Alliance for Wild Rockies threatened with gun violence

HELENA — A man angered by a recent lawsuit aimed at protecting a dwindling population of grizzly bears on Monday fired-off a threatening email to the group that filed it.

The emailer, who identified himself as Steven Connly of Eureka, wrote to the Alliance for the Wild Rockies’ general email address warning the group to “stay the hell out of our forests.”

“GET THE HELL OUT,” Connly wrote in the penultimate sentence before adding his first and last name to the note. “We in Lincoln county carry guns and would just love the chance to use them on worthless pieces of garbage such as yourself.”

The Tribune contacted Connly by email Tuesday, but he declined to be interviewed.

“Nothing to really to discuss,” Connly responded via email. “Stay the hell out of our business.”

Michael Garrity, executive director for the Helena-based environmental group, said he takes the threat seriously and reported it to the FBI.

Garrity said in the more than 15 years he has volunteered and worked for the Alliance he’s seen plenty of threatening or angry letters and emails. But none of the previous letters or emails explicitly used the threat of gun violence to intimidate, Garrity said.

“My concern is we’re filing a lawsuit, it’s our constitutional right to challenge a government decision, and this person thinks the appropriate response is to threaten me with a gun,” Garrity said. “Discourse has really sunk in this country when people think that’s appropriate. We’re exercising our constitutional rights and their response is to threaten us.”

Read the entire story from the Great Falls Tribune here.

57 thoughts on “Alliance for Wild Rockies threatened with gun violence”

  1. And Garrity says, “But this guy doesn’t want to have an honest discussion, he’s just trying to intimidate”………yep. Gotcha. Let’s have those “honest discussions” there mikey.

    • Nothing like being anonymous and verbally beating someone down when they’ve been threatened with gun violence, right JZ?

      • Matt: Weren’t you just defending Tree’s anonymity? And I think we both know JZ well enough to know why he chooses to be anonymous, and for good reason. Plus he didn’t attack anyone here on the blog. We’re not developing dual standards here, are we?

        • Nope, I don’t believe I ever defended Tree’s anonymity. In fact, recently I said on this blog something along the lines of that while I may not like Tree being an anonymous source, he hasn’t been an “unreliable source,” which is a label you’ve been trying to stick on him. You also seem to repeatedly make a point that Tree is anonymous and his comments shouldn’t really matter.

          I also don’t know JZ at all, much less to determine why he/she wants to be anonymous. But JZ is, so that’s fine. Although I thought his/her comment directed at “mikey” was in poor taste, given the circumstances.

          • Well actually Matt, to set the record straight, I’ve introduced myself to YOU (off-blog) and offered a meet-and-greet on several occasions (declined by you). Still have the e-mails in my in-box. You know who I am an what I do. Apologize for the apparent subterfuge, but it’s necessary….unfortunately. Free speech isn’t always free when you work for the Agency….again, I’d ask Sharon to explain if anyone has heartburn.

            As far as Garrity (mikey)….not afraid of being in “poor taste” with my comments. I’ve earned the right to disrespect that *@#. I respond in-kind, much like you have espoused Matt.

            I’ve had worse arguements and threats over who goes first on a one lane bridge near my house. FBI was never involved and life went on.

            Guess I just blew my last “civil dialogue” comment, but oh well……

            • if you work for an agency, I feel you are entirely justified in staying anonymous, I have no problem with that. It seems sensible on this blog.

              • greg: I’m in full agreement. The good thing about JZ, Matt V, and several others is they have a good reason to remain anonymous, yet reveal enough about themselves to provide credibility. No ad hominem attacks or assumed authorities, and generally mostly civil. Except when Mike Garrity’s name comes up, apparently.

                • i get the hit it is time to drop this topic,let’stalk about beaver and cut through some of the facts and myths on that.

                  I don’t imagine anyone thinks personal gun threats are justifiable, so lets move on to a benign topic like salvage logging.

