When do violent gun threats become acts of terrorism? Perhaps never in Montana…

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.

So what does this anecdote have to do with Montana? 

I bring it up because it makes me wonder what’s going to happen to Steve Connly, the Montana man who not only sent “hate mail” (his words) to the Helena-based Alliance for the Wild Rockies in which he specifically threatened gun violence, but who also has a habit of threatening the President of the United States on his Facebook page:

(WARNING - EXPLICIT RACIST LANGUAGE)

“Should be anti obama armory.. Barack Obama Thats right pretty nigger, millions more where these came from, just you wait.. your day will come.. and an fyi, I do not call you nigger simply because you are black.. It is because you fit the TRUE definition of a NIGGER.. Which SLAVES used to call the MASTERS before they were freed. Thats right you are a true NIGGER.”

And then there’s this gem:

“An fyi, I am probably going to be kicked off facebook again very soon. Been trolling obama's page and saying many things which should get him ticked off. Serves him right. I say execute that bastard AT the WWII memorial that he has thrown such a big fit about keeping us away from. FEDERAL LAND IS OUR LAND NOT YOURS YOU GREEDY BASTARD and you cannot keep us out of it. WE pay your overly extravagant paycheck, now WE need to hold you accountable for your actions AGAINST the constitution and AGAINST the american people. DO NOT BE FOOLED SHEEPLE, if he is not impeached this year we will have civil war. His actions prove this point. When he doesn't get his way, he throws a fit and takes it out on american people. WE WILL PUSH BACK mark my words little man, your day will come.”

How do I know the Steve Connly who made these Facebook threats against the President is the same guy who wrote to the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and said he would “love the chance” to use guns on them?

Because he admitted it on the Montana Logging Facebook page:

After the Tribune published the story of Connly’s threat, a few like-minded souls took to the Trib’s comment section to pile on the treats:

Mike Prester, of Belgrade, thinks a “shooting would be to [sic] good!!!!”

So all of this has got me wondering…. if a New York City comedian can be charged with making terrorist threats and spend the better part of two years in court for posting a paraphrased movie quote on his Facebook page, what happens to Montanans who not only make specific threats of violence against individuals, but also generalized violent threats against the President of the United States?

It’s not hard to imagine that those on the receiving end of threats of deadly force –- or their families -- are terrified. Or at least that is the intention of the threat, isn’t it?

FBI spokeswoman Patricia Speelman declined via email to comment on the status of the case other than to say:

“The FBI takes threats very seriously and investigates them thoroughly with the assistance of our federal, state, and local law enforcement partners.”

For those who might be tempted to dismiss these threatening comments as “just talk,” consider the following:

According to environmental investigative group Global Witness, more than 700 environmental activists, journalists and community members were murdered worldwide between 2002-2011.

In Montana environmentalists and conservation advocates know too-well the threat of violence.

As former Missoula Independent reporter Carlotta Grandstaff reported in 2001, they’ve had their homes shot-at, burned down and vandalized:

“In the Bitterroot, at least one environmentalist has received death threats for his opposition to timber sales. Someone fired shots at another activist’s house, leaving bullet holes in a fence. The home of yet another activist was burned to the ground in a mysterious fire. Still another activist was thrown off his job when his employer learned of his involvement with environmental politics. At a public meeting on a grizzly reintroduction plan in Salmon, Idaho, one pro-grizzly speaker was booed and jeered while someone from the audience yelled, ‘get a rope.’ Then, of course, there’s the suspicious death earlier this year of Flathead Valley activist Tary Mocabee.”

In 2001 Flathead Valley activist and Tary Mocabee mysteriously drowned in a shallow creek near her home. Mocabee’s friends told producers for the PBS documentary “The Fire Next Time” that some in the environmental community suspected foul play based on Mocabee’s environmental and social activism.

And lets not forget the not-too-distant past when a group of anti-government extremists from Connly’s neck of the woods plotted to murder a long list of public officials from cops to judges to dog catchers. The Project 7 day of reckoning was supposed to commence on Earth Day.

The alleged “mastermind” of Project 7 plot, David Burgert, is still missing after disappearing into the woods near the Montana-Idaho border after a shootout with police.

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.

