfully charged: In one example of a recent success, last May th e FBI helped secure criminal indictments in New Jersey against the SHAC organization a nd seven of its national leaders, charging them with Animal Enterprise Terrorism, Conspiracy, and In terstate Stalking. They are known among animal rights activists as the SHAC 7. Last September, a federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment agai nst 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 vanda lism, harassment and intimidation of victim companies and their employees. ( 18) However, Mr. Lewiss (October 2005) statement also claimed that the state of the law at that time was not sufficient to prosecute SHAC: First, we examined the idea of using the existing Animal Enterprise Terrorism statute, as set forth in 18 U.S.C. 43, which provid es a framework for prosecuting individuals involved in animal rights extremism. In prac tice, however, the stat ute does not cover many of the criminal activities SHAC routinely e ngages 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 resu lts in damage or loss of property. But, as you have heard me describe, HLS has been econom ically harmed by threats and coercion that did not ultimately cause property damage. ( 19)

PAGE 34

34 Although Senator Jeffords (October 2005) was unable to attend the hearing focusing on SHAC due to a scheduling conflict, he did s ubmit an opening statement that included the following declaration regarding the separation of mainstream animal or environmental groups from the extremists within those movements: These extremists do not represent the main stream environmental or animal rights community. Mainstream groups have been very effective in using lawful means to advance their agenda. Educational outreach, shareholder resolutions and dedicated volunteers have significantly improved the treatment of animals in the United States. Groups such as the Humane Society of the United States, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the Doris Day League and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have all submitted letters to the Co mmittee denouncing violence in the name of animal protection. Id like to en ter these letters into the offici al record of todays hearing. ( 4) As listed above, one of the w itnesses of the oversight hear ing specific to SHAC was Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a spokesman for ALF. During this hear ing, Dr. Vlasak stated th at he believed that the homicide of researchers who conduct animal re search would be morally justifiable within the context of a lib eration struggle (Appendix D). On the following day, October 27, 2005, Senator Inhofe introduced S. 1926, the first vers ion of AETA (Appendix E). As stated in the Congressional records, the bill had four co-spon sors and was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary (S. 1926 Summary of All Congressi onal Actions). Senator Inhofe issued a press release on the following day, in which he included this statement: The chilling testimony embracing assassination and destruction that we heard from the spokesman of the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty eco-terror group only points to the need for a tightening of current law for authoritie s to be to able to pr event future activities, and to better investigate and prosecute eco -terror cases.S. 1926 specifically addresses the tertiary targeting tactic employed by eco-terrorists by prohibiting intentional damage of property belonging to a pers on or organization with ties to an animal enterprise. Currently, only the animal enterprise itself is covered by law. The bill also increases penalties for intentional economic disruption or damage, and for intentionally causing bodily harm or placing a pers on in reasonable fear of deat h or bodily harm. (Holbrook, 2005, 2)

PAGE 35

35 In the House of Representatives, H.R. 4239 (Appendix F), also known as AETA, consisted of the same text as S.1926 and was introdu ced on November 4, 2005. It was sponsored by Representative Thomas Petri (R-WI), along with 44 co-sponsors. The House bill was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on the da y that it was introduced and referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Home land Security on February 6, 2006 (H.R. 4239 Summary of All Congressional Actions). On March 6, 2006, the American Civil Libert ies Union (ACLU) sent a letter to all members of Congress, in which it urged oppositio n to the first version of AETA. The first paragraph of the letter declared the following: On behalf of the American Civil Libertie s Union, a non-partisan organization with hundreds of thousands of activists and memb ers and 53 affiliates nation-wide, we write today to explain our opposition to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, S. 1926 and H.R. 4239 (AETA), a bill that amends the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA), now 18 U.S.C. 43. The AETA criminalizes First Am endment activities such as demonstrations, leafleting, undercover investig ations, and boycotts. The bill is overly broad, vague, and unnecessary because federal criminal laws al ready provide a wide range of punishments for unlawful activities targeting animal ente rprises. (Frederickson and Graves, 2006, 1) On May 23, 2006, the Committee on the Judiciary in the House of Representatives held a hearing on H.R. 4239 before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. This hearing included testimonies from the following witnesses: Brent McIntosh, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice Michele Basso, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Physiology, University of Wisconsin William Trundley, Vice President, Global Co rporate Security and Investigations, GlaxoSmithKline William Potter, Journalist In the above-mentioned hearing, the first th ree witnesses provided their personal and professional accounts as support for the passi ng of AETA. Although Mr. Potters testimony

PAGE 36

36 addressed what he had uncovered through his experience as a journalist, a certain level of irreverence was evident in the way in which Re presentative Tom Feeney (R-FL) addressed Mr. Potter: Mr. Potter, I appreciate that you dont have a legal background. I want to assure you and advise you to go talk to an attorney before you come and te stify before the United States Congress about what bills do when, in fact, th ey do not do (H.R. 4239 hearing transcript, 2006, p. 26). According to Mr. Potter, he was contac ted by the staff of the judiciary committee and offered the opportunity to testify, but he did not k now if other people, particularly any lawyers, were given the opportunity to testify in oppositi on to AETA (personal communication, February 2007). According to an e-mail communication from the ACLU to the Equa l Justice Alliance (EJA), after its March 6, 2006 lett er, the ACLU Washington Legisl ative Office worked to gain several important improvements to the bill, wh ich wasreintroduced as S. 3880 (ACLU E-mail Response to EJA, 2006). The change s were explained as follows: The wiretapping provision was removed entirely from the Senate version. Under the Senate bill, the economic damage that could tr igger liability does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that re sults from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disc losure of information about an animal enterprise. The original bill did not addre ss lawful boycotts, which are clearly protected First Amendment activity. Another revision wa s aimed at protecting advocacy. The Senate bill makes clear that only damage to real or personal property is the kind of economic damage that triggers liability. The original bill used the term any property, leaving open the possibility of even claiming damage to intellectual property (t rademark dilution and tarnishment, for example). ( 5) On September 8, 2006, Senators James Inhofe and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced Senate bill S. 3880 (Appendix A). This bill was al so called AETA. The bill was passed with an amendment by unanimous consent in the Senate on September 30, 2006. According to the U.S. Senate glossary, [a] Senator may request unanim ous consent on the floor to set aside a specified rule of procedure so as to expedite proceedi ngs. If no Senator objects, the Senate permits the

PAGE 37

37 action, but if any one Senator obj ects, the request is rejected. The amendment made to S. 3880 is of particular interest because, as mentione d above, it addressed some concerns regarding the first bills potential infringement on freedom of speech. However, the amendment made was sufficient for the ACLU to drop its official opposition of AETA, but it was not enough for the ACLU to support it. On October 30, 2006, the ACLU sent a letter to Representatives F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), then Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and John Conyers (DMI), then Ranking Member of the same committee. This second letter re garding AETA did not oppose the bill, but was seeking minor changes that were necessary to make the bill less likely to chill or threaten freedom of speech (Fredrickson and Johnson, 2006, 1). In contrast, the HSUS fact sheet on AETA stat ed that the changes that had been made to AETA were a step in the right direction, but they were not enough to protect law-ab iding animal rights and animal protection groups from being silenced by this law: Even with changes that have been incorporated into the current ve rsion of the legislation, it is st ill seriously flawed (HSUS Fact Sheet on AETA, 2006, 1). After S. 3880 was introduced in the Senate, the offices of Senators Inhofe and Feinstein issued a joint press release (Gantman, 2006). The pr ess release included st atements from each of the two senators. In it, the following statem ent was featured by Senator Inhofe: Our bi-partisan legislation will provide law enfo rcement the tools they need to adequately combat radical animal rights extremists [s ic] who commit violent acts against innocent people because they work with animals. This is terrorism and must not be tolerated. As a result of my committee hearings on this topic, I became aware of the need for legislation to combat this growing violent phenomenon. With eco-terrorist attacks in Oklahoma and California, Senator Feinstein and I share a commitment to passing legislation that will help end these terrorist attacks. ( 3) Senator Feinstein included the followi ng statement in the press release: The tactics used by animal rights extremists ha ve evolved in the face of our current laws, and consequently, the scope of th eir terror is widening . We need the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act to fight these tactics, including the latest trend of ta rgeting any business and

PAGE 38

38 associate working with animal research facilities Just three months ago, extremist activists acting in the name of animal rights attempted to firebomb the home of a UCLA primate researcher. The home where they pl aced their bomb actual ly belonged to a 70year-old neighbor of the scien tist. Thankfully, the device di d not ignite. But it did lead another prominent UCLA researcher to quit in fear. We must recogni ze that scientific research is not only a legitimate career, but also an invaluable facet of medical advancement, conducted by respectable prof essionals deserving our support. The deplorable actions of these eco-terrorists thre aten to impede important medical progress in California and across th e country. ( 4) On November 13, 2006, the House of Representati ves had a motion to suspend the rules and passed the same bill that was approved by the Senate (S. 3880) by a voice vote. The original vote for this bill had been scheduled for 6:30 p.m However, the voice vote took place earlier in the day, with six members of the House of Representatives present (AETA Report, 2006). According to the Library of Congress, the abov e-mentioned practice is reserved for measures that lack controversy: Because the rules may be suspended and the bill passed only by affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum bei ng present, this procedure is usually used only for expedited consideration of relatively no ncontroversial public measures (How Our Laws Are Made, N.D.). On Nove mber 14, 2006, the National Pork Producers Council issued a press release in which it applauded c ongressional passage of AETA by [c]alling it a victory for animal agriculture and businesses that legally use animals (W arner, 1). AETA was signed by President George W. Bush on November 27, 2006. In response, the HSUS included the following remarks on its AETA position statement: Even with the changes that were incorporat ed into the Senate-passed version of the legislation, it is still seriously flawed. Unfo rtunately, there was a rush to pass this by voice vote in both the House and Senate, without any meaningful opportunity for committee action to correct the problems in the bill and it was signed into law on Nov. 27. ( 1) In its action alert flyer titl ed Mission Accomplished! AETA Passes Both Houses!, Fur Commission USA stated that AETA sailed throu gh the House of Representatives, after passing the Senate unanimously on Sept. 30 ( 1). The above-mentioned flyer also contained a listing of

PAGE 39

39 [a]n unprecedented coalition of more than 170 organizations that formally pledged support for the AETA (Mission Accomplished, 2006, 2). These AETA-supporting organizations included, among others, the National Pork Produ cers Council, the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, the American Mink Council, and the American Veal Association. As seen in Appendix B, as of November 21, 2006, the Equal Justice Alliances AETA Opposition list included + opposing groups. One of those groups, the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), issued a letter in response to the November 13, 2006 passing of AETA in the House of Representatives. In the letter, NLG s concerns about AETAs constitutionality were raised: We believe that the AETA deals a severe blow both to First Amendment protections of free speech and assembly and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee that all people be treated equally under the law. AETA would punish some activities more harshly than others solely on the basis of the beliefs that motivate them. (Boghosian, 2006, 4) In their communication efforts in support of AETA, a number of individuals and organizations cited AETA in dismissing the oppositions concern about AETAs potential infringement of First Amendment rights. For in stance, in its analysis of AETA, the National Association for Biomedical Research included the following statement: The bill includes penalties based on the am ount of economic damage which does not include any lawful economic disr uption (including lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise. ( 7) In response to the above-mentioned assertion, ho wever, Hoch and Wilkens (2007) avowed that including that exemption in AETA wa s not sufficient protection: [T]he seeming exemptions for First Amendm ent rights are illusory, because the Act's language emphatically restricts the very rights it later alleges to protect. Stating that lawful boycotts are protected does not make it s o. One persons boycott is another persons interference, which, under AETA, spells terrorism. ( 8)

PAGE 40

40 In the article titled Response to Andrew K ohn: THE Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is Invidiously Detrimental to the Animal Rights M ovement (and Unconstitutional as Well), Hoch and Wilkens (2007) summarized some of the c oncerns that fostered opposition toward AETA. For instance, activities that might seem harmle ss could be interpreted as being the opposite: Under AETA, merely intending to engage in acts that cau se no harm or damage, but interfere with an animal enterprise, may resu lt in fine and imprisonment. For example, if two people living in different st ates exchange e-mails evidencing a clear intention to cause economic damage to an animal enterprise, by persuading customers to purchase less veal at a supermarket, their conduct may constitute both legal attempt and conspiracy under AETA, subjecting the e-mailers to electronic surveillance [18 USC Section 2516(1)(c)] and a fine and up to a year in prison. ( 16) Next, the text of the act is, according to Hoch and Wilkens, insufficiently developed: The language in AETA is unconstitutionall y void for vagueness. The term animal enterprise is subject to countless interpretati ons, and the word interfere, which suffers from similarly obfuscatory imprecision, could be used to chill and proscribe undercover investigations and whistle-blow ing activities that expose illegal animal enterprises. It may also bar acts of civil disobedi ence. Under the provisions of this Act, Martin Luther King, Jr. might have been convicted of animal enterprise terrorism if a lunch-counter he sat at lost profits that day. The penalties for nonviolen t acts of civil disobedi ence, such as sitting in front of an office door, are a fine or im prisonment for not more than one year, or both. ( 18) Finally, a line of reasoning that s eems unique to Hoch and Wilkens analysis is AETAs potential to cause harm to individuals who mi ght be incorrectly castigated by it: Glaringly absent from the Act are provisi ons for restitution for wrongful arrest or prosecution, loss of reputation, lost wages, attorneys fees, etc., although anyone wrongfully arrested under the Act risks be ing humiliated, disgraced, and permanently branded as a terrorist in the c ourt of public opinion. The Act al so serves as a predicate for wiretapping animal rights advo cates [18 USC Section 2516(1)(c)] as intent to interfere with an animal enterprise appears to be sufficient cause to justify surveillance. ( 19) The letter issued by the executive director of the NLG summariz ed what might be considered AETAs overall problem: Animal industry groups, corpor ations and the politicians that represent them pushed hard for the passage of the Animal Enterprise Terr orism Act (AETA), ostensibly to crack down on violent animal and environmental rights extrem ists. But in fact, this bill may lead to a

