They specifically targeted government officials who infringed on the rights of the forest; however, this is considered a pre-history[clarification needed] rather than an actual act of eco-terrorism because the peasants weren't environmentalist.
The peasants committed their acts to protect the environment because they felt they had a claim to it due to it being their main source of income and way of life for generations.
[5] Ideas that arose from radical environmentalism are "based on the belief that capitalism, patriarchal society, and the industrial revolution and its subsequent innovations were responsible for the despoliation of nature".
Deep ecology calls for complete solidarity with the environment and therefore categorizes many conservation groups as "shallow", encouraging more drastic approaches to environmental activism.
Biocentrism is a central tenet of deep ecology [14] which is described as "a belief that human beings are just an ordinary member of the biological community" and that all living things should have rights and deserve protection under the law.
"[16] Essentially this consists of independent cells which operate autonomously, sharing goals, but having no central leaders or formal organizational structure.
[3] The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society intervenes against whaling, seal hunting, and fishing operations with direct action tactics.
[5] In 1992, they sabotaged two Japanese ships that were drift-net fishing for squid by cutting their nets and throwing stink bombs on board the boats.
In 2002, a jury found that FBI agents and Oakland police officers violated constitutional rights to free speech and protection from unlawful searches of Earth First!
[5] A recent example of ELF arson was the March 2008 "torching of luxury homes in the swank Seattle suburb of Woodinville".
[3] Media reports have tied Ted Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, to environmental activists, and say that the 23 injuries and three deaths through letter-bombs were the acts of an independent eco-terrorist.
[22] In 2008 the Federal Bureau of Investigation said eco-terrorists represented "one of the most serious domestic terrorism threats in the U.S. today" citing the sheer volume of their crimes (over 2,000 since 1979); the huge economic impact (losses of more than US$110 million since 1979); the wide range of victims (from international corporations to lumber companies to animal testing facilities to genetic research firms); and their increasingly violent rhetoric and tactics (one recent communiqué sent to a California product testing company said: "You might be able to protect your buildings, but can you protect the homes of every employee?").
[30] Unclear, however, is the extent informants and controversial FBI entrapment operations play in creating eco-terrorist groups and furthering criminal acts.
In 2015, so-called "green anarchist" Eric McDavid was freed from a 2007 conviction after it was disclosed the FBI operated a program to lure unsuspecting activists via "blatant entrapment.
[34] The updated act included causing personal harm and the losses incurred on "secondary targets" as well as adding to the penalties for these crimes.
In 2006, an FBI case labeled "Operation Backfire" brought charges of domestic terrorism to eleven people associated with the ELF and ALF.
The FBI joined together with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to convict the individuals and any future eco-terrorist groups.
[37] However, the Bush Justice Department, including the FBI, was criticized in 2010 for improper investigations and prosecutions of left-leaning US protest groups such as Greenpeace.
The Washington Post reported that the "FBI improperly opened and extended investigations of some U.S. activist groups and put members of an environmental advocacy organization on a terrorist watch list, even though they were planning nonviolent civil disobedience, the Justice Department said Monday.
Fine, found the FBI to be not guilty of the most serious charge — according to the Post — that "agents targeted domestic groups based on their exercise of First Amendment rights."