Pet owners beware: traps set on Helena public lands in popular recreation areas

By now you’ve probably seen the headline in Sunday’s Helena Independent Record:

“Traps Snare Anger”

The news has been circulating on Facebook and Twitter since the Helena Vigilante first reported signs showing up at the Dump Gulch trailhead warning hikers and pet owners that  a trapper was trapping in the area of the popular city park trail system.

I saw the Vigilante story late last week, but when I awoke to the IR headline on Sunday morning it reinforced my trepidation about taking my curious, fun-loving lab into the hills around Helena.

I’ve seen what snares, leg-hold traps, and conibear traps can do to pets. I’ve written about this issue in the past and I've attended educational workshops so I have pretty decent understanding of how to release most traps. Still, I didn’t want to put my 90-pound lab mix at risk of getting injured or killed, so we decided to go hiking in the Scratchgravel Hills instead the Helena city parks. Besides, I wanted to see if there was anything left of the disc golf course following last summer’s wildfire.

About 15 minutes into our hike, not far from a disc golf tone (like the cup in ball golf), Neko caught a scent of something interesting and ran uphill ahead of me. When I crested the hill I saw what caught her attention:

 

Lucky for Neko this fox was snared long ago. Had this snare still been set, it might have been Neko caught in that trap. No question whatever bait was used to attract the fox would have attracted my curious lab, and I might have found myself struggling to free a 90-pound trashing dog from a choking snare before it was too late.

Unlike at the Dump Gulch trailhead, I saw no signs at the trailhead warning pet owners of traps in the area. Whoever set the trap set it less than 150 feet from a trail and very near the disc golf course area.

It appears to me the trapper who set that trap also broke at least two Montana laws governing furbearer trapping:

Checking and Placing Traps – Traps should be checked at least once every 48 hours. It is the trapper’s responsibility to check his/her traps regularly. Failure to pick up traps or snares at the end of the trapping season or attending them in a manner that waste furbearing animals constitutes a misdemeanor per Montana law.

Trap Identification – Metal identification tags must be fastened to all traps and snares as per Montana law. Metal tags must bear the name and address of the trapper or a personal identification number, which is the trappers date of birth and ALS number. Tags should be attached to the end of the snare, chain or other anchoring material at the end farthest from the portion of the device which holds the animal.

This fox had been dead a long time by the time Neko found it. Certainly a lot longer than 48 hours. Its eyes were dried up in its sockets and it was well along in the process of decomposing. Also, there were no tags or markers anywhere identifying the trapper or his/her ALS number.

My advice to pet owners who enjoy hiking in and around popular public recreation areas is to watch the video below and learn how to release all traps. Leg-hold traps can seriously injure, but snares or conibears could kill your beloved dog in no time unless you know how to react.

Trappers will argue that you should “leash your pet,” but the fact is many dog owners take their pets to public lands to let them stretch their legs and run. Most of us think nothing about the dangers of traps, especially in popular recreation areas so close to city limits. But in Helena it appears traps now something we have to beware of. So if you want to take your pet on a hike, you better keep it on a leash, carry a wire cutters and know how to free it if it should become ensnared in a trapper’s trap. Here’s a good instructional video:

House measure would expand Homeland Security powers, waive environmental laws

I decided to post this article on my blog since I’ve received so much feedback on it. It appears there’s a lot of interest in this topic. This version will stay live after the original story has been archived on the Tribune’s website. – JSA

A controversial bill that would give the Department of Homeland Security unprecedented authority over federal lands within 100 miles of the United States' border is making its way through Congress.

The proposed measure, called the "National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act," would let Homeland Security waive 36 major federal environmental protection laws in order to facilitate border patrol activities on public lands.

Supporters of the bill say it would give U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents more control in securing the nation's borders. Opponents argue that the measure is overly broad and would give Homeland Security unchecked authority to disregard major environmental laws on public lands, including wilderness areas, national parks and wildlife refuges among others.

Congressman Denny Rehberg, one of the 49 50 Republican co-sponsors of the measure, said the bill is aimed at giving border patrol agents the tools they need to secure the border.

"This bill is about ending a dangerous turf war being waged between various federal government agencies - and it's a turf war that is threatening America's national security," Rehberg said. "The simple idea of the bill is to provide the border patrol with the same access on federal land that it currently has on state and private land. There is nothing about this bill that creates any new authority to intrude into the lives of Americans."

Critics, including Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, say House Resolution 1505 is on par with the Patriot Act and REAL ID, in terms of granting the federal government unprecedented and overreaching powers.

