Jan 26, 2014
A South Dakota
political website recently interviewed South Dakota's Attorney General on
the Animal Liberation Front guide The Final Nail #4. In the interview, he states
the fur farm raiding guide creates…
"…a heightened risk and those in the potentially affected areas have been and
are being contacted by local law enforcement."
(There are six known fur farms in South Dakota).
Final Nail #4 makes waves
Over the last six months, it was
speculated by mainstream media that the recent surge of fur farm raids was
sparked, in part, by the release of
The Final Nail #4, a how-to guide on raiding fur farms. While there wasn't a
huge amount of new information contained in the new Animal Liberation Front
manual, the timing of its release (coming out just weeks prior to the campaign)
would indicate it is possible the The Final Nail #4 had a role.
The Final Nail #4 received an
abnormal amount of media coverage upon its release,
with at least 7 news articles and several local TV reports covering its
publication nationwide. The general message from the coverage was: The fur
industry is scared.
And they had no idea of how credible their concerns were, as the next six months
would see 10 fur farm raids.
South Dakota Attorney General weighs in
Part of the online tremors caused by The Final Nail #4 was
an article on "South Dakota's #1 Political Website," which featured a brief
interview with South Dakota's Attorney General about The Final Nail, posted
(Despite quoting from it and posting an image of the cover, the two-part article
refuses to call The Final Nail by name, instead calling it simply "the hit
Here is the interview:
1. What's your general impression of what [the
Final Nail authors are] doing? Is it ‘free speech' or something darker?
Jackley: While our family is involved in ranching/farming and I proudly display
the state bird and fish in my office, I respect its free speech until it is
acted upon or causes harm to person or property.
2. In encouraging the release of animals and
vandalism, have the people involved in creating the list committed a crime for
which they can be prosecuted? If not, should it be a crime?
Jackley: Exercising free speech is not a crime; however, if acted upon to harm
person or property it could fall under trespassing, vandalism, theft,
intentional damage to property etc, including the act of "aiding and abetting."
You may recall as US Atty, I charged Greenpeace for their conduct/involvement at
Mt. Rushmore that sent two of our federal agents to the hospital (they were not
seriously hurt so it could have been worse).
3. Do you think the release of this 'animal
activist hit list' creates a heightened risk for these farmers & business
Jackley: Yes, unfortunately there is a heightened risk and those in the
potentially affected areas have been and are being contacted by local law
4. Do you anticipate that Law Enforcement in the
affected counties where these businesses are located will have to add additional
safety measures at taxpayer cost to respond to the threat?
Jackley: Through intelligence sharing law enforcement has been aware of this
list for some time, prior to the
New York Times article. Law enforcement in those affected counties has been
given this information and they should make their own decisions on what
necessary resource and precautionary measures that should be made.