            • Thanks for reminding me about introducing yourself to me. I deal with a number of anonymous people, so it’s hard to keep everyone’s nom de plume straight. I’ve also dealt with 2 hard-drive crashes in the past 3 years, so in the process I’ve lost most of my email communications during the past 3 years. As such, I honestly have no idea who you are, except that you live in Idaho and might work for the USFS. Anyway, now that you remind me, your offer(s) to get together were only declined by me because I wasn’t in Missoula when wanted to get together. I seem to recall being in Wisconsin visiting my family one time. Anyway, I’m happy to sit down and have a beer with you next time you’re in Missoula. I’d invite Mike Garrity, but it’s pretty clear how you feel about that *@#.

              • Hey, no worries Matt. I know that was the case, just jogging your memory. Would still like to have a beer sometime (think I still owe you one on being “wrong” in some past debate). As far as meeting with Garitty…..sure…..gotta do it once just to see the person and try to understand why……..

                Garrity says that he’s just exercising his “rights”, but there are plenty of Agency people who would agree that he’s just confounding the process with dozens and dozens of pages of demands and un-specific drivel (comments) in order to get standing (and ultimately complaint points in litigation). If that’s the preferred tactic, then I call BS on the whole “honest discussion” spin. This could be an entire topic in itself, so I’ll quit there.

                I have had fantastic/honest discussions with some of his/your colleagues (G-Mac comes to mind) and received comments that are worth serious consideration….but when you know that litigation is the end game, then consideration goes out the window and defense becomes the strategy. This is why NEPA takes so long unfortunately. There is no such thing as “honest discussions”.

                Back to the original post – When your (Garrity’s) job involves pissing people off/making others wrong for a living then eventually your gonna piss off the wrong/right person. I have no sympathy.

                • JZ, I get the feeling you’ve perhaps not actually taken the time to read any of AWR’s appeals or filed complaints or summary judgment briefs. They’re available online (public records) if you’re interested. Rather than being “un-specific” drivel, they tend to be highly focused, sometimes technical, and on very specific instances of alleged FS lawbreaking. Admittedly I’m biased because I’m involved with writing some of them. Federal judges have very little patience for non-specific drivel, that’s a guaranteed case-loser and AWR has won a lot of cases. You’re confused about standing, that doesn’t take pages of anything, for better or worse a short statement essentially saying “I walk in those woods and commune with nature” is sufficient to confer standing, it’s rarely an issue. Litigation isn’t an end game, it’s a tool, and the job isn’t to piss people off, it’s to hold the agency accountable to the laws it’s obliged to follow, and unfortunately that does piss some people off. Sympathy not being requested, but crazies threatening violence need some public attention. We had one here in Moscow a few years back, he talked like that before shooting his wife, a cop, an old man, himself, and a college student (killed the first four of those, not in that exact order obviously). Still, I’ll also gladly buy you a beer if you’re in northern Idaho some time, we can talk about silviculture, or bull trout, or backcountry skiing or whatever. Best, -Guy

                  • Actually Guy, I read most all of AWR’s stuff….that’s (part of) my job. You are helping make my point for me though. Their complaint points are very well written (by a lawyer – how much are you paid an by whom???), but the (horribly written) comments that are submitted prior to an Agency decision are intended to do nothing more than confuse the process and gain standing. With all respect, please don’t try to dispute that unless YOU have read and have had to read and respond to their countless pages of demands / unspecific drivel they/he submits as “public comment”. I am also admittedly biased because I’ve written a lot of responses and my contention stands. I’m a practitioner and know exactly how the game works and have made myself a student of it……of course that was before the furlough…… I’m just making firewood and getting ready for the harvest season, ho-hum……..woe is me!!!!

                    As far as a beverage, sure! You’re just up the hill from me. Maybe we can invite G-Mac too. I would rather enjoy the conversation.

                    As far as the original post about gun violence threats….I do not think that is OK. One of my good friends was the subject of internet bullying/threats for an unfortunate photo he posted a couple years ago. Bad stuff!

                    • Several times in appeals I read, the comments were only changed from the previous project in the title. So the appeal actually referred to the wrong project. I’m sure they intended to do a global change on the document but didn’t accomplish it. It’s hard to give a lot of credibility to that kind of thing.