PAGE 41

41 crackdown on legal, constitutionally-protected [ sic ] political expression. (Boghosian, 2006, 3) This overall problem could have apparently been corrected before it was voted on in the House of Representatives. As mentioned above, on Octobe r 30, 2006, the ACLU sent a letter to the then Chairman and Ranking Member of the House J udiciary Committee. The letters reference line stated that the ACLU urged Needed Minor Ch anges to AETA, but it did not oppose the bill (Fredrickson and Johnson, 2006). Moreover, in th e document titled Major Flaws in S. 3880 (as amended and passed by Senate), and Corrective Amendments, the HSUS suggested that the same changes be made to AETA (Appendix G). The first change addressed the assertion that in AETAs current form, it threatens to sweep up criminalizing as terrorism or otherwise chilling a broad range of lawful, constitutionally protected, and valuable activit y undertaken by citizens a nd organizations seeking change (HSUS Fact Sheet on AETA, 2006, 1). Th e ACLU suggested that Real or Personal Property be defined as Tangi ble Property to Avoid Lost Profits or Good Will Forming the Basis for the Offense (Fredrickson and Johnson, 2006, 3). As such, both the ACLU and the HSUS suggested that section 43 (d) be amended by inserting the following new section and have current subsection (3)(B) remove d, with appropriate renumbering: (3) the term intentionally dama ges or causes the loss of any r eal or personal property (A) means intentionally damaging or causi ng the loss of any ta ngible property; but (B) does not include damage or loss resulti ng from a boycott, protest, demonstration, investigation, whistleblowi ng, reporting of animal mistreatment, or any public, governmental, or business reaction to the disc losure of information concerning animal enterprises The ACLU and the HSUS both addressed th e fact that in referring to Animal Enterprises, AETA did not define such entities as being protected only as long as they engage in lawful behavior. However, while the ACLUs letter suggested that Animal Enterprise be

PAGE 42

42 defined to only include lawful activities, The HS US suggested the following correction to section 43(d)(1): (1) the term animal enterprise means (A) a lawful commercial or academic enterprise that uses or sells animals or animal products for profit, food or fiber production, ag riculture, education, re search, or testing; (B) a lawful zoo, aquarium, animal shelter, pet store, breeder, furrier, circus, rodeo or other lawful competitive animal event; or (C) any lawful fair or similar event intende d to advance agricultural arts and sciences. The third change would have remedied th e declaration largely made by the AETA opposition that, under AETA, a chilling effect could be imposed upon those individuals considering actions that would cause no harm, either physical or economic, nor instill any fear of harm (Fredrickson and Johnson, 2006, 10). Once again, the ACLU and the HSUS both suggested that section 43 (b)(1)(A) be changed so that it coul d be clarified that penalties only apply to conspiracies or attempts: (A) an offense under subsection (a)(2)(C) results in no economic damage or bodily injury As mentioned above, the changes that A ETA could have undergone in order to significantly lower the concerns of much of the bills oppositi on, as suggested by the ACLU and The HSUS, did not occur. There are two main que stions that cannot be adequately addressed by analyzing the existing literature. First, the comm unication efforts put fort h by an organization in response to an issue are a cruc ial basis of the public relations disciplin e and a potentially significant measurement of the organizations exer ted force. The ultimate question here is the following: What communication efforts did law-abiding animal advocacy organizations put forth in response to AETA? Also, the notion that AETA could wrongfully affect law-abiding animal advocacy groups is considerable contention ev idenced within the AETA opposition. Therefore,

PAGE 43

43 another subject that has yet to be addressed is as follows: Has the passing of AETA affected the efforts of law-abiding groups dedicated to advocating for animals?

PAGE 44

44 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY In analy zing the communication strategies that law-abiding animal advocacy groups enacted about and in response to AETA, studyi ng the messages that were released on the organizations Web sites and printed materials sole ly would have led to re sults of a speculative nature at best. Some of the organizations may ha ve chosen to enact communications efforts that seemed muted; yet, the best way to know whether there was a strategy involved in communicating (or not communicating) about AETA would be by speaking with representatives from the organizations directly. As Wimmer and Dominick asserted, [w]hen compared to more traditional survey methods, interviewing provides more accurate responses on sensitive issues (p. 135). Therefore, the communication efforts based on the delicate issue of law-abiding organizations potentially being stigmatized based on the topic of their advocacy efforts were best studied through in-depth telephone interviews. As stated in Chapter 1, this study was con ceived with the inten tion of analyzing the politically motivated communicatio n efforts made by law-abiding animal advocacy organizations that opposed AETA prior to and af ter its passing. The researcher contacted a total of 22 entities that advocated for animals to request that they participate in th is study. Of those, 17 organizations agreed to participat e in telephone interviews Rather than agreeing to participate in telephone interviews, two of the 22 organizations participated by submitting written answers to the question guide, but one of the written answer sets was discarde d due to lack of relevance. The opportunity for probing duri ng the interview was eliminated for the organization whose written answers were e-mailed. However, the answ ers that were provided were appropriate and relevant to the study. Based on each participant s expertise about AETA as well as varied organizational structures, representatives fr om the legal departments, media relations

PAGE 45

45 departments, and high-ranking officials agreed to be interviewed. Only one representative from each of the 18 participating organizations was interviewed. Telephone interviews were conducted between March 5, 2007 and March 21, 2007. The process of determining which organizations would be contacted to participate in this study began with the analysis of the AETA Opposition List compiled by the Equal Justice Alliance. Animal advocacy organizations with an undisputed national presence were selected for their ability to gain media coverage on the va rious issues that their campaigns might focus on. Meanwhile, the remaining organizations were se lected by visiting the or ganizations Web sites and following a two-step process: 1. organizatio ns were automatically included when their Web sites featured information on AETA; and 2. organizations were added when their Web site communicated the organizations advocacy efforts on behalf of animals with what Reber and Kim (2006) defined as high frequencies of medi a relation elements (i.e organization history, mission statement, press releases, etc.), dialogic features (i.e. genera l and expert contact information, frequently asked questions, etc.), an d involvement factors (i .e. calendar of events, downloadable graphics, products for sale, etc. ). The second phase in determining which organizations would be contacted with study-sp ecific interview requests followed the ideology that, by not taking advantage of the charac teristics of Internet communication, activist organizations are not advocating for their organizations at their maximum capacity (Reber and Kim, 2006, p. 330). Therefore, well-develope d and well-maintained animal advocacy organization Web sites served to identify groups that may have been more likely to have the ability to effectively communicat e about AETA over a medium as far-reaching as the Internet. Also consulted in creating the list of organi zations to be contacted for this study were a

PAGE 46

46 representative of the Equal Ju stice Alliance, the journalist w ho testified against H.R. 4239, and two animal rights advocates who have been invo lved with the movement for several years. Selected organizations were reached prim arily by calling the medi a relations or legal departments telephone numbers when such detailed information was available on the organizations Web sites. Otherwise, the organi zations main telephone numbers were called and the appropriate staff member was contacted. If a telephone number was unavailable, an e-mail was sent to either the media relations coordi nator or general mailbox. After the organizational representatives agreed to be a part of the study, telephone interviews were scheduled according to the interviewees availability. Several of the interviewees requested to see a sample of the questions to be addressed during the interviews, with the understan ding that such a sample would outline the general themes to be addressed, while the interview itself would be more fluid. Prior to each interview, the participants receiv ed an informed consent statement via e-mail. The informed consent statement informed participants about the studys purpose and their right to not answer any question that they did not feel comfortable w ith. Interviewees were granted anonymity in order to encourage the greatest degr ee of frankness. Each interview was recorded in order to facilitate tran scription, thereby he ightening interpretive validity. Although the Equal Justice Alli ances list of the AETA oppos ition contained close to 200 organizations, the organizations th at were not considered for this study consisted of those that focused on civil rights rather than animal advo cacy, as well as those organizations that focused their efforts on promoting a vegetari an lifestyle rather than direc tly addressing animal issues. In addition, organizations th at did not have Web sites or whos e Web sites did not fit the abovementioned criteria were also not approached. The AETA-oppos ing organizations that were

PAGE 47

47 interviewed encompassed severa l well-established organizations within the animal advocacy movement. In essence, the question guide addressed what law-abiding animal advocacy groups said and did regarding AETA. The questions posed pertained to each or ganization's position on AETA, its communication efforts about AETA, its pe rception of AETAs intended effects, and AETAs impact upon the organizations campaigns (Appendix H). A pre-test was conducted with two long-time animal advocates who repres ented local organizations in order to assess timing and question appropriateness. As stated by Babbie (2001): A qualitative interview is essent ially a conversation in which the interviewer establishes a general direction for the convers ation and pursues specific topics raised by the respondent. Ideally, the respondent does most of the talk ing. If youre talking more than 5 percent of the time, thats probably too much. (p. 292) Data analysis was conducted by identifying emergi ng themes or categories based on participants responses to questions about AETA. The researcher, a vegetarian and participan t in the animal advocacy movement, believes that the use of violence upon people is inexcusable. This analysis is not intended to provide any degree of sympathy for anybody who is devoted to their cause deeply enough to opine that hurting, harassing, threatening or any such action to ward another is acceptable in the name of their cause.

PAGE 48

48 Table 3-1 Participant descriptions General Organizational Description Interviewee Position International animal protection organization focused on ending the exploitation and abuse of animals Staff Writer Animal protection organization specialized in video documentation and investigations President Animal protection organization focusing on animal abuse in agriculture General Counsel Animal rights organization whose mission is to generate letter campaigns for animal issues President Grassroots organization devoted to reducing cruelty towards fur-bearing animals and to the abolition of the fur trade Spokesperson Animal advocacy organization that works to end animal abuse through public education and advertis ement campaigns, research and investigations, rescues, working with news media, and grassroots activism Executive Director National organization dedicated to fighting animal cruelty by conducting in-depth undercover investigations and reporting abuses to authorities for prosecution. Founder and President National animal rights organization advocating plant-based diets for animal protection and organizer of a large animal rights conference President National animal advocacy organization dedicated to abolishing vivisection Executive Director

PAGE 49

49 Table 3-1. Continued International animal advocacy organi zation that works toward the goal of freeing animals from cruelty and institutionalized exploitation around the world Legal Director Nonprofit organization dedicated to ending the chaining of dogs Founder Large animal protection organization in the U.S. Executive Vice President for External Affairs Organization dedicated to ending the use of nonhuman primates in biomedical and harmful behavioral experimentation Director Oldest animal welfare organization in the U.S. Senior Director of Program Counsel National provider of emergency an imal sheltering and disaster relief services President and CEO Charitable organization dedicated to reducing the the negative inflictions that humans have upon animals Legal Associate National farm animal protection organization President and Co-Founder National animal advocacy organization whose primary campaign areas currently include animals used in entertainment, captive exotic animals, companion animals, compassionate consumerism, farmed animals, and wildlife protection. Director of Legal and Government Affairs & General Council

PAGE 50

50 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS Communication Efforts About AETA The results detailed in this chapter we re gathered through th e participation of repres entatives of 18 law-abiding animal advocacy organizations. The Shunning of Extremism The tragedy of 9/11 and the subsequent W ar on Terror have unquestionably im pacted America. More than what could have once been considered paranoid theory, today, as revealed in Chapter 2, the confluence of the terms animal rights extremism and terrorism is a reality. Therefore, all interviewees were asked whether th eir organizations make an effort to separate themselves from animal liberation groups that employ violence, harassment or other illegal tactics. Six participants responded with vehement affirmation and proceeded to explain their organizations opposition to and criticism of violen ce. Of those, the vice president of external affairs for the largest animal prot ection organization in the United St ates said that peaceful civil disobedience is not something to which the organization objects. Si x other organizational representatives stated that their organizations engage in and promote only nonviolent activities. For example, the executive director of an animal advocacy organization that works to end animal abuse through public education and advertisement campaigns, re search and investigations, rescues, working with news media, and gr assroots activism elaborated as follows: We focus on the tactics that we find effec tive. We dont spend time publicly bashing or publicly criticizing orga nizations who use such tactics, but it is not something that we publicly will support either. We sort of focus on work that we feel is effective in opening the hearts and minds of consumers and we thi nk that certain acts of vandalism or certain acts of intimidation do more harm to the moveme nt than good. So those arent actions that we choose to participate in or that we even chose or actions that we encourage our members to participate in.