"It's a federal land grab at its worst," Tester said. "I just can't see how any lawmaker would think it's a good idea to allow the Department of Homeland Security to make sweeping decisions about our land and ignore our rights without any public accountability."

The bill would give the secretary of homeland security total operational authority over all federal lands within 100 miles of the U.S. international and maritime borders. Under the proposed law, DHS would have immediate access to, and control over, any public land managed by the federal government for "purposes of conducting activities that assist in securing the border (including access to maintain and construct roads, construct a fence, use vehicles to patrol and set up monitoring equipment)."

In Montana, the law would impact nearly the entire northern third of the state, including Glacier National Park; portions of the Kootenai and Flathead national forests; The Flathead, Blackfeet, Rocky Boy's, Fort Belknap and Fort Peck Indian reservations, the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument, the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, and tens of thousands of acres of Bureau of Land Management lands.

The measure also waives 36 major environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Park Service Organic Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the National Historic Preservation Act and the Clean Air Act.

Homeland Security spokesman Matt Chandler said the agency does not comment on the specifics of pending legislation.

Kim Thorsen, deputy assistant secretary for law enforcement, security and emergency management at the U.S. Department of Interior, testified to the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands that the Obama administration opposes the measure.

"We recognize the significant ecological and cultural values of the extensive lands Interior agencies manage near the borders, and we strive to maintain their character and fulfill our mission to protect and preserve these assets on behalf of the American people," Thorsen said in written testimony to the committee. "We also believe that these two objectives - securing our borders and conserving our federal lands - are not mutually exclusive; we are not faced with a choice between the two, instead, we can - and should - do both."

According to Thorsen, HR 1505 would have a significant impact on the Interior Department's ability to carry out its mission to protect natural and cultural resources on federally managed and trust lands.

"As drafted, this bill could impact approximately 54 units of the national park system, 228 national wildlife refuges, 122 units of the National Wilderness Preservation System managed by Interior, and 87 units of BLM's National Landscape Conservation System, resulting in unintended damage to sensitive natural and cultural resources, including endangered species and wilderness," Thorsen wrote.

John Leshy, a University of California - Hastings, law professor and a former committee staffer, told the committee that compared with other legislation he has seen, HR 1505 is "the most breathtakingly extreme legislative proposal of its kind."

"I have grave concerns, not only about its wisdom as a matter of policy, but also its constitutionality as a matter of law," Hastings told the committee.

He also said that under the bill, Homeland Security's actions would be immune from court review, except for constitutional claims.

Supporters of the measure say that's exactly the point.

Zack Taylor, vice chairman of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, said the foundational components of border security are national security and public safety. He said no other laws - including environmental protection laws - should ever supersede those foundational principles.

"What has happened is the importance on the environment has come to rule everything else," Taylor said in an interview last week. "In our view, the people are more important than the porcupine or the wolverine or the wolf or the grizzly bear."

Jane Danowitz, director of U.S. Public Lands for the Pew Environment Group, said the measure is part of a "disturbing trend" in Congress to undo environmental regulations in the name of public safety or national security.

"Anti-environmental bills that would never pass under their own merits are now being recast as solutions to some of the country's most pressing problems," Danowitz said. "We all care about national security and protecting our borders, but waiving core conservation measures is not the way to do it."

Supporters say the criticisms of the bill are overblown.

"HR 1505 isn't about creating new enforcement authority. Rather, it's about making existing laws actually work as intended by alleviating the regulatory burden of certain environmental laws," Rehberg said.

Rehberg said the bill is not just about preventing terrorists from entering this country, it also is about stemming the flow of illegal immigrants, drug smuggling and the abuse of public lands by criminals and drug cartels.

"At the end of the day, I never want to have to tell a Montana family that their loved one was killed by someone on drugs that got into our state because some federal bureaucrats couldn't work together to control the border," Rehberg said.

Tester said the bill has far greater implications than its supporters acknowledge.

"This is a whole lot worse than just granting agents access to certain federal lands. It gives one federal department the ability to run roughshod over the rights of law-abiding Americans and seize vast swaths of land we all own and use - with no public accountability," Tester said. "This nation is very capable of fighting terrorism without turning into a government police state, but that's exactly what this unpopular plan would do."

According to the bill's sponsor, Utah Republican Rep. Rob Bishop, the measure could see a mark-up before the end of the year.