Interested in protecting your Outdoor Heritage and Gun Owner Rights?

[Stillhunter]

Consider signing the following petition to oppose the appointment of Alexander "Pete" Grannis as the next DEC Commissioner. 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. Write your State Senator also.

http://www.petitiononline.com/nogranni/petition.html

Take care.

[redhawk]

Originally Posted by Stillhunter

Consider signing the following petition to oppose the appointment of Alexander "Pete" Grannis as the next DEC Commissioner. 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. Write your State Senator also.

http://www.petitiononline.com/nogranni/petition.html

Take care.

Is he going to take away the guns? Ban then from the park?

What's the reasoning behind the conclusion?

I think people should be made aware of the reasons if you want them to sign a petition.

[Stillhunter]

I suggest that folks read up and decide for themselves. This forum has people who will land on both sides based on past posting history... but then again this is the "Hunting and Fishing in the Adirondacks" forum.

Sometimes it feels like the "Anti-Hunting and Fishing in the Adirondacks Forum".

[Keithk]

Originally Posted by redhawk

Is he going to take away the guns? Ban then from the park?

What's the reasoning behind the conclusion?

I think people should be made aware of the reasons if you want them to sign a petition.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rati...y=Gun%20Issues :

2006 Based on voting records on gun issues and their overall support for pro-gun issues in 2006, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association assigned Assemblymember Grannis a grade of 0 (with grades ranging from a high of A to a low of F).

2006 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all state legislative candidates in 2006, the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund assigned Assemblymember Grannis a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).

2004 Based on a candidate questionnaire and the votes that New York
Shooters Committee on Political Education considered to be the most important in 2004, they have assigned Assemblymember Grannis a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

--

Guns aside, I have major problems with Grannis. He is the literal deffinition of a Manhattan politician without the slightest understanding of the ADK's. How he is the most qualified for the job is anyone's guess.

[Peakbagr]

Keith,

There a a lot of other points of view on Grannis. I'm a Bullseye Pistol competitor, Benchrest shooter, reloader and licensed for CCW, but I think that Pete Grannis' advantages to the outdoor user in NY State far outweigh what the NYSRPA or the NRA thinks about him.
He's seen by most who want to protect the woods that we all enjoy as someone who will carry on the Pataki land acquisition legacy.

I'm not saying this applies to you, but I prefer to make up my own mind rather than vote or oppose on a single issue. That usually puts me at odds with the NRA, an organization that ostensibly looks after the rights of firearms owners. With their take-no-prisoners attitude, the NYSRPA and NRA are seen by many firearms owners as so rabid in some of their positions as to have driven-off the middle ground of gun owners. Grannis's last job was to represent an upper class NYC constituency. He now works for a much more diverse set of voters.
Lets give Pete Grannis a chance before the outdoors community starts looking for a noose and gets divided over his new position.

[Keithk]

Originally Posted by Peakbagr

Keith,

There a a lot of other points of view on Grannis. I'm a Bullseye Pistol competitor, Benchrest shooter, reloader and licensed for CCW, but I think that Pete Grannis' advantages to the outdoor user in NY State far outweigh what the NYSRPA or the NRA thinks about him.
He's seen by most who want to protect the woods that we all enjoy as someone who will carry on the Pataki land acquisition legacy.

I'm not saying this applies to you, but I prefer to make up my own mind rather than vote or oppose on a single issue. That usually puts me at odds with the NRA, an organization that ostensibly looks after the rights of firearms owners. With their take-no-prisoners attitude, the NYSRPA and NRA are seen by many firearms owners as so rabid in some of their positions as to have driven-off the middle ground of gun owners. Grannis's last job was to represent an upper class NYC constituency. He now works for a much more diverse set of voters.
Lets give Pete Grannis a chance before the outdoors community starts looking for a noose and gets divided over his new position.

I was responding specifically to redhawk's request for gun info. I am however deeply skeptical of Grannis, maybe it's ignorant of me, but I just can't understand how a guy from the concrete jungle of manhattan is the best person to head up the DEC.

[redhawk]

Originally Posted by Keithk

I was responding specifically to redhawk's request for gun info. I am however deeply skeptical of Grannis, maybe it's ignorant of me, but I just can't understand how a guy from the concrete jungle of manhattan is the best person to head up the DEC.

I wasn't looking specifically for "gun info". I was more concerned on why the NRA and Gun owners were opposed to him, and how much that weighed against the good (or bad) he would do for the park.

