Just my take....
The term “eco-terrorist” is really just a term that loosely applies to any person or groups that attempts to harm people or property in the "name" of protecting the environment. Where as believing in something, and for the sake of argument we'll use part the reason in this post, deterring or preventing OHV's and equestrians from sharing the use of the forest. If you believe the operation of OHV's, mountain bikes and horses in the State forest should not be allowed, and you use legal means to share your beliefs, joining groups, attend meetings, call your legislative representative, post on the internet, what ever, you are not a terrorist or criminal. You, my friend are enjoying the privilege of living in the United States. Now, if you take it to another step, where you put forth the effort to cause bodily harm or the destruction of property, your actions could fall under the classification of “eco-terrorist” in the majority of people’s eyes. Mainly because it is more sensationalizes in the media that way. Where if someone were to be convicted for hanging wire across a trail to harm another the specific action committed would fall under a specific criminal classification, like attempted murder or manslaughter. The person would not be charged with “eco-terrorism”. But people and the media might slip that word into the conversation. If someone or some group where to say, burn down the ATV park in Chatsworth because they don’t want it there, I believe that would be a case of eco-terrorism, but they would still be prosecuted under the law for arson. Any person that is an active supporter of any law abiding environmental group would not want to be associated with those people in any way, even if it is just a word.
