Earth First! a radical, political, environmental group yes. But an effective cause for social change? Debatable. This essay discusses the various tactics and attitudes within the group, namely the controversial influence of the Monkey Wrench Gang (1975) and their activism of ecotage.

1. James Apichart Jarvis
Critique the tactics used by one American environmental
group.
Radical environmental groups reached prominence in the American
discourse, through the latter decades of the twentieth century, by focusing
on the movement of direct action to defend the environment. The most well-
known of such groups is Earth First!, a grassroots organisation consisting of
individuals that are best characterised as “eco-warriors”. Founded by five
men including Dave Foreman, Earth First!ers used tactics that went beyond
conventional direct action and instead focused on civil disobedience and
ecotage as a means to embody their brand of radical ecology.
This thesis will analyse and critique the tactics used by the Earth First!
environmental group. In order to understand the motives of these “eco-
warriors” an assessment of the ideals of deep ecology as well as the
circumstantial genesis of Earth First! will be displayed as a counter measure
to the moderate mainstream views.
Infrastructure is a key component in analysing organisations, and Earth
First! is fundamentally a grassroots system, keen to distance themselves
from the tidy bureaucracy of the mainstream. The significance of the
group‟s identity at grassroots level will be assessed, notably the apparent
factions, when compared to other established environmental groups. The
model of factions creates its own problems as well as disadvantages.
Earth First!‟s own brand of direct action with then be scrutinised, most
notably the controversial use of tree spiking among their flagship “monkey-
wrenching” devices in order to draw publicity towards an environmental
issue. The issue of eco-terrorism will be addressed.
To finish, a relevant critique of Earth First! shall be established in relation
to its context among the environmental movement; whether or not it has
made any substantial improvements while also looking at its present state
today.
The term “deep ecology” first appeared in Arne Naess‟ article „The Shallow
and The Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movements‟.1 More of a philosophical
idea, deep ecology retains the premise that the environment a biocentric
equality to exist through preservation, while at the same time downplaying
the importance of humans on this world. There are two prominent points
among Naess‟ and George Sessions outlined principles of deep ecology that
arguably forms the basis of radical ecology. First, humans “have no right to
reduce” the richness and diversity of the environment, and second, “present
1
Arne Naess, ‘The Shallow and The Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movements: A Summary’, Inquiry 16 (Osolo:
1973), pp 95-100

2. human interference” is excessive while currently “rapidly worsening”.2 What
seems to be referenced here is an Eco-Wall that Rik Scarce has indicated as
a psychological barrier that has prevented people from recognizing their
perceived environmental responsibilities, usually born out of the lack of
caring or ignorance.3 Deep ecology, a popular school of thought among all
environmentalists, recognizes this fact and advocates that people should
shift their interests towards the environment rather than self-attainment.
Deep ecology, however, has its critics which in turn may invalidate the
motives of Earth First!. Critics have pointed to the fact that there is no
evidence of an impending environmental crisis that deep ecology suggests,
the philosophy also ignores the part that advanced technologies may play in
helping to preserve the environment. Henry Skolimowski and George
Lukacs perceived the theory of deep ecology as a pretentious form of
ideology: environmental concerns will always be a “societal category” and is
about ourselves rather than about nature exclusively.4 These statements
contradict the foundation of radical ecology, but as Foreman points out that
is not important. To Earth First! ideology is not what is important, neither
is the method that people chose to defend the Earth, it is more important
that people do something and take responsibility.5
Environmental philosophy is not what separates Earth First! from
mainstream environmental groups, it is radicalism. Disturbed by the failure
of the Forest Service to provide adequate environmental protection to
wilderness lands in the RARE II program, dedicated employer of the
Wilderness Society environmental group, Dave Foreman had become
dishearten by mainstream environmentalism that has moved away from its
roots and become an industry just like any other6. Foreman was not alone.
Co-founders of Earth First! included; a former Wyoming representatives of
the Friends of the Earth and Wilderness Society, Howie Wolke and Bart
Koelier respectively; former educational director for the Wilderness Society,
Susan Morgan; and Mike Roselle who was a “veteran” among radical groups.
These founding members of Earth First! viewed the American government
and corporations as the enemy; representations of human greed.7
An interesting context to the emergence of Earth First! was the political
climate of a Ronald Reagan administration in the 1980s that was pro
2
Bill Devall and George Sessions, Deep Ecology (Utah: Gibbs Smith, 1985) pp 67, 70
3
Rik Scarce, Eco-Warriors: Understanding the Radical Environmental Movement (Chicago: The Noble Press,
Inc., 1990) p 8
4
Christopher Manes, Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and the Unmaking of Civilzation (Boston: Little,
Brown & Company, 1990) pp 152, 156
5
Edited by Steve Chase, Defending the Earth: A Dialogue Between Murray Bookchin and Dave Foreman
(Boston: South End Press, 1991) p 66
6
Hal k. Rothman, The Greening of a Nation? Environmentalism in the United States Since 1945 (New York:
Harcourt Brace & Company, 1988) p 183
7
Donald R. Liddick, Eco-Terrorism: Radical Environmental and Animal Liberation Movements (Connecticut:
Praeger Publishers, 2006) p 56-7

