sition against some form of abuse upon nature, such as the over-exploitation of the environment, use of plants, animals, and other natural resources beyond the normal ways, which these people think are detrimental to the over-all state of our ecology.
In a legal context, the official definition referred here is based on a law promulgated by a government entity. Although other definitions exist and are used officially such as those used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, discussions are focused as far as the meaning of ecoterrorism through a law passed in the state of Pennsylvania. House Bill 213 published by Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 2006 defined ecoterrorism within the context of criminalizing the acts of harming properties to intimidate individuals lawfully involved in activities that use animals, plants, or other natural resources.
But those sectors branded as ecoterrorists contest the meaning and remarked that the use of the term is a form of propaganda against their cause. They claimed that the term connotes terror inflected against the ecology which is the opposite of what these groups are fighting for. It is further alleged that the use of ecoterrorism in branding environmental activism is a political maneuver of the opponents of the causes for environmental activism. This is a fatal blow as far as extremists are concerned since the acceptance of the term has created acceptance that environmental activists are terrorists. This classification would result to “more investigation, infiltration, and disruption of radical environmental groups regardless of whether any law is actually violated, longer terms of incarceration for convicted activists, and the harassment of mainstream environmental groups” (R. Smith 564).
The violent acts mentioned in the law and described by authorities as eco-terrorism are varied. These include: arson offenses, causing or risking catastrophe, vandalisms in any form, crop destruction, burglary, criminal trespass,