                      Maybe you and others could post some paragraph examples….of the most drivel-esque so folks outside the FS could understanding what you and many have to deal with.

                    • Sharon, several times in Forest Service EA’s/EIS’s, the documents were only changed from the previous project in the title. So, the situation you describe (which sounds like didn’t happen very often) also has occurred with the US Forest Service, in the past. And, yes, it’s hard to give a lot of credibility to the Forest Service when they do that kind of thing.

                      Regarding your last suggestion, so instead of reading AWR’s actual NEPA comments, etc you want examples posted of the “most drivel-esque” comments? Talk about a race to the bottom. But, if we are going to do that, I have some timber industry NEPA comments, which would certainly qualify that I can toss into the hopper.

                    • JZ, sorry I misunderstood your post, you did specify “comments” but then also mentioned “demands” which would refer to the actual filed complaint, not the comments, so I got confused. I think there are several reasons why comments may not be all one would want them to be. First, of course, they generally aren’t written either by NEPA professionals or attorneys, though in my experience the people submitting them often have a wealth of knowledge about forestry and wildlife (and a passion for those). But, I think a bigger problem arises from the nature of the objection (or appeal) process itself. Comments have to be submitted on the basis of very limited information, and yet a subsequent objection (which in turn has to precede a lawsuit) is required to be based on detailed, specific comments. It can be a catch-22, and one that I think the USFS is adept at taking advantage of (the legal terminology is “hiding the ball”.

                      Here, I’ll give one example, it’s from an actual project billed as hazardous fuels reduction, not currently being litigated. The review process falls under Objection Process (36 CFR 218, Predecisional Administrative Review Process for Hazardous Fuel Reduction Projects Authorized by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003). I think the timeline tells a lot:

                      1) Scoping letter 3/15/2013

                      2) Start of 30-day comment period: 6/24/2013 (end of 30-day comment period: ~7/24/2013)

                      3) Draft Hydrology Report, Draft Fuels/Fire Report, Draft Forest Vegetation Report, Draft Soils Report, Draft Wildlife Biological Assessment, Draft Wildlife Report & Biological Evaluation, Environmental Assessment: 8/19/2013
                      (NOTE: these made available to the public well AFTER the close of the comment period)

                      4) Published legal notice, start of 45-day Objection Period: 8/20/2013
                      “Issues raised in objections MUST BE BASED ON PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED SPECIFIC WRITTEN COMMENTS regarding the proposed project in accordance with §218.5(a).”

                      -Also note, ESA listed grizzly bear and lynx are acknowledged to be present in project area. As the Biological Assessment itself notes: “In accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), its implementation regulations, and Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2671.4, the Helena NF IS REQUIRED TO REQUEST WRITTEN CONCURRENCE from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with regard to determinations of effects of this project (as made by Helena NF biologists) on species listed as threatened or endangered and on species proposed for listing: In this case, the grizzly bear, the Canada lynx, and Canada lynx critical habitat.”

                      5) End of 45-day Objection Period: ~10/5/2013

                      -Date of FWS concurrence or non-concurrence letter: UNKNOWN, it either hasn’t happened yet or hasn’t been made available to the public.

                      So, during the comment period, the public is required to provide specific written comments, and raise all potential issues, well BEFORE the FS provides the information (BA, specialist reports) that those comments would presumably rely on. Is it any wonder that those comments may seem less specific than they could be? The “kitchen sink” approach is being forced on the commenters, because if they don’t raise a potential issue, it’s gone forever. And how about possible ESA issues? Here, the FS hasn’t even bothered to inform the public about FWS concurrence or not, or if it was even requested. If they do get around to disclosing that letter, it will be too late because the comment and objection periods are long over. Lots of gamesmanship going on, arguably by all concerned, but the rules of the game are definitely slanted against the spirit of public participation and oversight of agency decision-making. Thanks, apologies for the very long post! -Guy

                    • Guy: Thanks so much for posting this timeline. I greatly appreciate those deeply involved in the NEPA process sharing actual examples of NEPA at work on this blog. It lends a lot of substance to the discussions and debates, which otherwise would be missing.

