Animal Defense League - Los Angeles has this to say ...

Ferdin, Pamelyn
Animal Defense League - Los Angeles director; Board member, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (removed April 2005); Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

Although her organization does not use illegal tactics, Ferdin said she supports those who do - including the Animal Liberation Front, a secretive international group on the U.S. Justice Department's list of domestic terror organizations - and believes their help will help win the battle. "We support those brave warriors out there who take it to the next level," Ferdin said.
(In "Animal Activists Toughen Tactics. Some have moved beyond protesting to vandalism and threats against city officials," Los Angeles Times, Sept. 8, 2005.)

Vlasak, Jerry
Animal Defense League - Los Angeles director; Board member, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (removed April 2005); Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

"Rosenbaum is not an innocent bystander; he is a guilty perpetrator of violence toward innocent beings, [and] if he won't stop with intelligent discussion, there is every moral justification for stopping him using whatever means are necessary."
(Quoted in "Activists target professor," referring to an attempted firebombing of the car of UCLA professor and ophthalmology researcher Arthur Rosenbaum, The Daily Bruin (UCLA), July 2, 2007.)

"If that means going onto their farms, releasing their animals and burning the place to the ground, that's morally justifiable."
(On stopping people who raise animals for fur or meat, quoted in "Grand jury indicts 11 people allegedly involved in ecoterrorism," Associated Press, Jan. 21, 2006.)

"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." Sen. James Inhofe: "Including murdering them, is that correct?" Vlasak: "Pardon?" Inhofe: "Including murdering them?" Vlasak: "I said that would be a morally justifiable solution to the problem."
(Defending his statement to the Animal Rights 2003 National Conference, Los Angeles [see below] before the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Oct. 26, 2005.)

Sen. Frank Lautenberg: "You are willing to say that somebody you don't know, somebody's kid, somebody's parent, somebody's brother, somebody's sister, take that life, that's okay?" Vlasak: "These are not innocent lives."
(Addressing the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Oct. 26, 2005.)

"Are these people comparable to people that chop up animals in laboratories just to further their academic careers? Yeah, I think they're all abhorrent in a certain way, yes," he said. "The threat of violence would be another way to stop them and I would be behind that threat.."
(Quoted in "Violence against sealers OK: activist," CBC News, Apr. 19, 2005.)

"Would I advocate taking five guilty vivisectors' lives to save hundreds of millions of innocent animal lives? Yes, I would."
(Speaking on Special Broadcasting Service radio, Australia, Insight, Oct. 12, 2004.)

"I am personally not advocating violence. I am simply saying that it is a morally acceptable tactic and it may be useful in the struggle for animal liberation."
(Speaking on BBC Radio 4's The World At One, Aug. 27, 2004.)

"I see the struggle for animal rights as no different from other struggles in history, such as against apartheid or slavery. Violence was a part of those movements and was both effective and morally justified."
(In "Animal rights activists plan training camp for militants," Telegraph (UK), July 29, 2004.)

"I think violence is part of the struggle against oppression. If something bad happens to these people [animal researchers], it will discourage others. It is inevitable that violence will be used in the struggle and that it will be effective."
(In "Kill scientists, says animal rights chief. Fury as former surgeon calls for selective assassinations," The Observer (UK), July 25, 2004.)

"I don't think you'd have to kill too many [researchers]. I think for five lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives."
(In "Kill scientists, says animal rights chief. Fury as former surgeon calls for selective assassinations," The Observer (UK), July 25, 2004.)

"It won't ruin our movement if someone gets killed in an animal rights action. It's going to happen sooner or later. The Animal Liberation Front, the Earth Liberation Front -- sooner or later there's going to be someone getting hurt. And we have to accept that fact. It's going to happen. It's not going to hurt our movement. Our movement will go on. And it's important that we not let the bully pulpit of the FBI and the other oppression agencies stop us from what we're doing. They are the violent ones. They are the terrorists ... we have to keep doing what we're doing."
(Animal Rights 2004 National Conference, Vienna, VA, July 8-12, 2004.)

"I think there is a use for violence in our movement. And I think it can be an effective strategy. Not only is it morally acceptable. ... I don't think you'd have to kill - assassinate - too many vivisectors before you would see a marked decrease in the amount of vivisection going on. ... I think for five lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, two million, 10 million non-human lives." An audience member then states that this would be the same as the pro-life movement killing abortionists. Vlasak responds: "Absolutely. I think they've had a great strategy going."
(Animal Rights 2003 National Conference, Los Angeles, CA. See also quote below.)

"I think there is a use for violence in our movement. And I think it can be an effective strategy. Not only is it morally acceptable, I think that there are places where it could be used quite effectively from a pragmatic standpoint.

"For instance, if vivisectors were routinely being killed, I think it would give other vivisectors pause in what they were doing in their work - and if these vivisectors were being targeted for assassination, and call it political assassination or what have you, I think if - and I wouldn't pick some guy way down the totem pole, but if there were prominent vivisectors being assassinated, I think that there would be a trickle-down effect and many, many people who are lower on that totem pole would say, "I'm not going to get into this business because it's a very dangerous business and there's other things I can do with my life that don't involve getting into a dangerous business." And I think that the - strictly from a fear and intimidation factor, that would be an effective tactic.

"And I don't think you'd have to kill - assassinate - too many vivisectors before you would see a marked decrease in the amount of vivisection going on. And I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human animals."
(Quoted in "Who's afraid of Jerry Vlasak?" by Dr. Steven Best, July 2004. See also quote above.)

"I think we do need to embrace direct action and violent tactics as part of our movement ... I don't think we ought to be criticizing someone, whether we're criticizing [them] because they’re writing letters, or whether we criticize them because they're burning down fur stores or vivisection labs. I think we need to include everybody in that circle."
(Animal Rights 2002 National Conference, Washington, DC, June 30, 2002.)

"Get arrested. Destroy the property of those who torture animals. Liberate those animals interned in the hellholes our society tolerates."
(Internet post to AR Views list, June 21, 1996.)

ADL-LA website
http://www.animaldefense.com; as of July 17, 2003

"The Animal Defense League is an above-ground animal rights group, but fully supports the great work done by the underground Animal Liberation Front (ALF) in freeing animals who are being tortured, exposing animal abuse and reducing the economic viability of animal abuse industries."

"ADL-LA differs from many other animal rights and welfare groups in that we feel different tactics are warranted than have been widely used in the movement. While we acknowledge that many hands are needed on many oars, we think there are more effective strategies than writing letters, participating in boycotts, and holding signs. Each of these tactics has their place, and we use them as well, but we frequently risk our personal freedom in the form of civil disobedience to show the animal abusers in our midst that they may not continue business-as-usual. When arrested we regularly refuse to pay the government in the form of bail or fines, and we do not plead guilty to any of their charges; it is the animal abusers who are the guilty ones. We also do not accept probation as this limits our future effectiveness as activists. Though many ADL-LA members do not take part in C.D. or get arrested, we whole-heartedly support those that do and believe in the No Compromise philosophy outlined here."

© 1998-2007 Fur Commission USA