PAGE 51

51 The president and co-founder of the nations leading farm an imal protection organization was the only respondent to state th at they neither actively associat e nor dissociate with any other animal activist group. Along with two of the above -mentioned organizations that solely promote nonviolent activities, the same inte rviewee expressed th e notion that the organization is more concerned with focusing on its own actions rather than paying attention to what other animal advocacy groups do. The president of an animal rights organization dedicated to generating letter campaigns for animal issues described the meticulous attenti on that is exerted in making it clear that the organization does not endorse in any violence, ha rassment or threats in any of its campaigns. However, the same participant explained that sh e inherited the role of SHAC spokesperson since the SHAC 7 were sentenced to pr ison. This is because the presid ent of this organization believes that the SHAC 7 did nothing more than design and implement a Web site and they themselves are not in jail for committing vandalism or any of the crimes described on their Web site. Four organizations stated that they do not ma ke an effort to separate themselves from animal liberation groups. Three of those four expl ained the distinction be tween being associated with those who commit illegal activities and ac tually committing acts of violence upon people. For example, the director of an organization dedicated to ending the use of nonhuman primates in biomedical and harmful behavioral experime ntation stated that the organization does not engage in any illegal activities. However, on multiple occasions the respondent compared the unlawful act of breaking into a la boratory and stealing animals used for experimentation with the once-prohibited liberation of Jewish people during World War II: I f you had gone in and opened the gates to Auschwitz and let the Jews out, that would have been illegal. And you would have probably been shot. You woul d not have made it to trial.

PAGE 52

52 Similarly, the president of a national animal rights organiza tion dedicated to advocating plant-based diets and organizing a large animal rights conference stated that the organization does not engage in any illegal acts with the exception of civil disobedience. However, the interviewee also expressed that the organizati on understands what could drive certain animal extremists. Therefore, the organization does not dictate to nor make judgments on others [b]ecause it is such a personal thing.just imagine, never mind your son or daughter, but if your family dog was being vivisected or slaughtered you probably would not react very rationally. The founder and president of a national orga nization dedicated to conducting in-depth undercover investigations and repor ting abuses to authorities for prosecution was one of the four organizations to state that a se paration effort from animal lib eration groups was not pursued. This respondent declared the following: I am not opposed to liberation of animals as I would not be opposed [to] liberation of slaves during the 1800s. I am opposed to just random bombings or ar son or anything where people or animals could be hurt because it would set the whole movement back decades.I am very much for the liberat ion of oppressed animalsanimals being exploited, animals being tortured or used for whatever reason. Also, this interviewee was the only one who que stioned the veracity of the notion that animal activists rather than opposition infiltrators are responsible for the apparent rise in extremely violent tactics that have the potential to harm people. Of notable mention is the fact that a spokesperson for a grassroots organization devoted to reducing cruelty toward fur-bearing animals and to the abolition of the fur trade was one of the above-mentioned organizations that separate th emselves from extremists by only engaging in and promoting only nonviolent activities. This is because that spokesperson was the only one within that group who made a distinction between illegal and immoral acts by saying that immoral acts, which include all kinds of violence, are different from such actions as liberating

PAGE 53

53 animals. The participant explained that although the group does not engage in nor endorse the illegal removal of animals from animal enterpri ses, a line is drawn betw een stealing property and actually harming people. Lack of Awareness An essential factor in evaluating the communication efforts employed in any situation in which the actions of some could negatively affect an entire m ovement is the level of awareness maintained by the group as a whole. Of the 18 interviewed organizations, only two were aware of AETA when it was in its or iginal form, S. 1926. Sixteen organizations became aware of AETA after it was amended and reintroduced in the Senate as S. 3880. Of those, two organizations admitted that they learned a bout AETA after September 30, 2006, the date on which AETA passed with unanimous support in the Senate. The two organizations that kne w of AETAs existence before the amendment was passed carried out individual efforts to oppose it. For instance, the inte rviewee representing the nations largest animal protection organiza tion stated that the organizati on learned that Congress had an interest in animal enterprise terrorism issues when the Senate committee hearings on ecoterrorism were held. In response, the orga nization communicated with committee staff and committee members on the issues that were raised during the hearings. The other organization that knew of the S. 1926 version of AETA was a national animal advocacy organization dedicated to abolishing vivisection. That or ganizations executive director explained that S. 1926 was so blatantly unconstitutional that the organization was confident that it would not pass. The participant also stated that in the event that it did pass, it would be struck down immediately when somebody tried to apply it. In response to the reintroduction of AETA as S. 3880, this organization drafted a general letter of opposition to the Senate Judiciary Committee before it held the vote on S. 3880.

PAGE 54

54 One idea that emerged in relation to the levelof-knowledge aspect of the overall issue of AETA is that small groups were relying on la rge groups with more re sources and a national presence to play the role of watchdog on behalf of the smaller animal advocacy groups. This notion was put forth by two participants repres enting groups that did not learn about AETA before it was reintroduced in the Senate as S. 3880. One of thos e two participants, a spokesperson for an anti-fur grassroots or ganization explained the concept as follows: Well, I know we were taken really off guard by how quickly [AETA] passed. I cant remember exactly the chronology but I know when it first came up, we started trying to organize our members to oppose the bill just like all these other big groups were, and I think the small groups like ours, we were really counting on some of the bigger organizations that have lobbyists and that have dedicated staff to deal with legislation. I think we were really hoping they would put up the big resistance, and so before anybody knew it, it was passed. Enacted Communication Efforts As discussed above, within the interviewed organizations, the larg e-scale communication efforts that were enacted in response to AETA took place af ter S. 1926 was re-introduced as S. 3880. Representatives of 12 organizations stated that their organizations sent action alerts to their members, and four organizations posted inform ation about AETA on their Web sites. Both organizations that admittedly learned about AETA after S. 3880 had passed in the Senate sent memoranda to members of the House of Repr esentatives in which they expressed their opposition to H.R. 4239: The nations oldest anim al welfare organization sent two memoranda prior to the November 13 vote in the House of Representatives and a charitable organization dedicated to reducing the negativ e inflictions of humans upon animals launched a fax blast on the day that AETA passed in the House. Among participants, conventional media relatio ns efforts were not abundant. Thirteen organizational representatives stated that th eir organizations did not enact any mass media campaigns. A staff writer for an international an imal protection organiza tion dedicated to ending

PAGE 55

55 the exploitation and abuse of animals stated that he was uncertain about whether the organization had sent out any press releases The interviewee representing a national organization dedicated conducting in-depth undercover animal cruelty investigations asserted that the organization sent out national media releases, but it did not receive any inquiries fr om journalists. By contrast, the largest animal protection organization in the Un ited States did not enac t a media campaign about AETA, but it responded to media inquiries. Similarly, the senior director of program counsel for the oldest animal welfare organization in the United States was the guest of a local call-in radio show. Finally, the legal director for an international animal advocacy organization that works toward the goal of freeing animals from cruelty and institutionalized exploitation around the world wrote an article for a monthly publicati on focusing on vegetarianism, environmentalism, animal advocacy, and social justice, as well as fo r an online newsletter focusing on civil rights. Perceptions of AETA The communication strategies enacted by an organization are, m ore often than not, related directly to the organizations insi ght about an issue. All participants were asked to provide an opinion about what could have been AETAs intende d effects from the point of view of the Acts sponsors. In addition, all interview ees were asked to describe thei r organizations reactions to the manner in which AETA passed. Rather than intr oducing speculation to the study, the value of such queries was in abetting the effort to uncover some of the many factors that could have been involved within each organizations c hoice of communications about AETA. AETAs intended effects Eight interviewees asserted that AET As sponsors were probably focused on responding to the lobbyists for the animal use industries that have been threatened by animal liberation extremists by providing those industries with fede ral protection. Four participants stated that AETA was written in a certain wa y to specifically intimidate animal activists in general.

PAGE 56

56 Similarly, the founder of a nonpr ofit organization dedicated to ending the chaining of dogs acknowledged that AETA was ostensibly reasonable, but also stated that th ere seem to be hidden negative intentions. On the other hand, two respondents said that they understood that AETA was written to specifically halt the operations of SHAC. The president and CEO of the nations leading provider of emergency animal sheltering and disa ster relief services declared that AETAs intended effects were not to take away First Am endment rights, but ment ioned that the wording of the act was so vague that it is possible to interpret the law in that way. Two organizational representatives chose not to answer that question because they felt that they could not speak for the intention of others. AETAs overreaching effects were discussed by two of the participants who stated that AETAs purpose seems to have been to protect th e interests of the animal use industries. The interviewee representing the olde st animal welfare organization in the nation said that, as it was introduced and even as it was passed, AETA did a lot more than it intended to do. Similarly, the representative of a national organization that organizes a large animal rights conference expressed the feeling that because the organization s staff has such strong faith in the American justice system, they thought that the Patriot Act was the limit to any violation to constitutionally protected freedoms: We had no idea. We just did not believe, we did not allow our consci ousness to accept that our government, our Congress could pass something so hideous as the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. So I guess we were kind of in a state of blissful ignor ance in which we will not be in the future. Aside from the inquiry discussed above, nine in terviewees were specif ically asked if they thought that AETA was written w ith the intention of affectin g law-abiding animal advocacy organizations. Of those, four stated that they thought th at hindering animal advocacy

PAGE 57

57 organizations in general rather than only a ffecting extremists was a deliberate action. The remaining five respondents answered that they did not think that the writers of AETA were intentionally affecting law-abiding animal activists. Those same participants alluded to the notion that some might think that hindering law-abiding groups was a deliberate action because there was not a substantial amount of care th roughout the legislative process focused on protecting activists rights. Of these five intervie wees, the one speaking on behalf of the largest animal protection organization in the United States declared th at the legislators involved in facilitating the passing of AETA stated that a ffecting law-abiding animal advocacy groups was not their intention. Therefore, as an organization they chose to take [the legislators] word so that the organization can continue to wo rk with the legislators on other issues. The notion that AETA could serve in an e ffort to bundle the animal activism movement with the term terrorism is an overarchi ng theme in this study. Three organizational representatives referred to th e above-mentioned concept as e ssentially a public relations campaign enacted by those putting forth that effort One of those three participants was a staff writer for an internati onal animal protection organization. Th e interviewee supported that notion by referring to an allegedly leak ed pamphlet from the National Ri fle Association in which animal rights activists were portrayed as terrorists. Similarly, the f ounder and president of a national organization dedicated to investig ating animal cruelty explained th at animal advocacy in general has become combined with the destructive actio ns of the ALF and the ELF, yet AETA solely targets animal groups. Another inte rviewee stated that the current state of AETA is reminiscent of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Orga nizations (RICO) act of 1970, which was enacted to target organized crime in the United States.

PAGE 58

58 A theme that emerged in two of the interviews is the idea that AETA sets a precedent for taking away the rights of proteste rs in general. The participant representing an animal rights organization dedicated to generating letter campai gns for animal issues avowed the following: Anyone who values First Amendment rights shou ld be worried; what people feared could happen with the Patriot Act is happening with animal rights activists. A staff writer for an international animal protection organization echoed those thoughts by saying, [w]e deserve better from our leader s and our country. A related theme was voiced by three of the interv iewees when they each declared that there is no need for AETA. That notion was illustra ted by the interviewee from an animal rights organization dedicated to enact ing letter-writing campaigns: Disciplinary measures already exist. Laws are in the books for vandalism, property loss, criminal trespass, harassment, assault, and bodily injury. We have laws for those at Federal and State levels. So if a person who happens to be an animal advocate breaks one of these laws, then they should be arrest ed for vandalism, not terrorism. AETAs passing As discussed in Chapter 2, AETA was passe d in a stealthy m anner. When asked about what they would attribute to the quick passing of AETA, 14 participants c ited a concerted effort to characterize AETA as being reasonable and unc ontroversial in order to fast-track the bill so that it would undergo minimal debate. A legal associ ate for a charitable or ganization dedicated to reducing the negative inflictions that humans have upon anim als asserted the following: Well, sometimes that will happen with legislation and in terms of AETA there [was] heavy influence by big money industry groups and th eir lobby, so just by way of trying to push it through without debate, thats the reason why it was passed. There was no significant notice, very limited debate at least on the House level. I know that there was maybe fifteen minutes of debate. So there really wasnt full scale hearing or debate on the issues. And it was essentially just pushed through by the sponsors. And most likely that was the only way they were going to get it through because the le gislation itself was extremely controversial. Then we believe that if there had been a fu ll scale debate, the legi slation would not have passed through like it did.