                • JZ: I’d happily get a beer sometime in the near future. Give me an email when you are in this neck of the woods. Also, really the only time I’ve heard Garrity say that he’s exercising his “rights” was in connection with this specific alleged threat of gun violence (ie “terrorism”). I’ve never heard that term come up otherwise. I’m glad you like Gary MacFarland. I do to. He’s had a few guest posts on this blog and he’s got a great up-n-under move on the basketball court. Finally, I’ll leave with this final thought from John S. Adams’ blog post:

                  There’s plenty room for civil debate and disagreement about forest and wildlife management, health care, foreign and domestic policy, etc. But when the debate degrades to threats of physical violence, we have lost our way.

                  In America, and in Montana, civilized citizens settle their differences within the confines of the rules we agreed to through our representative democracy.

                  When someone steps outside those rules, when they resort to threats of violence in order to intimidate and violate the rights of those they disagree with, they should be met with those agreed upon rules and in short order.

                  • In a rare moment here…..I agree with all of the above back to my last post. Good thoughts. Thanks….I appreciate the discussion. And you are right Guy…why let an occasional lawsuit get in the way of drinking beer and watching the river go by.

  2. Does a constitutional right imply that it is always the right thing to do? That goes for the Alliance in filing their lawsuit and for Mr. Connly in bearing arms (and threatening the use them).

    • Nope, a “constitutional right” implies that it’s a “constitutional right.” You are the one, Tony, trying to imply “that it is always the right thing to do.”

      What Mike Garrity said was: “…it’s our constitutional right to challenge a government decision, and this person thinks the appropriate response is to threaten me with a gun.”

      Have to wonder how this story would play out and be commented on here if the alleged threat of gun violence was on the other foot.

    • The constitutional right to bear arms does not cover menacing behavior which is surely the case here. Threats of personal violence when we have seen ghastly instances lately are in no way equivalent to going to court.

    • There is a confusion here.
      The (2nd) amendment of the Bill of Rights attesting the little people’s right to bear arms does not give those citizens the right to threaten someone’s life with those arms.

      And that bizarre constitutional fabrication sure the hell has no equivalency to the right of citizens to force their government to abide by its own laws.

      • Gentlemen

        Re: “The (2nd) amendment of the Bill of Rights attesting the little people’s right to bear arms does not give those citizens the right to threaten someone’s life with those arms.” and “The constitutional right to bear arms does not cover menacing behavior which is surely the case here”

        Consider dueling – It was legal long after the second amendment was ratified in 1791

        Even honest Abe was only talked out of a duel in the last minute when the 2nds of both men intervened.

        We are a country of laws – Threatening statements are legal until some level of governance says it isn’t legal.

        Again, I don’t condone this guys behavior – But, as of yet, no one here has posted a followup stating that reporting it to the FBI has resulted in any action. No laws – No action

  3. Steve on his own Facebook page (promoting “National Break the Government Barrier Week”, not sure what that is exactly) “I say shoot anyone who stands in your way, what they are doing is perverting the constitution.. which if i am not mistaken, gives the right to take such actions against those who would do so.” At least he’s consistent, though might want to talk with a lawyer pretty soon… 🙂

    • Guy: You’re probably not the lawyer he is looking for are you? Steve does sound a little whacko, though. I’ve never heard of a death sentence — or even shooting yourself in the foot, as Matt advocates — for Constitutional perversion. And I’m guessing there’s not much precedence, either.

      • no Bob, not me. I do know the attorney on that case, a fine person. Apparently the email wasn’t to that individual, but I only know what I’ve read here and in the newspaper article. The FBI in this neck of the woods has had a lot of experience with threats of violence and hate speech (often followed by real violence, Aryan nations, Unabomber, etc.) Unlike Gil, I don’t consider that type of speech “not causing any damage” or merely “inappropriate statements.” And somehow linking AWR with violent radical groups is just plain, pardon me Gil, dumb. It’s like saying, hey Gil is a southerner, and some southerners were involved in lynchings… that kind of connection is illogical and irresponsible.