3. industry. Environmental concerns were far from the political agenda in
Washington due to the “Reagan recession” of the decade. In his inaugural
address, Reagan a Republican, declared “to rekindle traditional American
values” by scrapping general revenue sharing. In 1981 the Budget
Reconciliation Act reduced federal expenditure by $39 billion, which
eliminated some existing intergovernmental programs.8 With governmental
interest focused more on recovering an economic recession it therefore could
be argued that radical organisations such as Earth First! is needed to bring
light to the environmental issues that concerns environmentalists.
Dave Foreman explained, in his Confessions of an Eco-Warrior, that Earth
First! aimed to be radical in positions, philosophy, style and organisation to
avoid the pitfalls of the moderation and co-option that the founders already
experienced. Noted goals of Earth First! was to re-establish enthusiasm and
vigour into a stale and unimaginative environmental movement; to provide
support for “hard-line” conservationists and inspire others to become strong
activists; and more importantly, to “fight with uncompromising passion” for
Earth.9
Earth First! announced itself onto the national scene with the Cracking of
Glen Canyon event in March 31, 1981. A three-hundred foot ersatz crack
painted on a black plastic tarpaulin was draped on the face of the dam that
obstructed the Colorado River.10 In an act of both the theatrical and the
showcase of humour, this particular tactic proved to be extremely
successful, by instigating a media accomplishment while avoiding any
controversies that is usually associated with radicalism.
Inspired by Edward Abbey‟s The Monkey Wrench Gang (1975) which
followed the sabotaging activities of a „band of four idealists‟ who targeted
innate objects such as bulldozers and crawler-tractors. The presentation of
the difference between sophisticated tactics and mindless vandalism created
a grand sense of justification that eco-warriors would have no doubt found
romantic.11 Hence Earth First!, formed in the early 1980s, would be
characterised by the movement of ecotage, the destruction of property that
would harm the environment, while also exclaiming the slogan: “no
compromise in defence of Mother Earth”.12 In distancing themselves from
the now moderate mainstream, Earth First! focused its intention on
radicalism, throwing a „monkey-wrench‟ in to the works, so to speak.
Along with radicalism, another key aspect characterises Earth First!
namely its grassroots infrastructure without a nominated leader or
president, inspired by “high profile elites” such as Foreman. Donald R.
8
D. Mckay, American Politics and Society: Seventh Edition (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009) p 76
9
Dave Foreman, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior (New York: Harmony Books, 1991) p 18
10
Hal k. Rothman, The Greening of a Nation? Environmentalism in the United States Since, p 182-3
11
Edward Abbey, The Monkey Wrench Gang (London: Penguin Books, 2004) pp 74, 79-80, 86
12
Hal K. Rothman, The Greening of a Nation? Environmentalism in the United States Since 1945, p 182