PAGE 59

59 Three participants ascr ibed the event to being a part of the terrorism bandwagon effect. More specifically, one interviewee elaborated in this fashion: A ETA is packaged in a very sexy way and it basically says, we are going to crac k down on these domestic terrorists. You put the word terrorist on anything and anyone is af raid to oppose it. As a further illustration, a spokesperson for an anti-fur grassroots organi zation pointed out that for politicians pursuing reelection, opposing what is dubb ed an anti-terrorism act, even though it has nothing to do with terrorism is an unpopular move. The vice president for external affairs for the largest animal protecti on organization in the United States illustrated what the organization determined to be misplaced priorities in Congress. This explanation began with the de scription of a very popular bipartisan bill distracting the penalties for illegal dog fighting and cockfighting, which, like AETA, had been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. The an imal fighting bill had 324 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives and a hearing was held on the issue, but the then Chairman of the committee, James Sensenbrenner, refused to m ove the bill past this committee. According to the interviewee, the animal fighting bill was supported by 400 law enforcement groups, the National Chicken Counsel, USDA and every an imal welfare group because it was a very modest, bipartisan, popular effort. The participant summarized th e organizations arrival at the conclusion that Congress had misplaced prio rities by questioning why one would actively block a very popular bill while simultaneously making a clear effort to facilitate the passing of AETA, a bill that had less support and was much more controversial and generating discussion about civil liberties and appropriate tactics. An additional emerging theme from the partic ipants statements regarding AETAs quick passing was that the turn of even ts reflected the misuse of th e American legislative system,

PAGE 60

60 particularly in the House of Representatives. Fi ve interviewees addressed the claim that there were only about six people on the floor at the time AETA was passed by a voice vote in the House of Representatives and four of those br ought up the fact that only Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) spoke in opposition to AETA. The executive director of a national animal advocacy organization against vivisection de tailed the experience from th e point of view of a private citizen: I called my representatives office after I he ard what the vote was and what had happened, and I said, why werent you there? I was told right out that it was scheduled for the eveningthat there was no reason to think that there were any votes being called in the middle of the day. Similarly, the interviewee representing an animal cruelty investigation organization uttered the following phrase: Shame on America. Along the same lines, the organizer of a large animal rights conference actually disputed the statement that AETA was passed by unanimous consent, because that phrase implies awareness, and there was probably no awareness of the bill or its language in the Senate, and the House was misled about when the vote would take place. The participant concluded that statement by mentioning what other bills we re passed by voice vote in the House of Representatives during the session in which AETA passed. This included items such as enlarging, adding a few acres to a national park or transferring some fishing rights to an Indian tribe, you know the things that do not deserve prolonged debate. In Retrospect When asked if in retrospect they thought that their organization shoul d have or could have communicated differently regarding their positions on AETA 10 participants said no. Of those, th e one interviewee repres enting an organization dedicated to investigating animal cruelty elaborated by stating that the organization did everything that it could have done. Furthermore,

PAGE 61

61 the person speaking on behalf of an international animal protec tion organization asserted that AETA was just too big an undert aking for the organization. In contrast, four organizational representatives declared that they should or co uld have enacted different communication efforts. In particular, the spokesperson for an anti-fur organization said that the group could have organized a demonstration and alerted the media in order to attract attention to the topic. Likewise, the president of a letter-writing-focu sed animal rights organi zation declared that AETA did not come to the medias attention because the animal advocacy movement was not sufficiently persistent. Four interviewees declared that their or ganizations communication efforts regarding AETA could only have been different under dissimilar circumstances. Specifically, three participants stated that their efforts could have been expanded if they had known about AETA for a longer period of time than they did. Also, the president and CEO of an emergency response organization for animal issues asserted that th e organization might have heightened its direct lobbying effort without involving its members if it had known how quickly AETA was going to move through the legi slative process. Impact of AETA Uncertainty As detailed in Chapter 2 and discussed in earlie r portions of this chapter, w hether AETAs broad language will hinder the activities of nonextremist animal activists is unclear. All participants were asked if the pa ssing of AETA had affected thei r organization up to the point of the interview. The unanimous answer was no. Ne vertheless, when asked if they thought that any future campaigns could be affected, seven in terviewees asserted that it would depend on how the law will be implemented.

PAGE 62

62 When asked if they thought that law-abiding animal rights and animal protection groups in general understood the potential effects that AETA could have on their organizations, ten interviewees responded by saying no as well as asserting the belief th at, even though AETA has been signed into law, most animal activists still did not know how AETA could affect them. Three participants stated that animal advo cacy groups in general understood how AETA could affect them. Meanwhile, one in terviewee opined that the leve l of understanding an animal activism group has about AETA depends on how much the group knows about AETAs background. Along similar lines, another interview ee said that animal advocacy groups may have initially thought that AETA was ineffective (a nd thereby worth ignoring) but the same groups probably became worried as it pr ogressed through the system. In response to the above-discussed inquiry, the president of an animal protection organization specializing in video documentation and investigation stated that whether they understood it or not, AETA was de finitely designed to affect law-abiding animal rights and animal protection groups. However, the participant also explained that th ere are only two reasons to be intimidated by AETA: fear that the law w ill be misused and intention to commit a criminal act. Unfortunately, the above-mentioned concept was inadvertently not discussed with one of the organizational representatives. Hysteria Another emerging theme throughout the interview process was th e idea that AETA has had a som ewhat chilling effect among individual animal activists because people do not want to be arrested. For instance, a legal associate for an animal-focused charitable organization explained that the organizations members have voiced th eir worry and one undercover investigator in particular is extremely concerne d about the effects of this legislation. Similarly, the executive director of an animal advocacy organization focused on ending animal abuse said that the

PAGE 63

63 organization has been doing damage control to a ssure activists that they do not have as much to worry about as they might believe. Another participant echoed the above-mentioned sentiment as follows: lets say I put out a letter campaign and so many people send letters that a CEOs e-mail system breaks or shuts down. Is that a new form of harassment under A ETA thats going to send me to jail? Wait and See All interviewees were asked about their organizations inten tions to continue communicating their positions on AE TA. Fifteen part icipants affirmed that their organizations would continue to communicate ab out AETA. The participant repr esenting an animal emergency services organization stated that they would ac knowledge their position on AETA if they were approached, but also said that they would not take any action related to AETA because at the point of the interview they we re going to wait and see what actually happens. On the other hand, two participants stated th at their organizations would not continue to communicate about AETA because they did not want to fuel the hysteria that has de veloped around AETA. One of the 15 organizational representatives who avowed their organizations continuing communication efforts about AETA, the senior di rector of program counsel for the nations oldest animal welfare organization, said that a le gal firm had been hired to determine the exact level of threat that AETA pres ented to the organization. This m eans that the organization might become involved with litigati on once the full implications of the law are determined. There is Hope Regardless of AETAs past, two interviewe es expressed the idea that the outlook for anim al advocacy groups as a result of AETA is not filled with doom. Th e president and CEO of a national provider of emergency services for an imal said that the United States was founded with the pursuit of the rights that were even tually granted within the First Amendment and

PAGE 64

64 expressed the belief that AETAs true test w ill be how it will hold up in court. On a similar note, the executive vice president for external a ffairs at the nations largest animal protection organization asserted the belief that AETA can be amended to correct the flaws in the language because the leadership of Congress has changed hands and the committee chairmen are much friendlier to animal issues, also to other social issues.

PAGE 65

65 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Two-way Communication between Activists and Corporations In her case study, Anderson (1992) assessed th at two-way symmetrical public relations, instead of press agentry, would have been the be s t way to prevent a corporate crisis situation from developing as a result of activist communi cation efforts. Dozier and Lauzen (2000) emphasized that, because of their many linkages to the public relations pr ofession, as well as the corporations that fund th e research, scholars in p ublic relations have developed an intellectual myopia (p. 7) when studying activist publics. Th is is because scholars study activism from the point of view of the organization being affected by the social movement rather than from the activist perspective (Dozier & Lauzen, 2000). The same theore tical study also addresses the notion that activist publics cannot be compared to normative publics: Unlike corporations that essentially buy the loyalty of thei r employees, activist organizations have little to force the complia nce of their members to the win-win solutions they negotiate. Savvy activist leaders know this. Members of activist organizations are primarily loyal to a larger social movement or cause, not the transitory organization that serves as a vehicle for their pass ion. (Dozier and Lauzen, 2000, p. 14) That assertion is preceded by th e example of one group of activis ts pursuing immediate, radical goals (Greenpeace) and unfortunate ly did not mention the clout that can become developed by activist groups that pu rposely align themselves with meas ures that are reasonable to the mainstream public. These activ ist groups are often successful in reaching and garnering significant support for win-win solutions. For instance, HSUS worked w ith two well-known food chains to modify the corporations animal welfare demands from their suppliers. On March 22, 2007, celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck announced that his companies would be enacting stri ct animal welfare stan dards. An article in The New York Times summarized the modifications:

PAGE 66

66 He [Wolfgang Puck] has directed his three co mpanies, which together fed more than 10 million people in 2006, to buy eggs only from chickens not confined to small cages. Veal and pork will come from farms where animals are not confined in cr ates, and poultry meat will be bought from farmers using animal welf are standards higher than those put forth by the nations largest chicken and turkey produ cers. Mr. Puck has also vowed to use only seafood whose harvest does not endanger the environment or deplete stocks. (Severson, 2007, 3) The following week, on March 27, 2007, Burger King (BK) announced that it would begin buying some eggs and pork from suppliers that di d not confine their animals in cages and crates, as well as, when available, choosing suppliers of chicken that use controlled-atmospheric stunning, rather than electric shocks to knock birds unconsci ous before slaughter (Martin, 2007, 2). It is important to note that PETA had a high-profile campaign against BK named Murder King, which ended in 200 1 after the corporation agreed to demand that its suppliers adhere to some of the activis t groups proposed animal welfare modifications. The campaigns communication efforts featured several tele phone conversations among PETA staff, press releases, provocative advertisem ents, celebrity support and more than 800 protests at Burger King restaurants worldwide (Murder King Ca mpaign, 2007, 1). PETA continued dialogue with BK after the campaign officially e nded and praised the corporation for its 2007 announcement of changes. According to a featured article in The New York Times about BKs 2007 modifications, HSUS began its own efforts to encourage Burger King to improve its farm animal standards (Martin, 2007, 20) about one year prior to th e announcement. The same article addressed the evidently increasing strength of, and support for, the efforts of law-abiding animal advocacy groups: Burger Kings announcement is the latest success for animal welfare advocates, who were once dismissed as fringe groups, but are increasingly gaining mainstream victories (Martin, 2007, 8).

PAGE 67

67 On March 29, 2007, the Animal Agriculture Al liance (AAA) issued a press release titled Puck Falls Prey to Misdirection from Activis t Groups in response to the announcement made by Wolfgang Puck a week earlier. In it, AAA referred to HSUS as having misled the celebrity chef in an inappropriate manner: He also announced that he had teamed with the vegan-driven Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to adopt its proposed fa rm animal care agenda. This change will stop his company from serving meat, eggs and other products from animals that arent raised to standards approved by animal ri ghts groupsgroups that believe we shouldnt eat any animal products at all. ( 1) This is one possible example of the defensive sentiment that can be developed by corporate entities and industries when they are negativ ely affected by activis t groups. Similarly, AAA featured Ricardo Solano Jr. as the keynote speaker at its stakeholders summ it, which was held March 19-21, 2007, in Arlington, Virginia. Mr. Solano successfully tried [emphasis added] one of the first prosecutions under the Animal Ente rprise Protection Act, which charged[SHAC] with terrorizing an [HLS] as well as several pha rmaceutical, financial, and insurance companies that did business with it (AETA Sends a Clear Signal Says Leading Prosecutor, 2007, 2). A press release issued on March 23, 2007, by m eatingplace.com, an online community for red meat and poultry processors in North Ameri ca, publicized Solanos talk at the AAA summit. Although the headline for the pre ss release used the term animal rights extremists, the first paragraph did not explicitly make that distinction: Federal prosecutor Richard [sic] Solano, who once served in the Terrorism Unit at the U.S. attorneys office, served notice to animal right s activists that recent passage of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act means the federal gove rnment has every intention of prosecuting activists who intimidate, stalk and harass with the intention of shuttering farms, ranches, research labs and other facilities that use and care for animals. (Gregerson, 2007) This is noteworthy because, as addressed in Chapter 2, AETAs use of the phrase interfere with lacks specificity to the point that th e precise actions mentioned in the quote above (intimidating, stalking and harassing) ca n, depending on interpretation, occur through