        • Guy: I met my ex-wife while working on the Sundance burn out of Sandpoint in the late 60s. I think I was the only long-haired male in the County at that time, so I did get jumped and beaten at a bar once. Took three guys and me being intoxicated to do it, so there wasn’t a lot of civic pride involved. Cops drove up and watched. The white supremicists were just moving in, maybe a little later, but definitely guns and crowbars were too common. Was hunting on elk flats the first day of elk season about 1970 and heard only one shot all morning — a guy got shot in the head by a co-worker who “missed an elk” and shot his acquaintance between the eyes instead. Then walked. “Hunting accident” in an area in which there were no fresh elk signs anywhere. Did get my one and only bear later that day, though, in an area in which elk were present.

          Gil: Northern Idaho, in parts, is pretty much like the stories of the deep south we get in this country. Some real whackos, lots of guns, and threats can be deadly.

          • Yeah Bob, it’s a crazy place here, but I still love it, either in spite of that or maybe a little because of it. Of course nowadays half the rednecks have long hair too (better than skinheads) so it’s hard to tell the players without a scorecard. And Gil, if you read this, didn’t mean to jump on you, two things I hate are threats against my friends/colleagues/family, and racism, and this guy Connly managed to push both buttons at once. Those things have nothing to do with you. best, -Guy

          • By the time I got there as a planter in mid 70s, I encountered no such hostility, perhaps because there were so many of us on our crews and the glaring fact that planting is brutally hard work we were much respected for.

  4. Matthew – you have a short memory or you have selective memory loss – the threat of violence and the carrying out of violence has been on the other foot many times. You don’t have to wonder.

    Frankly, when some environmentalists persistently insist on their way or no way, I’m not surprised that this hasn’t happened more often (i.e. the “I’m mad as hell and I’m not taking it anymore” syndrome). Unlike some environmental groups, he didn’t cause any damage as opposed to environmental groups which have not only threatened but carried out their threats by destroying government property and endangering lives. I can remember a group that destroyed a research facility and I know that there have been other such situations.

    So, how many kids and adults are you going to lock up and for how long for saying I’m gonna make you pay for this or I’m going to kill you for that or I’m going to choke you to death? The jails are already full and we could double the jail space and still not contain everyone who makes such inappropriate statements.

    Are you going to outlaw all guns, baseball bats, scissors, kitchen knives and cleavers, motorcycles and cars because of road rage … Life is messy and so is nature.

    • Gil: Thank you for your concern about my memory. However, once again I think you have mis-interpreted my words. What I wrote above was: “Have to wonder how this story would play out and be commented on here if the alleged threat of gun violence was on the other foot.”

      What I meant was how would this story play out and be commented here, on this blog, if the threat of gun violence was on the other foot. I guess maybe I could have been clearer, but I also do think you are assuming the worse of me, based on other recent comments. The over all point I was trying to make with that sentence was that if the threat of gun violence was on the other foot I highly doubt that an enviro would come onto this blog and sort of poke fun at “mikey.” Anyway, for the record, I’m against violence, and threats of violence, no matter what side of the public lands policy equation anyone’s on. Thanks.

  5. Well, if one guy says it and signs his name to paper (e-paper), I suppose there are plenty more thinking it. The level of helpless frustration among the general public is pretty high.

  6. YOU’RE civil, Matt.
    This other guy is most definitely not.
    However, I have to laugh that this becomes a NEWS STORY thirty seconds after it hits Garrity’s in-box. I get some pretty good hate mail myself. But anyone who is silly enough to sign their name to something or even make such a threat, usually is not unless they are already certified. It’s the ones not saying a word that Mike should be more concerned about.

    • True that, the guy is just making threats, vicious as they are. It is the quiet ones who seem a genuine threat. But these days with the amount of gun violence, such common threats punch a lot of buttons.