4. Liddick described the model of “leaderless resistance” as an effective means
in providing direction, dissemination of information, provision of financial
support for direct action, and to inspire underground activists.13 With
numerous groups at grassroots level, including Bay Area Earth First! and
Phoenix Earth First! among others, it becomes clear that Earth First! is not
a unified group but a collection of factions each with their own ideas and
code. Anyone can become a member of the Earth First! clan. The only
branching ideal is that Earth comes first before humans, regardless of the
methods of its protection. This is what makes Earth First! unique, a
movement for the people that anyone can contribute to, but it also in itself
creates its own problems as the rest of this thesis will show.
Furthermore, Earth First! success in attracting activists could be
attributed to the tactic in relating the group to the western „cowboy‟ rhetoric.
The cowboy image appears in the mythology that the founders created the
group while in a desert or in a whorehouse, an image that is far removed
from the reality of a discussion in a VW bus on the road to Albuquerque.14
The cowboy relation could also be seen in the attachment to Buffalo Bill’s
Wild West Show with Earth First!‟s own version: the Earth First! Roadshow
which promotes their ideals. Then there is the Round River Rendezvous that
includes drinking and singing around campfires.15 It should also be
mentioned that Earth First! was male dominated, a view that is not far from
the frontier myth, as Jeffrey Shantz analysed in the article Judi Bari and ‘the
feminization of Earth First!’.16 That is part of the apparent appeal for radical
activists to join Earth First! the chance to live in a western rhetoric that is
deemed to be lost in today‟s mainstream society.
The radical stance of Earth First! includes a spectrum of various civil
disobedience tactics. The list accommodates: blockades, demonstrations,
treesits, sit-ins, self-imposed entrapment by locking themselves to
bulldozers and cranes. The movement of radical ecology calls for individuals
and small groups to partake in such acts in order to defend the wild.17 All of
these direct action tactics has been described as “guerrilla theatre” by Hal
Rothman in order to successfully increase media and public attention.18
However, monkeywrenching is no doubt the distinctive attribute of Earth
First! as an environmental group.
Dave Foreman attempted to defend monkeywrenching as a “proud
American tradition” despite the criticism and controversy that surrounds
13
Donald R. Liddick, Eco-Terrorism: Radical Environmental and Animal Liberation Movements, pp 69-70
14
Rik Scarce, Eco-Warriors: Understanding the Radical Environmental Movement, p 61
15
Donald R. Liddick, Eco-Terrorism: Radical Environmental and Animal Liberation Movements, pp 57-8
16
Jeffrey Shantz, ‘Judi Bari and “the feminization of Earth First!”: the convergence of class, gender and radical
environmentalism, Feminist Review, No. 70, (2002) pp. 105-122
17
Carolyn Merchant, Radical Ecology: The Search for a Livable World (New York: Routledge, 1992) p174-5
18
Hal K. Rothman, The Greening of a Nation? Environmentalism in the United States Since 1945, p 184-5

5. it.19 In Ecodefense an outline, almost sermon in style, advocated
monkeywrenching as “non-violent”, “not organised”, “simple” and “fun”.
Organised into a brochure format, „Strategic Monkeywrenching‟ seems
almost desperate in its attempt to validate the motives of ecotage, despite its
well written approach.20 It is also interesting to note the title of the book,
Ecodefense, a product of the „moral‟ stance taken by radical
environmentalists, because it could so easily be called Ecoterrorism instead.
Earth First!ers accept that monkeywrencing is an illegal act and is not
suited to everyone in the environmental rhetoric. The act of ecotage is
rather viewed as an effective campaign to target the “rape-the-land”
corpotations bank roll, in order to halt, at least momentarily, the act of
wilderness destruction.21 For Earth First!ers monkeywrenching is seen as
an operation that should be taken as a last resort, to act in the event of an
unresponsive government.22 However, it could be argued that radical Earth
First!ers would always proceed to monkeywrenching without taking any
prior initiatives. Radicals are just that, radical, and it is arguable as to
whether all Earth First!ers would initiate in alternatives to ecotage.
A very controversial and potentially dangerous method of ecotage, and a
topic of high interest, is tree splikeing that has become affiliated strongly
with Earth First!. In what has been turned into some form of a cult, tree
spiking prevents trees from being cut down by driving nails in to the trunk.
The nails do not harm trees but can cause ruin to lumber mill saw blades
which at $3000 repairs lumber companies take heed of any warnings of
spiked trees.23
Not as easily defendable as monkey wrenching, Dave Foreman‟s attempts
finds him fielding three criteria of justification; “is tree spiking safe”; “is tree
spiking ethical”; and “is tree spiking effective” in saving trees. It is no
surprise that Foreman concludes that tree spiking does fulfil each of these
questions, by helping to prevent the genocide of ecosystems, finding relative
success in the states of Washington, Oregon, Virginia, Colorado, New
Mexico, and Montana.24
Although Earth First! have always prided themselves on not enacting
harm to humans, tree spiking have resulted in one case of bodily harm
where a George Alexander, a Californian timber mill worker, was injured
severely. What proved to be further irresponsible was the fact that the mill
was never warned, a procedure that is usually carried out by Earth First!ers.
Within Earth First! there is also a sense of uncertainty over the values of
19
Dave Foreman, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior, pp 117-8
20
Dave Foreman, ‘Strategic Monkeywrenching’, Various authors, Ecodefense: A Field Guide to
Monekeywrenching, Third Edition (Azburg Print, 1992) pp 9-11
21
Edited by Steve Chase, Defending the Earth: A Dialogue Between Murray Bookchin and Dave Foreman, p 70
22
Dave Foreman, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior, pp 144-5
23
Rik Scarce, Eco-Warriors: Understanding the Radical Environmental Movement, pp 74-6
24
Dave Foreman, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior, pp 153-8

