If I had to pick the nutter who wrote the letter, spelling mistakes and all, I would pick an ecological extremist over a hunting extremist. I grant you I am drawing a massive generalisation here, but I would hope hunters are pragmatic people who respect their territory and respect their community.
Eco-terrorism is historically entrenched. Animal rights groups in England and Europe are capable of ruthless violence and property destruction, although I would imagine they would baulk at poisoning. Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd, who are not eco-terrorists, are effective at disrupting operations they don't agree with.
On a lesser scale, I'm pretty sure a hunter wouldn't climb up a 500-year-old kauri and camp out in a hammock for days on end.
In our paper today, we explore what our grocery stores are doing, with infant formula, because it is a matter of fact they are taking steps as precautions. It's an inconvenience to the public and it is important we record it and report it, to let people know.
But in terms of trying to report on what an eco-terrorist's motive is, I'm not inclined to give them much time of day. In all likelihood, it's a loner on a lonely mission, furious they have no influence over the world. It's precisely the description of terrorism.