      I am not familiar with enviros making such blatant threats of violence although there is a proportion of fruit loops in that camp. But threats of personal gun violence are rare, not part of the culture. And I spend a lot of time with them.

      Dave skinner, I am asking you here to please turn down the heat in your posts which too often seem angry. I do not know you but have read your work and you seem credible and sensible. You can easily communicate like that here. Thanks. As I recall ( ?) you work for the USFS which I also once did,
      we know that in public venues we are expected to present ourselves and our agency in a certain way.

      Please do not sling back a heated reply. With all respect.

    • Hello Dave. The article clearly states in the first paragraph that the email with the threat of gun violence was sent on Monday. It wasn’t reported by the Great Falls Tribune “thirty seconds after it hits Garrity’s in-box” but more like 48 hours after. Thanks.

  7. Only reason my posts have a certain even tone is that edit and delete button, In person I can be be awful. At times. No saint myself, I have learned that online forums are not the place to get heated, it just does not work while we could argue well in person and still communicate.

  8. Not to worry. On the other hand,
    Far more people have been gunned down in cold blood and medical facilities blown up by the whacko Christian anti-abortionists than environmental protestors could ever think of attempting. In fact it is the latter who routinely and pointedly practice civil disobedience without resorting to either threats of the use of violence, or CD actions resulting in members of the public being physically harmed.

    It is interesting to note for all the murders and clinic bombings which have been perpetrated on the American public by Christian extremists, neither they nor their actions have ever been referred to as “terrorism.”

    On the other hand, there’s plenty of references in post 911 legislation declaring environmental activists under the vaguest and ill-defined qualifiers denoting “terrorist.”

    Go figure.

    • Ok, I agree with you here since enviro wackos are usually my best friends, and they are pacifistic almost always. Anybody talking about hurting people would be cast out,it is not who we are.

      But,lets drop this and talk bout trees n stuff n beaver and fires.

      And splash around in the soothing waters of the salvage logging issue, I could write a novel about that.

  9. Greg, at least I put my name on my snarls.
    Why would I be kranky? Because AWR and NEC have teamed up for at least 7 lawsuits this year alone, always the same old garbage, for the puniest, most timid interventions in what is a collapsing system. These whiny yobs are pursuing a literal scorched earth approach, thanks to bad laws, worse judges, and criminally ignorant politicians who mindlessly block decent reform legislation because it scores them votes with morons who feed their 40 cats in a studio apartment “sustainable” vegan kitty kibble.
    As for the nasty email, while distasteful, it’s not an isolate. You would not believe the stuff I hear in private. I’ve felt for a long time that enviros are losing their “social license” as the negative environmental as well as social and economic impacts of their dystopian foolishness spread like a cancer across the landscape.
    I’m convinced that too many “environmentalists” would rather have everything burn flat than to allow any evil capitalist make even the thinnest dime on public lands, or do anything forestry-wise that would be self-sustaining fiscally and stop sucking the red ink out of the taxpayers. Yo! 17 trillion and counting! Helllooooo! Hand thinning ain’t gonna cut it! Ever TRIED it, for gosh sakes?
    A lot of people who bit lip and sucked it up because hopefully sanity would prevail before it was too late are now shockingly bitter and angry, too much so to keep it to themselves.
    The mainstream (yeah, right) eco-groups realize this, Tim Baker figured it out at the hearing that triggered the B-D “compromise” and responded brilliantly when given the golden chance, Matt was there and HE read the room, too. The big groups with the big money are trying to save their velvet hammers, but getting little to no traction on most issues for danged good reason. They just can’t let go of the noose, not realizing their necks are in the loop, too.
    This guy up in Eureka is an outlier, his N word language shows a deficit of intellect and restraint, and I guess that should be a problem for him. There are rules, and lines not to cross in “civil” society. He deserves a visit from someone able to correct him.
    And THAT could have happened without running to the former indie reporter at the Tribunal. But then there wouldn’t be the hype for fundraising. That’s Garrity’s motive.
    Keep in mind that AWR is an EF spinoff — you know, the tree-spiking crowd? We just had that hunt-sab manual come out that shows the spirit is still there, you bet, it’s just a matter of whether one expresses oneself honestly or takes the passive-aggressive quiet approach.
    But the bitter fact of the matter is, the clock is running on something we all want to keep and protect for ourselves and our posterity, and I’m sick and tired of shillyshallying around.
    I don’t know if it was a good thing to have witnessed so much flipping pointless destruction of wonderful things and places because of some monomaniacal bird, rat or other fetish. Or seen so much ideological bad faith by AGENCY PUBLIC SERVANTS in the shadows, bad faith that is equal or greater to any timber beastliness, with longer-term impacts.
    As a result, I guess I don’t worry too much about hurting the feelings of those who have indirectly, yet indisputably, inflicted real harm on real things and real people.