6. tree spiking. Judi Bari, worked towards improving public relations between
the radical group and mill workers. Motivated by the improved dialogue,
Bari and a few of her followers in Earth First! renounced tree spiking as a
dangerous undertaking. 25
These two cases illustrates two problems that face Earth First! as a valid
environmental institution that has strong ties to tree spiking. First,
ecoterrorist allegation. Critics have accused radical ecologists of being no
better than terrorists, who engage in violent action. The estimated total cost
of ecotage each year is thought to be within the region of $20-25 million.26
There is validity in the „terrorist‟ point, mill workers lives are at risk when
working in a woodland area that is „spiked‟. Although, Earth First!ers point
out that human harm is not the motive, acts of ecotage does, however, effect
the economic well being of hard working lower class citizens. The cost of
repairs could directly correlate to a reduction in pay and even redundancies.
The second problem is the grassroots infrastructure. Above are two
examples of misdirection, the irresponsible Earth First!ers that failed to
warn the mill company in the Alexander case and the opposing ideas of Judi
Bari‟s faction. The model of “leaderless resistance” presents a case where
different Earth First! groups would naturally have varying ideologies and
philosophies. It also presents an environment where there is no supervision
or no-one to administrate correct management of ecotage that Dave
Foreman tried in earnest to allocate.
The environmental movement is still dominated by a handful of the largest
natural organisations, all of which are centred in stance, and headquartered
in Washington D.C.27 Although Earth First! is founded on the idea of direct
action, that is not to mean that they have abandoned the lobbyist intentions
of mainstream environmentalism. Nevertheless, and in keeping with their
style, Earth First! promotes a radical position. Their leading proposition is
the „Wilderness Preserve System‟, announced in June 1983. Earth First!
required that fifty reserves, 716 million acres in total, be declared “off-limits”
to human industrial civilization to preserve the natural processes.
Wilderness should be preserved for its own sake.28 This is an extreme
measure which was inevitably turned down, it would seem that Earth First!
as an environmental organisation lacks the realism and nous in politics to
get favourable results.
But this is where Earth First! has found its niche and its uses; in being
overtly extreme and radical in their proposals it has turned mainstream
environmental groups in to the moderate and reasonable voice in
25
Rik Scarce, Eco-Warriors: Understanding the Radical Environmental Movement, pp 76-7, 83
26
Christopher Manes, Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and the Unmaking of Civilzation, pp 9, 151
27
Mark Dowie, Losing Ground: American Environmentalism at the Close of the Twentieth Century
(Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1996) p 5
28
Rik Scarce, Eco-Warriors: Understanding the Radical Environmental Movement, p 66

