Bill would hike terrorism penalties Plum Creek vandalism spurs lawmakers to address environmental crime

loading...
AUGUSTA – If a lawmaker from Leeds has his way, vandals who commit environmental terrorism would face the prospect of stiffer penalties. Sen. John Nutting has urged legislative leaders to bring forward a bill that would make environmental terrorism a felony, punishable by jail time.
Sign in or Subscribe to view this content.

AUGUSTA – If a lawmaker from Leeds has his way, vandals who commit environmental terrorism would face the prospect of stiffer penalties.

Sen. John Nutting has urged legislative leaders to bring forward a bill that would make environmental terrorism a felony, punishable by jail time.

In most cases, such crimes are prosecuted as criminal mischief, a misdemeanor that usually results in fines.

Nutting, a Democrat, noted that an ecoterrorism bill failed to gain the needed support in 2001, but said backing for the proposal has grown following a Halloween vandalism spree that targeted Plum Creek Timber Co., its employees and contractors.

Maine State Police, the FBI and local police agencies from Greenville to Augusta continue to investigate the coordinated attacks in which vandals damaged three private homes and three office buildings in five Maine communities.

Buildings were hit with orange paint, a foul-smelling chemical, parts of a raccoon carcass and animal feces. Vandals threw rocks through windows of the home where Plum Creek’s top Maine official lives with his family.

“This was the work of an organization,” Nutting said. He said the boldness of the attacks and the way they were organized has heightened the belief that it is time for the state to increase the penalties for such crimes.

The Halloween vandalism was the latest in a string of incidents targeted at Seattle-based Plum Creek following its announcement last spring of plans to develop thousands of acres in the Moosehead Lake region.

Nutting said he plans to make a formal presentation on behalf of his ecoterrorism bill Monday.

Critics of similar legislation four years ago argued that such a measure could threaten the right to free speech on environmental issues, even when there is no attempt to frighten people or damage property.

Others said it would have no impact on the most radical environmentalists.


Have feedback? Want to know more? Send us ideas for follow-up stories.

comments for this post are closed

By continuing to use this site, you give your consent to our use of cookies for analytics, personalization and ads. Learn more.