    • Yes, I was in that room during the snowy Senator Burns field hearing at the Missoula COT. December of 2005 it was. I remember walking in and seeing a lot of the “sportsmen’s” groups decked out in blaze orange. Although I confess to not seeing “big groups with the big money” nor any “velvet hammers.” The first person I ran into at the meeting was logger Rodger Lund from Sanders County, MT. I opened with “Hello Rodger. How are you doing?” To which Mr. Lund replied, “Great, until I saw you” and walked off. Also, just a point of correction, it wasn’t Tim Baker. It was John Gatchell of MWA who was not only on the panel of the hearing, but who (because of the blizzard and airport shut down) took that long car ride to Billings with Sen Burns and Sherm Anderson of Sun Mountain Lumber Co. That must have been some car ride, as the mandated logging (including opening up roadless areas to logging) “collaboration” known as the “Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership” was announced a few months later. Also, AWR is not an “EF spin off” and Garrity was certainly never involved with EF. But, believe what you will and try and connect AWR to whatever you want. I see in this post, Dave, you try and connect AWR to 1) EF, 2) supposed tree spiking and 3) a wolf hunt sabotage manual. AWR has nothing to do with any of that. 3 strikes and I’m outta here.

      • Sorry, Matt, but AWR is definitely an EF spin-off. Gosh darn, who was it? Oh yeah, Mike Bader, all those publications in Wild Earth or EF Journal? Garrity may have been too young to hang with the EF originals, but he’s definitely with the program.

        It’s well known that the EF leadership cadre moved away from “direct action” to legal monkeywrenching in order to pursue the goal of “rewilding.” And SCB founded specifically as a means of giving scientific legitimacy to the proponents of that goal by establishing a campfire buddies system of peer review.

        As for the “hunters and anglers” and pure Greens, they were no more than a third of the crowd in that room, amazing for Missoula in the middle of a blizzard.

        Never mind that I have a picture of you (rather flattering and well-composed) under a Mackey-Day banner or whatever it was at that Missoula thing with Jake Jagoff and the rotten fish thrower. No connection there at all, no sir.

        And let’s look up the page here at that Soule essay. In short, anthro versus deep-eco. The deep eco model does not work for most humans. If the “mainstream” greens want long-term relevance, they have got to come to terms with the fact that the result of land management has to satisfy the lay or “unbeliever” public.

        • Dave, you are so flattering. I’d love to see the picture(s) you have from that ’05 meeting. Post them here, or email them to me. It’s about that time for our annual hunting/freezer filling stories anyway.

  10. They sometimes irritate me too and there was a hate campaign against me by a few during Biscuit. I still get cranked up thinking about that.

    I really hated the way some slandered the feds who I viewed as comrades.


  11. It is way too easy to cite the wrongful deeds of outlaws — on either side of an environmental issue — to bolster/justify one’s position. A tit-for-tat exchange is simply dishonest and unproductive, but is all too often common.
    Clearly, any interest group should have the right to exercise their Congressional rights, and to do so in a lawful environment.
    Equally clear, Mr. Connly can legally express his frustration even as a violent threat. However, in today’s gun culture I believe Mr. Connly’s threat is credible and would recommend that all act accordingly.
    I also once worked for the “Agency” and feared Smokey’s retribution for providing honest answers to honest questions – please note that many questions were not. However, I came down on the side of being transparent and explicit and I have been comfortable with that decision. More importantly, I remember the words of colleague when we were trying to present the findings of a analysis – “I simply say the same thing whether it is to the timber industry or The Wilderness Society.” Good advice for stewards of public lands.

