UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones May 2017 Examining the Extent and Impact of Surveillance on Animal Rights Activists Cassandra Boyer University of Nevada, Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations Part of the Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Repository Citation Boyer, Cassandra, "Examining the Extent and Impact of Surveillance on Animal Rights Activists" (2017). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 2948. http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/10985781 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EXAMINING THE EXTENT AND IMPACT OF SURVEILLANCE ON ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS By Cassandra Boyer Bachelor of Arts – Criminal Justice University of Las Vegas, Nevada 2014 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts – Criminal Justice Department of Criminal Justice Greenspun College of Urban Affairs The Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas May 2017 Thesis Approval The Graduate College The University of Nevada, Las Vegas April 17, 2017 This thesis prepared by Cassandra Boyer entitled Examining the Extent and Impact of Surveillance on Animal Rights Activists is approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts – Criminal Justice Department of Criminal Justice Emily Troshynski, Ph.D. Kathryn Hausbeck Korgan, Ph.D. Examination Committee Chair Graduate College Interim Dean Melissa Rorie, Ph.D. Examination Committee Member Terance Miethe, Ph.D. Examination Committee Member Robert Futrell, Ph.D. Graduate College Faculty Representative ii ABSTRACT In the post-9/11 era, the USA PATRIOT Act provided law enforcement agencies broad powers to investigate citizens believed to be potential or perceived domestic terrorist threats. Preceded by the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA) of 1992, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) of 2006 delivered to these same agencies laws under which animal rights (AR) activists could be charged as domestic terrorists. Considered to be potential domestic terrorist threats under the Green Scare era, AR activists became prioritized as state-sponsored surveillance subjects. This thesis seeks to determine the extent of surveillance on AR activists as well as its impact in regard to the progression of this social movement through the use of qualitative methods. It also questions whether the Green Scare still has relevance today. The researcher conducted face-to-face and phone interviews with 11 activists in the states of Nevada, Oregon, and Colorado. The researcher found that the majority of the sample in the study had experienced different indicators of surveillance. Many activists expressed the view that surveillance was an inevitable part of being an activist. Despite their exposure to surveillance, it does not appear that state-sponsored surveillance has stifled the willingness of activists to participate in the AR movement. Keywords: Animal Rights Activists, Surveillance, Repression, Social Movements, Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA), Eco-Terrorism. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to extend my sincerest thanks to the chair of my committee, Dr. Emily Troshynski, for her patience and encouragement in helping me complete this project. She has worked tirelessly in helping me (as well many other graduate students under her advisement) edit, revise, and perfect my thesis. Without her support, I would not have been able to complete this project. I am utterly grateful for Dr. Troshynski’s commitment to her students. I would also like to thank my committee members, Drs. Melissa Rorie, Terance Miethe, and Robert Futrell for their time, input, and advice. I would also like to thank the activists and advocates who, at no benefit to themselves, took the time to meet a complete stranger for an interview. Thank you. I am indebted to these kind souls. Last, I would like to thank my husband who has cheered me on since I began college so many years ago. Thank you for your generosity and hard work which has made my college career a possibility. Thank you for supporting my tree-hugging tendencies and eating my vegan meals. I couldn’t have done this without you. iv DEDICATION To my three rambunctious little brothers, Andrew, Matthew, and Joshua – my eldest brother didn’t get the chance to go to college but it is my sincerest hope that my younger two brothers will attend college and excel in their studies. To the compassionate tree huggers and animal lovers who devote their time and energy to protecting the environment and the rights of the voiceless. Keep fighting the good fight. To the animals and creatures whose short lives may or may not know kindness in the world. Choose to be a force for kindness. “We have to speak up on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves.” – Peter Singer, Animal Liberation v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................... iv CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................... 5 Overview of U.S. Repression of Dissident/Activist Groups ........................................................... 5 Repressing Dissident Groups: From Anarchists and Socialists to Animal Rights (AR) Activists . 8 From the Red Scare to the Green Scare: AR Activists Perceived to be a Growing Threat ........ 11 CHAPTER 3: LAWS SPECIFIC TO AR ACTIVISTS AND RELEVANT PROSECUTIONS16 The Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA) of 1992 ...................................................... 17 Prosecutions under the AEPA (1992) ............................................................................. 18 The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 ......................................................................................... 22 Prosecutions under the PATRIOT Act (2001) ................................................................ 23 The Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act (AETA) of 2006 ........................................................ 26 Prosecutions under AETA (2006) ................................................................................... 29 CHAPTER 4: DEFINING ANIMAL RIGHTS (AR) ACTIVISTS AND AR ACTIVISM ....... 32 Research on the History of Modern Animal Rights (AR) Protests and Movements ............ 37 CHAPTER 5: REVIEW OF RELATED THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES .......................... 41 Surveillance as Monitoring and Repression ......................................................................... 41 Mechanism-based Social Movement Theory........................................................................ 44 CHAPTER 6: METHODS .......................................................................................................... 49 Use of Snowball Sampling Strategy and Limitations ........................................................... 50 Limitations of Sampling Framework .............................................................................. 51 vi Research Design: Interviews with Animal Rights (AR) Activists........................................ 53 Screening Process for Research Participants................................................................. 53 Description of Interview Questions Utilized ................................................................... 54 Structured Interviews, Empathetic Interviewing, and Limitations ....................................... 56 Empathetic Interviewing ................................................................................................. 57 Gendered Interviewing ................................................................................................... 58 Limitations of Empathetic and Gendered Interviewing .................................................. 59 CHAPTER 7: FINDINGS .......................................................................................................... 61 Theme 1: A Lack of Awareness among Activists on AR-Specific Legislation ................... 61 Theme 2: Endorsement of Non-Violent Tactics by AR Activists ........................................ 66 Theme 3: Surveillance on Three Fronts – Law Enforcement, Private Entities, and Animal Enterprises .................................................................................................................................. 72 Theme 4: The Impact of Surveillance on AR Activism ....................................................... 78 CHAPTER 8: DISCUSSION & CONNECTIONS TO SIMILAR