Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > General Forum Related Topics > "By the Fireside"
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-16-2007, 05:57 PM   #21
Hobbitling
spring fever
 
Hobbitling's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rochester area
Posts: 2,239
I clicked on the link to vote-smart.org and looked at ALL of the issue ratings. since this is really about his DEC post, most of those issues aren't important. After all he's not going to be making any abortion or stem cell policy in this role...
Botton line, he's a liberal democrat by any definition, no denying it.

He scores low according to pro-gun lobbyists, but he scores very high according to New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. He also has a very good environmental protection record.
If Gun rights and hunting are extremely important to you, then you aint gonna like this guy. period.
If environmental protection is extremely important to you, then you will like this guy.
So ask yourselves whats more important.
I personally think we can have both hunting and environmental protection, and that we shouldnt have to choose. Unfortunately partisan politics forces us to choose. It's like buying cable, you cant pick your channels. You have to buy the whole package.
__________________
He found himself wondering at times, especially in the autumn, about the wild lands, and strange visions of mountains that he had never seen came into his dreams.
Hobbitling is offline  
Old 02-17-2007, 09:07 AM   #22
danceswithflies
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: catskills
Posts: 99
To those who questioned Grannis' qualifications to head the DEC based on the fact that he was born and raised in Manhattan, there was another New York City born and raised politician who made quite a name for himself in the field of conservation: Teddy Roosevelt. I believe he also did some hunting in his time.

There is an aspect to this discussion that disturbs me. If this bill is upheld constitutionally and localities can supercede DEC regulations regarding trapping laws, are we opening the door for localities to supercede DEC regulations concerning land use? It's no secret that many (most?) Adirondack communities bristle at DEC regs concerning ATVs and snowmobiles, among many other issues. Are we opening a can of worms?
danceswithflies is offline  
Old 02-17-2007, 11:13 AM   #23
Stillhunter
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 431
Arrow Great comparison... I wish Teddy were still alive today...

He would have a few words to say about this anti-hunting-trapping-gun ownership appointment. It is not even close to Teddy Roosevelts idea of conservation of natural resources at all. He was a great hunter.
Stillhunter is offline  
Old 02-17-2007, 12:28 PM   #24
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
So, lets see if I have this straight. Grannis proposed legislation that would give the individual counties the right to regulate hunting and trapping as opposed to the State having the say?

Two questions arise.

1st. Does that make him Anti-hunter, anti- trapper and anti-gun? Was he attempting to take away "Gun Owners rights as Stillhunter contends? If so, How? I haven't got that part yet. Or was he proposing legislation that the majority of people in is district wanted, which is what a legislator does?

2. How does that affect the Adirondack park? Do the counties here oppose hunting and trapping and guns? If the legislation had been implemented, would the counties in the Adirondack park have banned hunting and fishing and infringed upon the rights of Gun owners? For that matter, any of the upstate counties? Another question to be answered.

Funny, for a "liberal Democrat as someone said he was, taking power from the bureaucracies and putting it in the hands of the local people it affects is a conservative republican philosophy, so you can't really put a label on it.

So, I ask you. Does it seem as if this man will stop hunting and trapping and infringe on the rights of gun owners or having gotten a whiff of the facts and an idea of the mans stand on the environment, does it look more like attempted payback for his proposed legislation, which again if I read it right was based on the will of the citizens of Nassau ad Suffolk counties, hugely populated areas not far from New York City?

It might also be interesting to see why those particular areas might have wanted regulations against hunting or trapping, that may take us deeper into the issue.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 02-17-2007, 12:38 PM   #25
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stillhunter View Post
He would have a few words to say about this anti-hunting-trapping-gun ownership appointment. It is not even close to Teddy Roosevelts idea of conservation of natural resources at all. He was a great hunter.
Maybe you should also look at some of the steps that TR took to protect the environment that alienated many hunters and sportsmen in his day. I imagine there were many campaigns to try to prevent him from enabling legislation based on his environmental history.

Oddly enough, as the starter of this thread, others have put some light on what Grannis has done, but you have not yet offered any facts.

Why is that? You must have a solid reason why you state that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stillhunter
This would be a diaster for the Hunting, and Gun Owner rights of the people of this state. Take a minute to defend your outdoor sports before it is too late.
So I propose to you that if it would be such a disaster, you should be able to back up your statement with some fact. So here is your opportunity to back up your reasoning. I think we all are entitled to an explanation from you. If you want our help.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 02-17-2007, 01:18 PM   #26
coolrobc
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 321
Unfortunately, his Assemble page only seems to list recent legislation. I'm not sure where you could find a full history of an Assemblyman's sponsored bills.

On the issue of guns I could only find one piece of legislation he sponsored, and that was making the improper/unsafe storage of a firearm a criminal offense.