PAGE 68

68 constitutionally protected events such as demons trations in front of ex ecutives homes or even email campaigns that disable company servers. Mainstream vs. Extremists in the Animal Advocacy Movement The fact that social m ovements have different groups pursuing goals ranging from extremely radical to overly moderate can be a be nefit to the mainstream-focused groups within any given movement because their objectives are comparatively more reasonable to those pursued by the radical groups (Derville, 2005). However, such is apparently not the case with AETA because the actions of a few extremists could potentially become a heavy hit for the entire cause. This studys results shed light on one of the many possible explanations by revealing that, while all are opposed to violent act ivities that could potentially ha rm people, only six out of the 18 interviewed organizations make an overtly forceful attempt to shun the animal liberation groups that employ and support violence aimed at property destruction, but can also harm people under the wrong circumstances. The concept that the incidents caused by animal liberation extremists may serve to link the animal rights movement with terrorism did not begin with AETA. For example, in his study about the framing of the debate over animal experimentation, Kruse (2001) found that news magazines and news television programming from 1984 to 1993 mo stly presented opponents of vivisection negatively, with th e terrorist/criminal frame bei ng presented most often. SHACs Professed Legality As revealed by the statem ents of Senator I nhofe (outlined in the section titled About AETA in Chapter 2) and confirmed by some pa rticipants, there is an understanding (albeit scattered) that AETA was prin cipally created in response to SHAC USA. In his study about terrorism, interest group politic s and public policy, Congleton ( 2002) avowed that there is a

PAGE 69

69 largely lucid difference between those who are cons idered to be terrorists and the groups that convey terrorist messages: [T]he distinction between terro rist networks and ordinary interest group politics is generally clear. Although both types of groups send political messages and in some cases may advocate similar public po licies or forms of governance, ordinary interest groups make their case with words rather than w ith violence. As a consequence, the losses generated by ordinary interest-group politics te nd to be much smaller than those associated with terrorism. Because of the extreme costs of terrorist acts, those acts, in spite of their political motivation, are and should be treated as crimes. Consequently, even in the U.S. context, where an absolute right of political speech is affirmed by the First Amendment, some methods [emphasis in original] of transmitting political sentiments are illegal, although the messages themselves are not. (p. 65) As stated in Chapter 2 and addressed by one interviewee, SHAC USA specifically employed what it considered to be its First Am endment rights to inform the world about which people worked for companies that were associat ed with HLS in business and what events had taken place in attempting to Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty. On October 3, 2006, the day that his sentence was to begin, the daily radio a nd television news program Democracy Now! interviewed Andrew Stepanian, one of the SHAC 7. When the interviewer (Goodman, 2006) asked Stepanian about the claim that SHAC ha d crossed the line betw een constitutionally protected rights and violence, the in terviewee stated the following: [W]hen it comes down to it, at the end of the day, no one was hurt. SHAC USA, on their website, never advocated for anyone to be hurt. SHAC USA, at the bottom of every page, when you load up the html, always had a disclaimer that said that we do not advocate any form of violent activity, and in fact, we urge people that when they write letters or they send emails, that theyre polite, theyre to the point, theyre not threatening in nature. And, obviously, all that happened on th e SHAC USA website was a le gal form of reporting. It wasn't, You go and go do this or go annoy these people or go harass these people, but rather, These are the people that are supporting this laboratory. This is how they put bread on the table. And this is how this company ex ists . Whether or not people took that information and did less than savory things or things that even made myself feel uncomfortable, well, that wasnt necessarily the business of SHAC US A to be responsible for. The only business that they had was repor ting on the facts. And all that, no matter how uncomfortable you might say it is, is protecte d underneath the First Amendment. ( 20)

PAGE 70

70 Stepanians lawyer, Andrew Erba, was also part of the above-refere nced interview. In it, Erba avowed that many activist groups are affected by an issue that has arisen with the popularity of the Internet because several Web sites say things which may be somewhat rhetorical, may be somewhat passionate. Erba continued to ask, as a result of posting that, if someone should act on that, should that website, should that activ ist group be held respon sible? I think not, under the First Amendment (Goodman, 2006, 24). The earlier-referenced press re lease issued by AAA after Solano s keynote speech featured AAAs account of the prosecutors explanation of Americas necessity of AETA: Solano explained that the recent amendments to the Anim al Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 explicitly include acts like intimidation, stalki ng and harassment designed to put an end to farms, ranches, researchers and others who use and care for an imals (AETA Sends a Clear Signal Says Leading Prosecutor, 2007, 2). In contrast, EJA claims that there are laws that already exist to protect industries against illegal actions regardless of who commits the acts (AETA Talking Points, N.D.) and that AETAs penalties are remarkably severe, considering what the U.S. Sentencing Commission revealed to be the 2005 median sentences in federal courts for the following illegal activities: larceny = 4 months embezzlement = 4 months sexual abuse = 4.5 years manslaughter = 3 years As avowed by EJA, AETA proposes one year fo r an offense involving no threatened or actual economic damage or bodily harm, and up to 20 years for economic damage! [boldface in original] (AETA Talking Points, N.D.)

PAGE 71

71 The Legislative Process for AETA Regardless of its m oral implications, it is no secr et that lobbying efforts play a large role in Americas Congressional operations. Therefore, it is only logical for a corporation or even an entire industry to exert a great amount of support for a piece of legislation that can positively affect its situation. For this reason, it is understa ndable that AETA could have been a heavily lobbied effort on the part of animal use industries that might feel threatened by animal liberation extremists. Nevertheless, allowing AETA to unde rgo serious congressional debate could have ensured that the bill only affected extremists. Inviting Dr. Jerry Vlasak to speak on behalf of SHAC during the second hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works investigation into eco-terrorism could be considered inappropriate for a number of reasons. In particular Dr. Vlasaks ideology was too extreme to accurately represent not onl y the animal activist movement, but arguably even SHAC, which, as claimed in the previous section by one of the SHAC 7 members, did not advocate the use of violence upon people on its Web site. Dr. Vl asaks remarks could have understandably horrified members of Congress to the point that the passage of AETA, even in its early form, could have seemed urgent enough to pass without detailed insp ection to ensure that civil liberties were fully protected. Next, as first mentioned in Chapter 2, the Committee on the Judiciary in the House of Representatives held a hearing on H.R. 4239 before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on May 23, 2006. Inviting Will Po tter, a journalist who is neither a First Amendment scholar nor a lawyer, to testify against AETAs poten tial unconstitutionality was an ineffective way to make certain that H. R. 4239s flaws were equitably discussed. This in no way questions Mr. Potters merit or ab ility; however, it addresses the poi nt that a lawyer would have been a more effective witness in addressing c oncerns about AETAs constitutionality.

PAGE 72

72 The changes that were made to AETA (from S. 1926 to S. 3880) were largely accomplished through the collaborative efforts of th e ACLU and the staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. According to Marvin Johnson (persona l communication, April 6, 2007), a legislative counsel for the ACLU, the second letter issued to me mbers of Congress by the ACLU (Fredrickson and Johnson, 2006) featured a more agreeable tone than the first letter of opposition in an effort to not harm a mutually benefici al relationship among the two parties. Mr. Johnson also explained that Dr. Vlas aks testimony hindered the ACLU s ability to press for the additional changes that were suggested by the AC LU and HSUS because the testimony had been disturbing to members of Congress. Several interviewees summarized the order of events in whic h AETA passed in the House of Representatives as being a salient example of a questionable aura in relation to AETAs sponsors. The chairman of the House Judici ary Committee, Rep. Sensenbrenner, enacted a motion to suspend the rules to pass S. 3880 by a voice vote. As avowed by the EJA, AETA was placed on the suspension calendar late on Friday, November 10, 2006, and scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on Monday, November 13 (AETA Re port, 2006). However, while AETA-opposing groups enacted their lobbying efforts on that Mond ay, the voice vote took place, as evidenced in the Congressional Record, from about 2:46 to 3: 16 p.m. During the short debate, Rep. Dennis Kucinich articulated his concern for debating the bill under suspension: This bill has an inhere nt flaw that I am pointing out. In addition, when that flaw is held up against the constitutional mandate to protect freed om of speech, what we have done here is we have crippled free expression. I am not and never have been in favor of anyone using a cloak of free speech to commit violence . On the other hand, the chairman's recitation of the statements of animal rights activists, st atements that I, myself, would disagree with, those statements, in and of themselves, are constitutionally protected speech. Yet under this bill they suddenly find th emselves shifting into an ar ea of doubt, which goes back to my initial claim that this bill was written to have a chilling effect upon a specific type of protest. (Cong. Rec., p. H8594)

PAGE 73

73 In response to Rep. Kucinichs claim about AETAs defective status, Rep. Sensenbrenner cited the ACLUs second letter about AETA in stating that th e organization did not oppose the bill and, while minor amendments were request ed, they did not expr ess one concern about constitutionally protected firs t amendment rights being infringe d upon or jeopardized in any way by this bill (Cong. Rec., p. H8594). It is important to note that, while the ACLUs second letter about AETA stated that the ACLU did not oppose the bill, it did not state that the ACLU supported the bill either. Moreover, the letter specified that the suggested changes were necessary to make the bill less lik ely to chill or threaten freedom of speech (Fredrickson and Johnson, 2006, 1). As revealed in Chapter 4, the concept that A ETA is not only an animal rights issue, but a civil liberties problem, was one of the emerging themes of this study. AETAs sponsors had the opportunity to ameliorate the concerns of th e AETA opposition by simply allowing the bill to undergo markup so that the changes suggested by the ACLU and HSUS (listed in Chapter 2) were enacted before it was voted on. Had that happened, AETAs questionable language could have been corrected at least to the point th at the HSUS, a large or ganization known for its mainstream-oriented approach, would have dropped its opposition of the bill. Amending AETA to make it certain that constitu tionally protected rights (such as boycotts, protests and whistleblowing) woul d not qualify as offenses, to abstain protection from unlawful animal enterprises (such as dog-fighting rings or puppy mills), and to clarify that penalties only apply to conspiracies would not have stopped extremists from bei ng brought to justice, yet would have closed the contention that the activities of law-abiding activ ists can be unjustly harmed. The problem of using the suspension calendar to pass controversial legislation has been contended since at least the 108th Congress. For instance, on June 25, 2003, the Committee on

PAGE 74

74 Rules voted to have House Resolution 297 adopt ed. This resolution focused on providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules (H. Rep. No. 108, 2003). The statement by James P. McGovern, the House Ranking Member, addressed a serious concern about not only the suspension process, but about the way [the] House [was] being managed ( 3). Additionally, AETA was not the first bill in the 109th Congress to be intended for the House of Representatives suspension calendar amid questioning of the appropriateness of such action. H.R. 4975 was a House bill that raised obj ections of a similar nature to those brought up by the AETA opposition. On April 13, 2006, Dennis Hast ert, the Speaker of the House at the time, and David Dreier, the then-Chairman for th e Committee on Rules, were sent a letter by a coalition of organizations cons isting of the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, and the federati on of state Public Interest Research Groups (U.S. PIRG) (Various Organizati ons, 2006). In essence, the groups opined that the bill in question fail[ ed] to effectively address the lobbyin g, ethics and corruption scandals in Congress ( 1) and had been considered a nd reported by a number of House Committees without making the necessary changes to strength en the bill and effectiv ely address the existing problems ( 3). This alliance had previously expressed its strong opposition to H.R. 4975 to all members of the House of Representatives via a letter dated March 26, 2006. Howeve r, this second letter specifically stated that there ha d been reports that considerat ion [was] being given to bringing up this legislation, or portions of it, on the suspen sion calendar ( 14). In that regard, the letter continued to state the following: There is no conceivable justification for placing these controversial issues on the suspension cale ndar, which, as you know, is reserved for noncontroversial proposals ( 14). According to the Congressional Record, several amendments

PAGE 75

75 were made to H.R. 4975 on April 25, 2006, and, unlike AETA, the bill passed by a recorded vote of 217 213 (H.R. 4975 Major Congressional Actions, 2006). Information Dissemination by Animal Advocacy Groups As summ arized by one of this studys participants, the communication efforts that lawabiding animal advocacy groups enacted in order to inform stakeholders about AETAs potentially damaging language can be interpreted as being too little too late. In particular, one could also wonder if enacting aggressive news media campaigns addressing the potential First and Fourteenth Amendment violations within AETA could have exerted enough pressure on legislators to halt the passing of the bill until th e corrections were made. The fact that AETAs language was vague enough to make the prosecut ing of constitutionally protected activities contingent upon interpretation instead of impossible played a likely part in delaying the reaction time for law-abiding animal advocacy groups be cause a considerable amount of time was probably spent deciphering the meaning of the bill. However, considering the timing with which most interviewees learned about AETA, it is ev ident that an effort was made in order to disseminate information about AETAs pot ential effects upon animal activists. It is important to note, however, that becau se most of the organizational representatives participating in this study lear ned of AETAs existence after it was reintroduced as S. 3880, the 15 business days in between the dates of reintroduction and vote by unanimous consent in the Senate could have conceivably been consumed by interpreting the bill. This notion was confirmed by several participan ts. Consequently, in asking thei r members and constituents to lobby in opposition to AETAs vague language at the grassroots level, many of the enacted action alerts focused on stopping A ETA from passing in the Hous e of Representatives. This created another possible roadblock in the effort to ensure that law-abiding animal advocacy groups were not negatively a ffected by AETA because the House version of AETA, H.R. 4239,