7. environmental politics. Jim Norton, the Wilderness Society‟s southwest
regional director, appreciates the contribution of radical groups in helping
the „moderate‟ mainstream in gaining results in politics. Dave Foreman
himself concedes that Earth First!‟s real purpose is to make groups like the
Sierra Club more effective, Earth First!‟s radical position has helped to
“redefine the parameters of the debate”. The mainstream collective was
always more important than an isolated radical environmental group.29
The lack of direct success eventually muted Earth First! as a radical voice,
coupled by the death of author Edward Abbey in 1989 and the sting
operation by the FBI the group separated in to two groups of fundamental
differences. Dave Foreman and his followers departed from Earth First!
because the hard line view a postapocalyptic biocentric society as a valid
reason for radical action had lost relevance over the years, the FBI
intervention proving to much of a strain. The second group, headed by Mike
Roselle, also eventually departed from Earth First! to form EMETIC due to
the criticism that former had not lived up to its radical intentions.30 This is
a direct result of the model of “leaderless resistance”, a model that is
assembled by varying and apparently contrasting grassroot factions.
Since then, Earth First! never really recovered and lost its edginess by
turning into a large, international ecologic movement. Far removed from the
grassroots radical cowboys of the 1980s. In addition, an important shift in
tone emerged by placing significance and concerns to human interests
rather than the deep ecology philosophy that has lasted so long. Donald R.
Liddick views this shift as an implication that Earth‟s necessities no longer
comes first.31 The best example of this lack of radicalism in the
contemporary scene can clearly be seen on the pages of the Earth First!
website.32 No more slogans of “no compromise”, neither a fist for a logo,
what we have instead is a format that is similar to numerous websites that
belongs to corporations.
The conception of Earth First! and the radical tactics used ultimately
makes it hard to administer praise if looking at direct results. Dave
Foreman and the founders viewed Earth First! as a movement to enact
change through direct action in order to draw media attention to an
environmental plight. At best ecotage only slowed down the inevitable on a
temporary basis while at worst caused serious harm to humans through the
controversial act of tree spiking. In the political domain the extremist
stance were unrealistic and were never going to be approved by an
economical conscious Reagan administration. The success of Earth First! is
29
Rik Scarce, Eco-Warriors: Understanding the Radical Environmental Movement, p 25
30
Donald R. Liddick, Eco-Terrorism: Radical Environmental and Animal Liberation Movements, pp 59-61
31
Ibid, pp 61-3
32
Earth First website, www.earthfirst.com

8. not found in direct consequences but through the successes of the now
moderate mainstream organisations in passing through seemingly
„reasonable‟ policies. Without such radical groups, environmentalism would
have little to be proud about.
In the end it can be viewed that Earth First!, as a movement that is based
on an infrastructure of “leaderless resistance” and radical direct action,
became an uncontrollable entity that in the end proved too much for its
founder Dave Foreman and too little for radical ecologists who wanted a
more results based on their actions.

9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Edward Abbey, The Monkey Wrench Gang (London: Penguin Books, 2004).
Edited by Steve Chase, Defending the Earth: A Dialogue Between Murray
Bookchin and Dave Foreman (Boston: South End Press, 1991).
Bill Devall and George Sessions, Deep Ecology (Utah: Gibbs Smith, 1985).
Mark Dowie, Losing Ground: American Environmentalism at the Close of the
Twentieth Century (Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1996).
Dave Foreman, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior (New York: Harmony Books,
1991).
Dave Foreman, „Strategic Monkeywrenching‟, Various authors, Ecodefense:
A Field Guide to Monekeywrenching, Third Edition (Azburg Print, 1992) pp
3-11
Donald R. Liddick, Eco-Terrorism: Radical Environmental and Animal
Liberation Movements (Connecticut: Praeger Publishers, 2006).
Christopher Manes, Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and the
Unmaking of Civilzation (Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1990).
D. Mckay, American Politics and Society: Seventh Edition (Oxford: Wiley-
Blackwell, 2009).
Carolyn Merchant, Radical Ecology: The Search for a Livable World (New
York: Routledge, 1992).
Arne Naess, „The Shallow and The Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movements: A
Summary‟, Inquiry 16 (Osolo: 1973).
Hal k. Rothman, The Greening of a Nation? Environmentalism in the United
States Since 1945 (New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1988).
Rik Scarce, Eco-Warriors: Understanding the Radical Environmental
Movement (Chicago: The Noble Press, Inc., 1990)
Jeffrey Shantz, „Judi Bari and “the feminization of Earth First!”: the
convergence of class, gender and radical environmentalism, Feminist
Review, No. 70, (2002) pp. 105-122
Earth First website, www.earthfirst.com

10. Word Count: 2895