The bill I referenced earlier leads me to some additional questions, one of them being his motive. His district is the upper west side of Manhattan. Why is he sponsoring a bill specifically targeting an issue outside of his constituency? Also as stated by danceswithflies, why is he looking to override the authority of the DEC, could this lead to other laws allowing municipalities to override the DEC on other issues?

I think that this type of bill sets a dangerous precedent, not that I think it would ever pass. There's already an agency that governs the laws and regulations covering this issue. If the people of Suffolk and Rockland counties really want a limit or ban on trapping they should be looking for the DEC to change the rules for their particular WMU's, not create a law that allows a municipality to override the DEC on individual issues.

I trust the professionals at the DEC to handle issues regarding wildlife management a lot more than I trust the general population of voters.

Maybe someone should just call his office to get his stance on the issue? That would clear up a lot.
__________________
-Rob

There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot. - Steven Wright
coolrobc is offline  
Old 02-17-2007, 01:36 PM   #27
Hobbitling
spring fever
 
Hobbitling's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rochester area
Posts: 2,239
Well, he did try to include hunting in the definition of animal cruelty, which would have effectively banned hunting. Obviously that didnt happen.
And he did try to ban leg hold traps.

As Redhawk mentioned, local jurisdiction is (or was, until the neoconservatives came along) a conservative/republican ideal, but when applied to this issue, it was clearly intended to limit hunting access, which is fairly liberal/democrat-ish.

I mean no insult by calling him a liberal democrat. I doubt even he would disagree. he sure isnt a conservative as I understand the word. In fact, I'm going out of my way to be as objective as possible.

my definition of liberal democrat in the context of a DEC commissioner is...
pro environment and conservation.
pro corporate and industrial regulation.
pro gun-control/ anti hunting.
pro animal rights.

As a representative of an urban district, where guns are more often used for crime than for hunting, I'm sure his constituents demanded an anti gun stance. As a DEC comissioner, his stance may very well change, now that he doesnt have to worry about reelection.
__________________
He found himself wondering at times, especially in the autumn, about the wild lands, and strange visions of mountains that he had never seen came into his dreams.
Hobbitling is offline  
Old 02-17-2007, 05:04 PM   #28
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
I'm still waiting for input from Stillhunter.

You would think that anyone who would post something like he did would also be more then willing to state why and qualify those statements with facts.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone doesn't do that, they shouldn't bother posting.

As far as the "liberal" and "conservative" tags go, I've seen both sides on some of the issues specified here. The fact that many of these issues are foremost in Western States that are primarily conservative makes me think that sometimes assumptions about who is for and against what gets tangled up.

As far as the the Districts go, many manhatanites have second homes out on the island, so that may come into play also.

At this point in time, from what has been so well presented by others, I see nothing that leads me to believe that we should all panic and kiss the guns goodbye if this man is appointed.

And the fact that the thread starter either cannot or will not back up his statement tends to give no credibility to it either.

So until I see otherwise, I suggest that people either do nothing or else do the opposite and write suggesting your legislators confirm the appointment. What's been presented so far makes this appoitment look pretty good, and Spitzer seems as if he wants to get the best people to do the job, unlike the legislature, both sides of the aisle.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 02-17-2007, 09:28 PM   #29
Stillhunter
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 431
Hi Redhawk...

In my initial post I said "consider" and in a followup I commented that I knew that people would be on both sides of this, and they are. I am guessing that the hunters, trappers and gun owners on this hunting & fishing forum are glad to know about this pending appointment.

I am not out to spend my time and energy trying to convince you and others how to position themselves on this appointment. That would be a long uphill and frustrating path. You can read up and reach your own personal conclusion.

I have made folks aware of the fact that this appointment was "in progress" and that if they choose to they can have a say in the matter. I have done enough background reading on his legislation, voting and alliances with various organizations to know that he represents a real threat to my hunting, trapping and gun owners rights if he becomes commissioner and the Governor also has the authority to make political appointments to the Division Director and Regional Director positions in the DEC.

I think Keithk, Coolrobc, and Hobbitling have done a nice job sharing some insights around some of the issues.

I have thought it through for myself, reached my conclusion and signed the petition. I have also written my Senator to voice my concerns. Time to put another log on the fire.

Take care.
Stillhunter is offline  
Old 02-20-2007, 08:37 AM   #30
Buckethead
Member
 
Buckethead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Olean NY
Posts: 124
The Plattsburgh Paper covered this on Sunday. Guess we are slightly ahead of the curve on this forum

http://www.pressrepublican.com/apps/...WS12/702180323
Buckethead is offline  
Old 02-20-2007, 09:26 AM   #31
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckethead View Post
The Plattsburgh Paper covered this on Sunday. Guess we are slightly ahead of the curve on this forum


http://www.pressrepublican.com/apps/...WS12/702180323
Just an excerpt or two from the article.