PAGE 76

76 contained more obvious unconstitutionalities. Th erefore, without knowing that the motion to suspend the rules in the House of Representati ves was going to utilize the version that was approved in the Senate, a number of action alerts directed pe ople to speak in opposition to AETA, but also featured bill number H.R. 4239. This may not have been a heavy blow to the effort, but coupled with not onl y the fact that the House vote for AETA was held on the Monday after Veterans Day weekend (a day on which num erous representatives were likely absent on account of the long weekend), but also the earlie r-than-scheduled voice vo te, it is certainly understandable that, to say the very leas t, this effort had many barriers. A Chilling of Animal Activism Has Occurred AETA is now public law num ber 109. The c oncern that AETA could wrongfully deny constitutionally protected rights to law-abiding animal activists has been a contention addressed throughout this study. As revealed in Chapter 4, the passing of AETA has not significantly affected the efforts of law-abiding animal advo cate groups that participated in this analysis. However, it is also apparent that the lack of clarity surrounding AETA has brought about a level of fear that has been sufficien t to encourage non-extremist anim al activist groups and individuals to re-evaluate their connection to the cause itself. Practical Implications This analysis of the communication effort s enacted by law-abiding animal advocacy groups in response to A ETA has brought about se veral implications for not only those involved in animal activism, but those involved in the study and practice of la w, public relations, and activism in America. The notion that scholars and students of law are relied upon to look out for, uphold, and defend civil liberties so that such indeterminate legisl ation as AETA is not created has been reinforced This study has provided a detailed explanation of how, under the right

PAGE 77

77 circumstances, ambiguous legislation can have an unnecessary effect of worry upon a social movement. In analyzing activist relations, scholars and practitioners of public relations must be aware of the defensive sentiment that can emerge from corporate entities and industries when they consider themselves negatively affected by activ ist groups. This mindset can become so strong that a willingness to actually engage in dialogue with an activist public can be replaced with a focus on offensive strategies. One possible example of this additional barrier to activist relations can be seen in the unfavorable response that AAA had toward Wolfgang Pucks collaboration with HSUS. This study also suggests the important respons ibility that all activ ist groups have of remaining vigilant about not only their cause, bu t about all legislation that can affect those advocating on behalf of the causeeven if a bill s eems too broad to be of concern. In the event that a piece of legislation that can negatively a ffect a the constitutionally protected rights of a social movement is successfully introduced and carried through the legisl ative process, activist groups within that movement must make sure to enact effective methods of communication available to ensure that the greate st force has been applied to corre cting the faults associated with the proposed law. The very core of animal liberation extremism, as avowed by the ALF, is based on compassion toward helpless living creatures. That their frustrations or emotions have led animal liberation extremists to take part in actions that should be bro ught to justice is unquestionable. Yet, it is imperative that the animal liberation extremist sect keeps a clean track record in the United States related to human injury. Even if just one zealot or a successful sabotage effort were to so much as injure a person in the United Stat es in the name of anim al liberation, the entire

PAGE 78

78 animal activist movement (regardless of ideology related to the terms rights, welfare, protection, etc.) could be negatively aff ected by more than one arguably vague law. Limitations One lim itation of this analysis is that the list of participants did not include every single animal advocacy group listed in the AETA oppositi on list gathered by the EJA. Similarly, this studys results were gathered from assessments based on organizational e xperiences with AETA. This means that, although guarded against, a mini mal level of speculation is inevitable. Another limitation is that this study focused on the point of view of the AETA opposition. Areas for Future Research Several areas for future research have em erged through the developm ent of this study. First, the first interview was conducted exactly 13 weeks after AETA became law. It is also notable that the holiday s eason fell during this period. C onsequently, a follow-up study conducted after the one-year mark of AETAs si gning can either provide confirmation for or disprove the notion that AETA has not affected the operations of law-abiding animal advocacy groups. Next, as alluded to in the above section on lim itations, a cross-examination is in order in which AETA supporters are interviewed about why they believe AETA was necessary, questioned about their level of awareness about AETAs potentially damaging language, asked about their communication efforts in response to AETA, and quizzed on the impact that AETA has had upon their operations. Also, a valuable addition to the litera ture on this topic would be a language study focusing on the framing of animal activism with relation to AETA specifically looking at how often the terms extremism, radicalis m or militant are included in referring to the social movement.

PAGE 79

79 Finally, the advent of the In ternet has unquestionably affect ed American society. Another worthwhile analysis would examine if, excludi ng the RICO act, any other social movements have undergone experiences similar to AETA, partic ularly if the statements made on a Web site rather than actions have led to the creati on of federal legislatio n or convictions. Conclusion Even before AETA was introduced, anim al protection and animal welfare groups made an effort to become disassociated with the term an imal rights. This effort could likely be based on differences in ideology. However, there are numer ous significant differen ces between radicals and moderates within one social movement (D erville, 2005). Unfortunately, AETA has been partly successful in grouping those involved with animal rights advocacy into one category, and associating it with terrorism. C ontinually analyzing ones relati onship to a movement could be considered a not-so-detrimental occurrence as long as it is done with an air of self-protection, which is, after all, human nature. Nevertheless, doing so in direct fear of governmental prosecution should not happen in th e United States, a country in which the very definition of being American is based on civil liberties.

PAGE 80

80 APPENDIX A ANIMAL ENTERPRISE TERRORISM ACT (S. 3880)

PAGE 81

81

PAGE 82

82 APPENDIX B ANIMAL ENTERPRISE TERRORISM ACT OPPOSITION LIST

PAGE 83

83 APPENDIX C ANIMAL ACTIVISM SPECTRUM

PAGE 84

84 Animal Activism Spectrum Radical Goals Moderate Goals ALF SHAC PETA HSUS ASPCA Animal Liberation Animal Liberation Animal Rights Animal Protection Animal Welfare Militant Tactics Legal Tactics

PAGE 85

85 APPENDIX D PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF DR. VLASAKS STATEMENTS The f ollowing partial transcript was retrieved fr om Fur Commission USAs Web site containing resources about AETA (Transcript of the Fu ll Committee Hearing on Eco-terrorism, 2005). A multimedia file of the entire hearing is available on the Web site for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works (SHAC Hearing Multimedia, 2005). Senator Inhofe Okay. Dr. Vlasak, do your fellow animal rights activists understand that animal testing is required by law and therefore the peop le who are performing this testing are merely following the law. Do they understand that, and do you understand that? Dr. Vlasak I understand that they are merely following the law, and the law in this case is wrong, just like the law that allo wed slavery was wrong at one time. Senator Inhofe Well, you mentioned slavery, you also mentioned slavery in several of the comments that you made, as well as your testimony. Y ou analogized the plight of animals to that of the African-American slaves of early American history, asse rting that the animal rights movement is similar to that of the Underground Railroad. You even at one time or several times have talked about the Jews in Nazi Germany. It sounds to me, in looking at th is, like youre evaluating the lives of human beings in a similar way that you are animals. Do you think anim als lives are as pr ecious as human life? Dr. Vlasak Non-human lives, non-human animal lives, are as precious as animal lives. At one time, racism and sexism and homophobism were prominent in our society. Today speciesism is prominent in our society. It is just as wrong as racism. Senator Inhofe So you do put them in the same categ ory, the animals of non-human and human lives? Is that correct? Dr. Vlasak They are morally equal. Senator Inhofe They are morally equal? Dr. Vlasak They are. Senator Inhofe One of the statements you made at the animal rights convention when you were defending assassinating people, murd ering people, you said, let me put it up here to make sure Im not misquoting you, I dont think youd have to kill, assassinate too many. I think for five lives, ten lives, fifteen human lives, we could save a million, two million, or ten million nonhuman lives. Youre advocating the murd er of individuals, isnt that correct? Dr. Vlasak I made that statement, and I stand by that statement. That statement is made in the context that the struggle for animal liberation is no different than struggles for liberation elsewhere, whether the struggle for liberation in South Africa against the apartheid regime,

PAGE 86

86 whether the liberation agai nst the communists, whether it was th e liberation struggles in Algeria, Viet Nam or Iraq today, liberation struggles occa sionally or usually, I s hould say, usually end up in violence. There is plenty of violence being used on the other side of the equation. These animals are being terrorized, murdered and killed by the millions every day. The animal rights movement has been notoriously non-violent up to this point. But I dont believe that__I believe as my statement says __ Senator Inhofe Let me interrupt. You said it has been notoriously non-violent up to this time? Dr. Vlasak That is correct. Senator Inhofe You dont think there is violence in the testimony youve heard? Dr. Vlasak I think when you compare the 500 animals being murdered every single day at Huntingdon Life Sciences, which is just one company, I think when you look at the amount of violence that goes on at Mr. Boruchins house, gett ing a little spray paint on the wall, I think if you look at the amount of violence that went on at this yacht club in New York, where again some spray paint was slapped up on a wall, I don t think you can compare that kind of vandalism with the murder of millions of animals. Senator Inhofe And so you call for the murders of researchers and human life? Dr. Vlasak I said in that statement and I meant in that statement that people who are hurting animals and who will not stop when told to sto p, one option would be to stop them using any means necessary and that was the contex t in which that statement was made. Senator Inhofe Including murdering them, is that correct? Dr. Vlasak Pardon? Senator Inhofe Including murdering them? Dr. Vlasak I said that would be a morally justifiable solution to the problem. Senator Inhofe Senator Lautenberg. Senator Lautenberg Dr. Vlasak, you approve of these dastardly acts in the name of liberation, of a liberation movement. Do you have any children? Dr. Vlasak I have no children. And just to be cl ear, I dont approve of any unnecessary suffering. And I wish these th ings didnt have to happen. Senator Lautenberg Fine. You do. And what you have said confirms it. So I just want to go there. I want to know who you are, what makes you tick. Because it is so revolting to hear what you say about the murder. These arent exterm ination camps. Whats being done, whether you like it or not, is to try and im prove the quality of life for hu man beings. This isnt Germany.

PAGE 87

87 How do you feel about people, you said you thin k people who have a cause have a right to violence. How about the guys who kill our soldie rs and who killed the people in the Trade Towers? They have a cause. Is that okay with you? Dr. Vlasak No. Unnecessary loss of life is never okay with me. I extend that loss of life to animal life, non-human animal life as well.

PAGE 88

88 APPENDIX E S. 1926, 109TH CONGRESS

PAGE 89

89

PAGE 90

90

PAGE 91

91

PAGE 92

92

PAGE 93

93

PAGE 94

94

PAGE 95

95 APPENDIX F H.R. 4239, 109TH CONGRESS

PAGE 96

96

PAGE 97

97

PAGE 98

98

PAGE 99

99

PAGE 100

100

PAGE 101

101

PAGE 102

102 APPENDIX G CHANGES SUGGESTED BY THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES Major Flaw s in S. 3880 (as amended and passed by Senate), and Corrective Amendments The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) was inte nded to protect people from violence, threatening behavior, and vandalism by imposing ha rsh penalties, and providing a str ong tool for federal prosecutors. But it should not make it a federal cr ime to engage in peaceful acts such as to participate in a boycott, investigate animal cruelty, or for employees to blow the whistle on criminal activities. As currently written the bill does just that, criminalizing and chillin g a broad range of activities engaged in by millions of law-abiding Americans every day, including the acti ons of local law enforcement and humane officers. We believe that most of the flaws in the bill are a result of careless drafting, as the measure was rushed through the Senate without a markup, without a committ ee vote, and without floor debate. As a result, the bill contains such obvious errors as using terms that are unconstitutionally vague and failing to define them, and even including language that could be u sed as a shield by criminal animal enterprises. At minimum, the following drafting errors need to be resolved: 1) The Bill Lacks a Clear Prohibition, and Relies on Vague and Confusing Exemptions The bill revises the existing AETA to criminalize an y conduct that intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property. However, the bill does not provide any definition of the terms real or personal property, leaving open the question of whether this vague language requires the actual loss of tangible property, or would criminalize legitimate a dvocacy that causes an ente rprise to lose intangible property like future profits, business good will, etc. Th e sponsors could not have intended to criminalize any speech or action that might affect sales or business good will.1 Moreover, although the bill exempts from the defi nition of economic damage any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governme ntal, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal en terprise, no such exemption exists from the undefined term real or personal property. Since the phrase economic damag e appears only in the penalty provisions of the bill, the exemption for lawful eco nomic disruption may not function as an exemption from the bills broad prohibition on the loss of any real or personal property. The would-be exemption for lawful economic disr uption is also too narrow. There are many circumstances where legitimate advo cates use information that is not necessarily about an enterprise to try and convince the public not to patronize certain industries, and thereby cause those industries to suffer the loss of any real or personal property. (For example, someone may advocate against puppy mills by talking about overpopulation, which is a consequen ce of puppy mills but not about a particular puppy mill enterprise). The exemption is also depende nt on whether a public, governmental, or business audience reacts in a lawful way, some thing out of the activists control. 1 The bills exemption for expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or othe r peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment is also insufficient, since it is expressly limited to expressive conduct, and many local humane society inves tigations and other important law enforcement actions, as well as employee whistleblowing, may not be considered expressive conduct within th e protections of the First Amendment. This ambiguity regarding First Amendmen t protection will result in a significant chilling effect.