    • Joseph: That is a great policy, and one I always try and follow myself. Too bad it wasn’t a USFS requirement, instead of an exception! This was supposed to be the time when government became transparent again, but stories such as yours — and many, many others — and current news accounts make it very clear that transparency remains a political buzz word and not a promise.

    • Hello Joseph: I have to disagree with your statement, “Equally clear, Mr. Connly can legally express his frustration even as a violent threat.” Please read the article that I just linked to from John S. Adams. Here’s the opening few paragraphs.

      In Sept. 2009 comedian Joe Lipari returned to his New York apartment after spending several hours at a nearby Apple Store. Lipari went to the store to get his malfunctioning iPhone fixed, but when the concierges ignored him for hours, the frustrated Lipari returned home and flipped on the tube.

      As Lipari tells the story the movie “Fight Club” was on. There’s a scene in the film where Edward Norton’s character leaves a copy of the Fight Club rules (you know: “The first rule of Fight Club is you don’t talk about Fight Club) on the copy machine.

      In the scene Norton warns his boss to be careful who he talks to about the document he found on the machine or….

      “…the button-down, Oxford-cloth psycho might just snap, and then stalk from office to office with an Armalite AR-10 carbine gas-powered semi-automatic weapon, pumping round after round into colleagues and co-workers…”

      Lipari, stoned and amused with himself, paraphrased the quote on Facebook but inserted something about the Apple Store concierges in the post.

      Soon thereafter he answered a knock at his door and was greeted by fully armed members of the New York City S.W.A.T. team with their MP5 machine guns drawn.

      Lipari was charged with making terrorist threats and spent the better part of the next two years in court trying to clear his name.

      • Matt, I stand corrected. In the age of domestic and foreign terrorism, a heavily armed America, and the “stand your ground” self-defense laws, explicit threats and lose talk is most definitely worthy of preemptive law enforcement.

        It used to be that tough talk and even mortal threats were just TALK until something actionable happened. And, before the “stand your ground” self defense laws, one had to demonstrate that all reasonable measures were taken to prudently avoid bodily arm and deadly violence.

        In contrast, the “stand your ground” laws today can be to bully with impunity. Assault/homicide consequences can be avoid ed via a he-said-she-said defense. Who started the bullying and intent does not seem to be material. Just when one or the other party feels “sufficiently” threatened. This puts all threats (idle or real) in the category of an early warning of pending violence or terrorism and is a tough job for law enforcement. I agree that dangerous verbal threats should be taken seriously, investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Even so, all parties should take the personal responsibility to take all appropriate precautions.

        The best to you.

  12. Across the world, and here in Vietnam which has seen plenty of awful bloodshed and sorrow, do people understand how crazy the US looks from outside? The whole world hears about those mass murders and unfortunately, the kind of gun slinging US movies made for teenage boys are most of what they see of US media, They miss the good ones and there are plenty but nobody will caption Breaking Bad into Vietnamese or Thai.

    They really get a bad picture.

    The Montana guy who made those threats should be prosecuted, or at least legally challenged. The problem is that he is unlikely to do anything himself since he is just a big yap, but it sets a climate that allows others to do it.

  13. Greg

    Re: “They miss the good ones and there are plenty but nobody will caption Breaking Bad into Vietnamese or Thai”

    I hope that I have totally misunderstood you but, in my opinion, Breaking Bad and the lawless “don’t sweat who you hurt, just make money” attitude will do more to damage the future of our children than this creep that opened his mouth and spewed hate. If you are going to prosecute creeps start with the one who really sets the climate that encourages others to Break Bad.

    • Ok, I have never seen it, but i have read that it is good drama with well developed characters. How about the Wire then? I have seen that and there are many other good movies on complex themes other than car chases and shooting.


Leave a Comment