"For one, he has supported measures to limit or eliminate the leghold trap in New York state and has supported legislation to allow individual counties to set trapping regulations, not DEC. If a county bans trapping, the consequences could be an outbreak of a disease like rabies or animal overpopulation, which is why we have a state agency in charge in the first place."

Number one. Leghold Traps ARE inhumane. Anyone believing otherwise should wear one for a few hours. There are other types of traps.

Allowing counties, the the citizens of the counties to regulate trapping means that the local taxpayers get their say. to regulate does not necessarily mean to ban.

Finally the argument that the trapping prevents diseases like rabies is actually the opposite of the truth. Traping the older animals (which are the ones who usually get caught, removes adults ho have natural immunities to pass on to siblings and actually helps to control rabies.

As far as overpopulation goes, the biggest overpopulation problem in this country as well as the world is human. I don't see any movements to control that.


The writer goes on to express some of the plusses and states that neither he, nor anyone else knows whether grannis will be a good DEC commissioner or not.

The appointee (Grannis) does oppose "canned hunts" which many hunters do as well. Of course "canned hunts" has nothing at all to do with sport or sportsmanship. It allows people without skills to shoot animals without having to locate or "hunt" them.

He (Grannis) did support lowering the Bag game hunting age to 12.

Anti-hunter? I don't think so.

Anti Trapper? No indication of anti trapping, but every indication of anti-humane traps.

And his record seems to indicate that he advocates for the citizens whom he serves. Which in the case on the DEC would include hunters and trappers in the state.

So there is every indication that this campaign by some to block his appointment is simply the same old story. He opposes leg traps as do many hunters as well as other people.

At least that's what I draw from the article.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 02-20-2007, 01:05 PM   #32
coolrobc
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
Allowing counties, the the citizens of the counties to regulate trapping means that the local taxpayers get their say. to regulate does not necessarily mean to ban.
The actual text of the bill (not the summary and justification I linked to) does give the municipalities the authority to "... RESTRICT, LIMIT OR PROHIBIT TRAPPING WITHIN ITS MUNICIPAL LIMITS." It makes no reference to leg traps, or any other methods.

I'm still opposed to this bill in particular. He's got a better argument for proposing an statewide ban on leg traps than he does for overriding the DEC municipality by municipality. I hope this bill goes nowhere.

Does anyone else think that it sets a bad precedent for municipalities to override the DEC, or am I still taking crazy pills?

As I've been reading more about this, I'm less opposed to his appointment.
__________________
-Rob

There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot. - Steven Wright
coolrobc is offline  
Old 02-20-2007, 01:57 PM   #33
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrobc View Post
Does anyone else think that it sets a bad precedent for municipalities to override the DEC, or am I still taking crazy pills?
that's a question that can only be answered on a case by case basis. personally, I believe that in most cases. the local people who are most affected by the actions of others should have the main say. The problem is that often, those decisions are based on purely selfish and self serving reasons as opposed to the common good.

I guess that's why you can't please all of the people all of the time. It's the finding of the balance that is so difficult.

Speaking for myself, if I had a say on trapping in Hamilton County, I would want humane traps legislated and if that was opposed by trappers, then I would go for an all out trapping ban. Of course, that's based on my personal beliefs. My compromise is that although I am opposed to trapping, it is acceptable if humane traps are used.

I think that all too often what happens is that one side or the other on an issue is unwilling to compromise and often enough they lose out completely and then begin name calling when they could have achieved a partial victory by being reasonable.

I've seen cases out west concerning snowmobiles where the snowmobilers want 350 miles of trails and are offered 200 miles of trails. rather then accept the compromise and gaining the 200 miles, they get demanding about the additional 150 and turn the public opinion against themselves so much that they end up with nothing. then suddenly the opposition becomes "eco-nazis", when in fact it's they themselves that are to blame. Just using that as an example, not trying to indict snowmobilers in general.

Often it's too "All or Nothing" in negotiating or should I say demanding?

I just feel that if you want to come play in my yard, you should be willing to abide by my rules. Is that an unreasonable expectation...
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 02-20-2007, 04:27 PM   #34
coolrobc
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 321
This is an interetsing tangent from the original topic.

I don't think that's an unrealistic expectation at all, but this is a state regulated issue, not a county issue. They regulate the deer hunt by WMU's and regions, why not regulate trapping the same way? Seems like that would be a better compromise to me.

From what I can tell there was an attempt ban leg traps in those counties as a result of separate incidents of 2 dogs killed in traps (one body trap, the other a leg trap). In one case the dog was killed on private property (not the dog owners) and the other was either state or county property, I can't remember which.