PAGE 103

103 Proposed Revision : Amend section 43(d) to insert the following new section and remove current subsection (3)(B), with appropriate renumbering: `(3) the term intentionally damages or cau ses the loss of any real or personal property (A) means intentionally damaging or causing the loss of any tangible property; but (B) does not include damage or loss resulting from a boycott, protest, demonstration, investigation, whistleblo wing, reporting of animal mistreatment, or any public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information concerning animal enterprises ` 2) The Bills Penalty Provisions Are Un clear, and Will Chill Legitimate Advocacy The bills first penalty provision applies to offenses that cause no reasonable fear of bodily harm, no actual bodily harm or any economic damage. Presumably, this is meant to address conspiracies or attempts, but the bill fails to explicitly make that c onnection, creating a chilling effect on ordinary citizens considering actions that will cause no harm (physical or economic) nor instill any fear of harm. Proposed Revision : Amend section 43(b)(1)(A), as follows: ` (A) an offense under subsection (a)(2)(C) results in no economic damage or bodily injury ` 3) The Bill Could Protect Criminal Animal Enterprises The bill is so over-broad that it could be used to sh ield those using animals unlawfully e.g., criminal dog fighting and cockfighting syndicates from enforcement efforts. Local humane societies or other law enforcement officials considering investigating illegal abuse might well be deterred from doing so by the threat of being charged as terrorists. Moreover, employees, regular citizens, and legitimate animal activists will be afraid to coopera te or provide information to law enforcement agencies for fear of prosecution under the sweeping terms of this bill. Proposed Revision : Amend section 43(d)(1), as follows: ` (1) the term `animal enterprise' means `(A) a lawful commercial or academic enterprise that uses or sells animals or animal products for profit, food or fiber produc tion, agriculture, education, research, or testing; `(B) a lawful zoo, aquarium, animal shelter, pet store, breeder, furrier, circus, rodeo or other lawful competitive animal event; or `(C) any lawful fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences. `

PAGE 104

104 APPENDIX H QUESTION GUIDE Pre-AETA Strategies o What was your organization's pos ition on AETA before it passed? o Oppose: Has your position changed since then? o Support: Did you oppose it at any time in the process or did you always have the same position? o Did your organization put forth a communications effort to advocate the rejection of AETA by members of Congress? If so, what were the key messages conveyed in that effort? o Did you organization enact a media campaign re garding its position on AETA? If so, what was the response of journalists and your membership to your position? o If you opposed AETA, did you enlist the support of n on-animal activist groups? If so, what was their reaction towards AETA? o Does your organization make an effort to separate itself from animal liberation groups that employ violence, harassment or other illegal tactics? In what way? Perceptions of AETA o What do you think were the intended effects of AETA from the sponsors points of view? o Why do you think that AETA passed with unani mous consent in the Senate? Why do you think that AETA passed with nearly unanimous support in the House of Representatives? o AETA seemed to have passed quickly through Congress. Why do you think that is? o Do you think that AETA was written with the intention of affecting law-abiding animal rights and animal protection groups? o Do you think that law-abiding animal rights and animal protection groups understood how this act would affect them? AETAs Effects o Has the passing of AETA affected the way in wh ich your organization advocates for animals? If so, how? If not, do you think that your organiza tions future campaigns could be affected by AETA? o In retrospect, do you think that your organiza tion should have or could have communicated differently regarding its position on AETA? If so, in what way? o Will your organization continue to communica te its position on AETA? Try to repeal? If so, how?

PAGE 105

105 LIST OF REFERENCES ACLU email response to EJA (2006, Nove mber 20) Retrieved March 15, 2007 from http://www.noaeta.org/aclu.htm. AETAs passing in the House of Re pres entatives, S. 3880, 109th Cong. Rec. H8590 H8595.(2006, November 13). Library of Congre ss. Retrieved March 8, 2007 from the http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C ?r109:./temp/~r109eHrbZ4 AETA Report (2006, November 13). Equal Justic e Alliance. Retrieved March 15, 2007 from http://www.noaeta.org/report.htm. AETA sends a cle ar signal says leading prosecu tor. Animal Agriculture Alliance. Retrieved April 4, 2007 from http://www.animalagalliance.org/main /hom e.cfm?Section=2007_0321_AETA&Category= PressReleases AETA talking points (N.D.) Equal Justic e Alliance. Retrieve d April 9, 2007 from http://www.noaeta.org/talkingpoints.htm Allan, V. (2006, March 12) The m ild bunch; threats of violence, the desecration of graves, incendiary devices this is the stuf f of headlines. But are animal rights activists really the obsessive extremists that such stories suggest? Vicky Allan went on the antivivisection campaign trail to find out. The Sunday Herald of Scotland, Pg. 4. Retrieved from the LexisNexis database: http://web.lexisnexis.com .lp.hscl.ufl.edu/universe/do cument?_m=35a060f6f96571c03e5b798ea7a752e9& _docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkVA&_md5=8604c216f4a4c4541500136bb1cdac15. Anderson, D. S. (1992) Identifying and responding to activist publics: A case study. Journal of Public Relations Research, 4 (3), 151-165. Animal Agriculture Alliance Web site, Frequently Asked Questions: http://www.animalagalliance.org/main/ hom e.cfm?Section=Main&Category=QandAs Annonymous, Senators clash over terrorist priorities. Issues in Scie nce & Technology, 07485492. Summer 2005, Vol. 21, Issue 4. Retrieved March 2006 http://web.ebscohost.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/ ehost/detail? vid=3&hi d=111&sid=39ec70270a1d-456f-824e-5267678000b6%40sessionmgr109 The Association of the Bar of the City of New York Disapproval of AETA. (2006, March 9) Retrieved March 16, 2007 from http://www.nycbar.org/pdf/report/ Anim alsComm_AETA_Comments_v11.pdf. ASPCA policies and positions (N.D.) Retrieved December 8, 2006 from http://www.aspca.org/site/Pag eServer? pagename=pp_pc_guide

PAGE 106

106 Babbie, E. (2001) Qualitative field research. In The Practice of Soci al Research (pp. 274). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Babington, C. (2006, July 19) Sena te passes stem cell bill; Bush vows veto. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 7, 2007 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/07/18/AR2006071800182.htm l Bridis, T. (2005, December 20) ACLU says FBI mi suses terror powers to track political groups. The Associated Press State & Local Wire. Retrieved from the LexisNexis database: http://web.lexisnexis.com .lp.hscl.ufl.edu/universe/do cument?_m=2c534f5a6f082312ad48ed2334cf2f8e&_ docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkVA&_md5=d846037d51cd718827eb0aa99d2c7c60 Behind the Mask (2006). Uncaged Films, St udio City, CA. Retrieved March 26, 2007 from http://www.uncagedfilms.com/index.php Bernton, H. (2006, May 16) Is ecosabotage terrori sm ? The Seattle Times. Retrieved March 11, 2007 from http://seattletimes.nws ource.com /html/localnews/2002977626_terrorist07.html. Boghosian, H. (2006) National Lawyers Guild letter in response to AETAs passing in the House of Representatives by a voice vote. Retrieved March 15, 2007 from http://www.nlg.org/ActionIte m s/AETA_Act_Passed.htm. Congleton, R. D. (2002, Summer). Terrorism, in terest-group politics, and public policy: Curtailing criminal modes of political speech. The Independent Review, 7(1), 47 67. Definition of Unanimous Consent. U.S. Se nate Glossary. Retrieved March 15, 2007 from http://www.senate.gov/reference/glo ssary_term /unanimous_consent.htm. Derville, T. (2005) Radical activ ist tactics: Overturning public relations conceptualizations. Public Relations Review, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp. 527 Retrieved from the ScienceDirect database: http://www.sciencedirect.com.lp.hscl.ufl. edu/science? _ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6W5W4H8MNRX-21&_cdi=6581&_user=2139813&_orig=sear ch&_coverDate=11% 2F30%2F2005&_sk=999 689995&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtzzSkzk&md5=62ed6a17888f0d2ed95749e66b0e e8d5&ie=/sdarticle.pdf Dierks, N. (2007, January 25) Statement of N PPC CEO Neil Dierks on Smithfield decision to use group sow housing. Retrieved March 12, 2007 from http://www.nppc.org/wm/show.php?id=642&c=1 Dozier, D. M. & Lauzen, M.M. (2000) Libera ting the in tellectual domai n from the practice: Public relations, activism, and the role of the scholar. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(1), 3.

PAGE 107

107 Ecoterrorism: Extremism in the animal ri ghts and environmentalist movements. Law Enforcement Agency Resource Network We b site. Retrieved December 10, 2005 from http://www.adl.org/Learn/Ext_US/Ecoterrorism.asp Forstner, G., & Bales, J. (1992) Building dialogu e into the public cons ultation process. (part two). In Public Relations Quarterly, 37, p. 33 (5). Fredrickson, C., Johnson, M. J., (October 30, 200 6) ACLU ur ges needed minor changes to AETA, but does not oppose bi ll (S. 3880, the Animal En terprise Terrorism Act) Retrieved November 2006 from http://www.aclu.org/images/gen eral/asset_upload_file809_27356.pdf Fredrickson, C., Graves, L. (March 6, 2006). ACLU letter to C ongress urging opposition to the Animal Enterprise Act, S. 1926 and H. R. 4239. Retrieved November 2006 from http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/25620leg20060306.html Freidm an, J. (2007) Why the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act became law. Animal Voice Magazine. Retrieved March 15, 2007 from http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/writes/ed itorial/essays/activism /friedman_AETA.ht ml. Frequently Asked Questions (N.D.) Animal Liberation Front Web s ite. Retrieved March 15, 2007 from http://animalliberationfront.com/A LFront/FAQs/activ ism_faq.htm#89. Full committee oversight on eco-terrorism specifically examining the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) (2005, May 18). U. S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. Retrieved March 14, 2007 from http://epw.senate.gov /public/index.cfm ?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=1D5 08A50-DF5D-4A19-8F41-E76D0536406D. Full committee hearing on eco-terrorism (2005, October 26). Environment and Public Works Committee Retrieved March 14, 2007 from http://epw.senate.gov /public/index.cfm ?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=0939 30CB-F66E-420D-8C37-1780ED2C7F3C. Gantman, H., (September 8, 2006) Inhofe-Feinstei n introduce bi-partisan Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Retrieved from the LexisNexis database: http://web.lexisnexis.com .lp.hscl.ufl.edu/univers e/document?_m=ff1bc53ddcd243fd9c402713d6ddac6e& _docnum=52&wchp=dGLbVzW-zSkVb&_md5=bc7d6958ce8ed4fe85d594d172f603be Goodman, A. (2006, October 3) Firs t member of SHAC 7 heads to jail for three year sentence. Democracy Now! Retrieved April 8, 2007 from http://www.democracynow.org/ar ticle.pl?sid=06/10/03/142235 Gregerson, J. (2007, March 23) Feds to crack down on animal rights extrem ists, prosecutor vows. Meating Place Legal/Regulatory News. Retrieved April 8, 2007 from http://www.meatingplace.com/MembersO nly/webNews/details.aspx?item =17664

PAGE 108

108 Grunig, L.A., Grunig, J.E. & Dozier, D.M. (2002). In Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Activism and the environment (pp. 442). Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E. & Dozier, D.M. (20 02). In Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. The value of public relations (pp. 90-138). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Hoch, D., Wilkens, O. (2007). Response to Andrew Kohn: THE Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is Invidiously Detrimental to the Animal Rights Movement (and Unconstitutional as Well). Vermont Journal of Envir onmental Law. Retrieved from http://www.vjel.org/editorials/2007S /Hoch.Wilkens.Editorial.htm. Holbrook, B. (2005) Inhofe Introduces Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Majority Press Release. Retrieved March 15, 2007 from http://epw.senate.gov /public/index.cfm ?FuseAction=Pre ssRoom.PressReleases&ContentR ecord_id=6DB45723-2ACF-4E21-B2F6-D93DCA5B8F8B. Home page for the Humane Society of the Unite d States (N.D.). Retrie ved November 2006, from http://www.hsus.org. House of Representatives floor debate on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (2006, November 16) Congressional RecordHouse, H8590. Retrieved March 8, 2007 from http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query /D?r109:3:./tem p/~r1095picEq::. How Our Laws Are Made (N.D.). Library of Congress. Retrieved March 15, 2007 from http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.bysec/obtaining.html#suspend. H.R. 4239 s ummary of all Congressional actions. The Library of Congre ss. Retrieved March 14, 2007 from http://www.thomas.gov/cgibin/bdquery/z? d109:HR04239:@@@X|/bss/d109query.html|. H.R. 4239 hearing transcript (2006, May 23) Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives, Committee on Crime, Terro rism, and Homeland Security. Retrieved March 14, 2007 from http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/printers/109th/27742.pdf. H.R. 4975 m ajor Congressional actions. Library of Congress. Retrieved April 7, 2007 from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/bdquery/z? d109:HR04975:@@@R The Humane Society of the United States fact sheet on AETA. Retrieved November 2006 from http://www.hsus.org/web-file s/PDF/109_AETA_factsheet.pdf. The Hum ane Society of the United States posi tion statement on AETA Retrieved December 9, 2006 from http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/federal_legislation/animals_in_research/animal_ente rpris e_terrorism.html.