Both of these incidents were used as rallying points for the county legislation. Neither of these would have happened had the dog owners been obeying the leash laws that I'm fairly certain already exist. I grew up in the middle of nowhere, and we were ticketed once for letting our dog run loose. I would find it hard to believe that Rockland and Suffolk being much more urban/suburban than Northern Saratoga County would not have leash laws, but that's separate issue.

The State struck down the inhumane trap ban as overriding the DEC's authority on the matter. The State's determination was that the counties could ban the traps, but only on county property, not private or state property. This bill was the best they could come up with in return?

Seems like they jumped to the all or nothing side too quickly to me. The counties overstepped they're bounds, so now we're going to add another level of government involvement, on an already regulated issue. Maybe living in Erie county and our recent fiscal crisis is affecting my opinion on this, but we need less county level government, not more.

I'd be interested to know who the enforcement would fall to in a case where someone was using an illegal trap in one of those counties. Wouldn't enforcement of this law be outside of the jurisdiction of the DEC officers? Does this mean the county sheriffs and local police would be responsible for enforcement?

There's already an existing system in place for regulating this, rather than go through the appropriate channels to change things, let's just make a new law.

The whole thing just doesn't seem well reasoned to me.
__________________
-Rob

There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot. - Steven Wright
coolrobc is offline  
Old 02-20-2007, 05:26 PM   #35
Hobbitling
spring fever
 
Hobbitling's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rochester area
Posts: 2,239
Just for the record, I do think leg hold traps are inhumane.
I was just stating the facts I had found, not trying to attach any moral significance to them.
All in all, I think he's a pretty good choice. His positive accomplishments far outweigh his flaws.
__________________
He found himself wondering at times, especially in the autumn, about the wild lands, and strange visions of mountains that he had never seen came into his dreams.
Hobbitling is offline  
Old 02-20-2007, 05:32 PM   #36
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrobc View Post
The whole thing just doesn't seem well reasoned to me.
That's because it's POLITICS.

The problem is that when something happens, it's always the "instrument", in this case the trap, not the fact that the dog should not be on that property (or a human for that matter).

However, having said that my thought is that what if it had been a child? and if it was not one of the spring traps, the dog wouldn't have been hurt. Of course, I am prejudiced in my opinion because I oppose the leg-hold traps.

So, two sides to that argument as well.

My answer to the enforcement would be that whoever's jurisdiction the LAW comes from. If it's state, then it's the DEC, if it's the County, then it's the sheriffs.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 02-20-2007, 06:00 PM   #37
coolrobc
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
That's because it's POLITICS.

OH?!? That's why it doesn't make any sense? Man, now I feel dumb.

Guess I've always been a fan of Occam's razor. You know, all things being equal choose the simplest solution, er something like that. Kinda like Hobbiling's signature.

For the record, I agree that leg traps are inhumane.

Nice discussion guys, thanks!
__________________
-Rob

There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot. - Steven Wright
coolrobc is offline  
Old 02-21-2007, 11:26 AM   #38
trouthunter
Member
 
trouthunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 788
Petition signed and letter sent. Thanks Stillhunter
trouthunter is offline  
Old 02-21-2007, 11:38 AM   #39
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Ditto for myself and some friends.

I'm glad that this was posted as well because otherwise i would not have known about opposition and now I was able to rally some conformation support along with a lot of others who didn't know about it.

That's why it's good to discuss these topics and get the facts straight. It allows people to base their decisions on reliable information and judge or themsleves.

I imagine there were a lot of people who were unaware of the appointment, the appointee, and the special interest groups who wished to pevent it. Now everyone has a head's up.

Thanks Stillhunter for posting and special thanks to those who actually posted the reasons there were questions and the facts behind them.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 02-22-2007, 07:29 PM   #40
marzrw
Member
 
marzrw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,565
I have to say that Redhawk is 100% correct when it is written and reported that a candidate or appointee is "against" something based on the media, someone said, or other reasons without the candidate's true record, which hobbitling found...Remember 2000, don't vote for Al Gore, he'll take your guns away...Well, look what we got instead in that instance...Not only the Iraq disaster, but the worst environmental record of almost any recent president, but Bush was for guns though...Give the man a chance to explain himself before 'shooting' him down..Pun intended...Besides, what good are guns if the individual in charge isn't as environmentally minded but is for guns, and the habitat goes to pot or all of the land is developed and more and more 'No Hunting' signs are put up and the hunters don't have a healthy animal population to hunt for, or land to hunt on...I think as many have said, you have to look at the 'whole picture'....
__________________
"The way I see it, you're hooked.Trout have you. Another soul lost." Elias Wonder, The Earth is Enough by Harry Middleton
marzrw is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.