PAGE 109

109 Illia, L. (2003, November) Passage to cyberactivism: How dynamics of activism change. In Journal of Pub lic Affairs, 3 (4) p. 326. Inhofe, J. M. (2005, May 18) Statement by Senator James M. Inhofe for the Oversight on Ecoterrorism specifically examining the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Hearing Statements. Retrieved March 13, 2007 from http://epw.senate.gov /public/hearing_state m ents.cfm?id=247266. Jeffords, J. M. (2005, May 18) Statement by Senator James M. Jeffords for the Oversight on Eco-terrorism specifically examining the Eart h Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Hearing Statements. Retrieved March 13, 2007 from http://epw.senate.gov /public/hearing_state ments.cfm?id=237832. Kruse, C. R. (2001) The movement and the media: Framing the debate over animal experimentation. Political Communication, 18, 67. Kirkland, E. (2002, June 10) Corporate America vs activist groups: winner takes all? Extremist activist groups could have sights set on Mississippi. (Focus: Attorneys & Business Law). In Mississippi Business Journal, 24 ( 23), p. 20(2). University of Florida General Business File ASAP. Retrieved April 13, 2007 from http://infotrac.galegroup.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/itw/infom ark/466/836/4353750w19/purl=rc1_ GBFM_0_A87710843&dyn=12!xrn_59_0_A 87710843?sw_aep=gain40375 Lautenberg F. (2005, May 18) Statement by Senato r Frank Lautenberg for the Oversight on Ecoterrorism specifically examining the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Hearing Statements. Retrieved March 14, 2007 from http://epw.senate.gov /public/hearing_state m ents.cfm?id=238235. Lewis, J. (2005, May 18) Statement by John Lewis, Deputy Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation to Oversight on Eco-terrorism specifically examining the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Fr ont (ALF) U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Hearing Statements. Retrieved March 11, 2007 from http://epw.senate.gov /public/hearing_state m ents.cfm?id=237817. Lewis, J. (2005, October 26) Statement by John Lewis, Deputy Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation on Eco-terrorism specifically examining Stop Hungtindon Animal Cruelty, U.S. Senate Committee on Environm ent & Public Works Hearing Statements. Retrieved March 14, 2007 from http://epw.senate.gov /public/hearing_state m ents.cfm?id=247787. Li, G. (2001, Winter). An analysis: The imp act of non-governmental organizations on the practice of public rela tions. In Public Relations Quar terly, 46 (4) p. 11. Winter2001, Vol. 46 Issue 4, p11, 4p, 1bw

PAGE 110

110 Library of Congress Thomas Web site: Retrieved December 2, 2006 from http://www.thomas.gov. Maag, C. (2006, January/February) Am ericas #1 threat. Mother Jones, Vol. 31, Issue 1 Retrieved from the Academic Search Premier database: http://web.ebscohost.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/ehost/detail?vid= 6&hid=112&sid=67d422256c1b-42dd-8f03-f430442efbe4%40sessionmgr106 Martin, A. (2007, March 28) Burger King shifts policy on animals. The New York Times. Retrieved April 8, 2007 from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/ 28/business/28burger.htm l Martosko, D. (2005, May 18) Environmental and animal-rights terrorism and its above-ground support system. Testimony before the United St ates Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works. Retrieved March 14, 2007 from http://epw.senate .gov/public/109th/MARTOSKO_TESTIM ONY.pdf Mission Accomplished! AETA Passes Both Houses! (2006, November 14) Fur Commission USA. Retrieved March 16, 2007 from http://www.furcommission.com/resource/Resources/AETA.pdf. Munro L. (2001) Caring about blood, flesh, and pa in: W omens standing in the animal protection movement. Society & Animals Vol. 9 Issue 1, 43, 19. Murder King Campaign (2007) People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Retrieved April 8, 2007 from http://www.goveg.com/corp_murderk.asp. Murphy, P. & Dee, J. (1996). Reconciling the preferences of envir onm ental activists and corporate policymakers. Journal of P ublic Relations Research, 8(1), 1. NABR Analysis of AETA. (N.D.) National Asso ciation for Biomedical Research. Retrieved March 16, 2007 from http://www.nabr.org/pdf/AETAanalysis.pdf. Nation' s largest pig producer moves to phase out confinement of pigs in gestation crates (2007, January 25). HSUS Factory Farming Campai gn Victories Web page. Retrieved March 12, 2007 from http://www.hsus.org/farm/news/ournews/sm ithfield_phases_out_crates.html. Obama B. (2005, May 18) Statement by Senato r Barack Obama for the Oversight on Ecoterrorism specifically examining the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Hearing Statements. Retrieved March 14, 2007 from http://epw.senate.gov /public/hearing_state m ents.cfm?id=237833. O'Neill, T. (2001, February 5) Bambis vigilantes. Report / Newsmagazine (National Edition), Vol. 28, Issue 3. Retrieved from the Business Source Premier database: http://web.ebscohost.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/ bsi/detail? vid=3&hid=3&sid=124bc508-b2104f15-8276-77f0c0def069%40sessionmgr3

PAGE 111

111 O'Rourke, K. (2004, May 15) The animal rights st ruggle. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association News. Retrieved March 12, 2007 from http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/may04/040515j.asp People for the Ethical T reatment of Animals mi ssion statement (N.D.). Retrieved December 9, 2006, from http://www.peta.org/about/ Petri, T. E., Scott, R.C. (2006, November 13) The FACTS on the Anim al Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) (H.R. 4239/S.3880) Retrieved March 16, 2007 from http://www.house.gov/petri/AETA_FACTS_2.pdf. Potter, W (2006, July 29) The Animal Enterprise Protection Act: Using an obscure law to charge nonviolent activists with terrorism. Retrieved March 16, 2007 from http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/aepa/. Puck falls prey to m isdirection from activis t groups (2007, March 29). Animal Agriculture Alliance. Retrieved April 4, 2007 from http://www.animalagalliance.org/main/ hom e.cfm?Section=2007_0329_Puck&Category=P ressReleases Query, R. (2006, December 11) Some major gains for animals ushered in by 109th Congress, but other major reforms blunted by Republican leaders. Retrieved March 11, 2007 from http://www.hsus.org/press_a nd_publications/press_releases/ som e_major_gains_for_animal s.html. Rampton, S. and Stauber, J. (2002) Consumer Freedom.org: Tobacco money takes on activist cash. PR Watch, Volume 9, No. 1. Retrieved March 14, 2007 from http://www.prwatch.org/pr wissues/2002Q1/ddam.ht ml Reber, B.H. and Kim, J.K. (2006). How activ ist groups use Websites in media relations: Evaluating Online Press Rooms. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18 (4), 313. Rept. No. 108. H. Res. 297, 108th Cong., (2003, June) Statement of Rules Subcommittee on Technology and the House Ranking in Providing for Consideration of Motions to Suspend the Rules. The Library of Congress. Retrieved April 7, 2007 from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/c pquery/T ?&report=hr179&dbname=108& Rose, M. (1991) Activism in the 90s: changing roles for public rela tions. In Public Relations Quarterly, 36, p. 28 (5). S. 1926 summary of all Congressional actions. The Library of Congress. Retrieved March 14, 2007 from http://www.thomas.gov/cgibin/bdquery/D? d109:1:./temp/~bda FD8:@@@X|/bss/d109query.html|. S. 3880 summary of all Congressional actions with amendments. The Library of Congress. Retrieved March 14, 2007 from http://www.thomas.gov/cgibin/bdquery/D? d109:1:./temp/~bdl 9w3:@@@S|/bss/d109query.html|.

PAGE 112

112 The Seattle Times (2006, May 7), Chronological FBI summary of terrorist incidents, 1980-2004. Retrieved March 11, 2007 from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ne ws/loca l/links/fbi_table.html. SHAC hearing multimedia (2005, October 26). U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Web site. Retrieved April 6, 2007 from http://epw.senate.gov/epwmultimedia/epwmultimedia.htm Severson, K. (2007, March 22) Celebrity chef a nnounces strict anim al-welfare policy. The New York Times. Retrieved April 8, 2007 from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/dining/22puck.html Stagno, B. (2000) life science or living hell? Satya Magazine. Retrieved March 11, 2007 from http://www.satyamag.com/novdec00/stagno.html. Stallm an, B. (2007) Animal warfare: Coming to your state soon. American Farm Bureau. Retrieved March 20, 2007 from http://www.fb.org/index.php?fu seaction=newsroo m.agenda Stauber, J. C., & Rampton, S. (1995, SeptOct). "Democracy" for hire; public relations and environmental movements. In The Ecologist, 25(2), 173. Retrieved April 13, 2007, from Expanded Academic ASAP via Thomson Gale: http://find.galegroup.com. lp.hscl.ufl.edu/itx/infom ark.do?&contentSet=IACDocuments&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&docId=A17789605&source=gal e&userGroupName=gain40375&version=1.0 Strauss Veal and Marcho Farms eliminating confinement by crate (2007, February 27) HSUS Factory Farming Campaign Victories Web page. Retrieved March 12, 2007 from http://www.hsus.org/farm/news/ournews /strauss_and_m archo_veal_crates.html. Suspension of the Rules (N.D.) U.S. House of Representati ves Committee on Rules Majority Office. Retrieved April 8, 2007 from http://www.rules.house.gov/ar chives/suspend_rules.htm Text of S. 3880, The Animal Enterprise Te rrorism Act Retrieved December 9, 2006 from http://frwebgate .access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi? dbname=109_cong_b ills&docid=f:s3880enr.txt.pdf Three militant animal rights activists sentenced to between four and six years in prison (2006, September 12). Retrieved April 5, 2007 from http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/files/pdffiles/shac0912rel.pdf Tom bs, S. & Smith, D. (1995, September). Co rporate social respons ibility and crisis management: The democratic organization and cr isis prevention. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 3(3), 135.

PAGE 113

113 Transcript of the Full Committee Hearing on Eco-terrorism (2005, October 26). Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Retrieved March 14, 2007 from http://www.furcommission.com/resource/pressS Fbills.htm#Anchor-GOVERNMENT14210. Tucker, L. & Melewar, T. C. ( 2005). Corporate reputation and cris is management: The threat and manageability of anti-corporatism. Corporate Reput ation Review, 7(4), 377. Various Organizations (2006, Ap ril 13) Letter about H.R. 4975. League of Women Voters. Retrieved April 7, 2007 from http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Sec tion=LeaguE_Voice_Archive&TEMPLATE=/ CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=4948 Walkom T. (2006, March 13) Kevin Kjonaas set up a website with details about businesses that use animals for research information, and now he and five other activists have been convicted of inciting terrorism. The Toronto Star. Pg. A06. Retrieved from the LexisNexis database: http://web.lexisnexis.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/universe/do cument?_m=2fd78f2e4d782972b0bf2ca7fc10e981&_ docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVlz-zSkVb& _md5=656a9eb0384157266ad70a2634ec425e. Warner, D. (2006, November 14) NPPC hails passage of bill protecting an imal enterprises from Terrorist acts. Media Releas e retrieved March 12, 2007 from http://www.nppc.org/wm/show.php?id=620&c=1. W immer, R.D. and Dominick, J. R. (2006) Mass Media Research, An Introduction, Eigth Edition, Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.

PAGE 114

114 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Nadya Michelle Vera was born in Santurce, Puerto Rico on Novem ber 30, 1981. She grew up mostly in Miami, Florida. She graduated from Miami Sunset Senior High School and earned her bachelors degree in Theatre from Florida International University (FIU). While attending FIU, Nadya worked at Complete Conference Mana gement, Inc. (CCM) as a part-time marketing assistant and later as a market ing coordinator. After earning her bachelors degree, Nadya continued to work at CCM, but on a full-time basis. Nadya began her masters studies in mass communications with an emphasis in public relations in August 2005. During th e months of June through August 2006, Nadya worked as an intern in the public relations department of the Humane Soci ety of the United States in Gaithersburg, MD.