Anytime someone or even more so a special interest group speaks out against a person, I think they have an obligation to cite the specifics as to why they are opposed. That offers people who do not have a special interest to weigh the cause.

Personally i wouldn't support anything someone proposed unless they listed their reasons.

Part of the mentality has already shown in stating that this seems like an "anti gun forum". That's not the case it's just that some of us don't fully support what the NRA and some gun owners propose. However we get the tag because for all the rights that some gun owners say they want to protect, they are not too keen on respecting the rights of the people who disagree with some of the issues to express them.

Guns are only one of the issues affected by the decisions of the DEC. I'm more interested in conservation and preservation and those are the factors that will affect whether I oppose or support an official. That's much more important, in my opinion, then what his stand is on guns.

Hence my question.

Normally I don't even check the hunting or fishing forum but when a new Post shows up about "Protecting My Outdoor Heritage", I certainly have to check it out. As it turns out it has nothing to do with MY outdoor heritage at all, nor do i think that if this guy becomes commisioner it is going to take away most of outdoor heritage.

If the guy is a supporter of preserving the park, he sure isn't going to take away my outdoor heritage, therefore I don't have to sign a petition to protect it as Stillhunter claims, do I?

[Buckethead]

Originally Posted by Keithk

I was responding specifically to redhawk's request for gun info. I am however deeply skeptical of Grannis, maybe it's ignorant of me, but I just can't understand how a guy from the concrete jungle of manhattan is the best person to head up the DEC.

I don't think bias based on where he is from is really a reason to say that he could not head up the DEC. The DEC encompasses a variety of functions outside the general "fish and game" world. These include (among other things) pollution law enforcement, review of impact statements and land management plans.

There are a lot of good people working at DEC, who remain working there, even with a change of leadership. Grannis' job will be mainly be a general oversight role. As long as he can lead an organization to clearly defined objectives we will be fine.

[coolrobc]

There's was a good article in the Post Standard about Grannis and why hunters oppose his nomination.

He's got a great history on environmental issues, but is apparently against hunting and trapping.

Here's a snip from the article:

"The statement made no mention at all, though, of the nominee's sponsorship or advocacy of bills that would have prohibited the use of so-called leg hold traps and allowed counties to usurp the DEC's authority to regulate fur trapping. Nor did it cite Grannis' support for legislation that, according to critics, characterized hunting as a form of animal cruelty.

Finally, the governor's press release overlooked the award conferred on the assemblyman by the notoriously anti-hunting, anti-trapping Humane Society of the United States. "

I think it's inappropriate to put someone in charge of the agency that oversees hunting and trapping who's against it.

Oh yeah, he's also anti cell tower in the 'dacks, that's why I didn't sign the petition.

[trouthunter]

Originally Posted by Stillhunter

I suggest that folks read up and decide for themselves. This forum has people who will land on both sides based on past posting history... but then again this is the "Hunting and Fishing in the Adirondacks" forum.

Sometimes it feels like the "Anti-Hunting and Fishing in the Adirondacks Forum".

I agree. Please note he said "Anti-hunting and fishing in the Adirondacks forum" NOT Anti gun forum.

[Hobbitling]

Among his evil deeds...
Non discrimination and consumer protection laws for the health insurance industry.
Workers Compensation reform.
Tenant protection laws for renters.
The Clean Indoor Air Act (no smoking in restaurants)
Bills dealing with acid rain, clean air and water, fluorocarbons and recycling.
Chaired the Assembly's first Subcommittee on Toxic Wastes
Sponsored legislation ensuring a worker's right to know about hazardous materials in the workplace
Worked to regulate the transport, storage and disposal of toxic wastes.
Chairman of the Assembly Majority Adirondack Working Group
Other environmental interests include reducing packaging waste and bringing New York into compliance with the federal Clean Air Act.
Three-time winner of the "Legislator of the Year" from the Environmental Planning Lobby and was honored in 1992 b the Audobon Society.

[coolrobc]

Originally Posted by hobbitling

Among his evil deeds...

His evil deeds aside, do you think it's appropriate for someone who attempted to legislate against hunting and trapping, to be placed in charge of its regulation?

[redhawk]

Originally Posted by coolrobc

His evil deeds aside, do you think it's appropriate for someone who attempted to legislate against hunting and trapping, to be placed in charge of its regulation?

Hmm, do you think it's fair that someone who legislated for hunting and trapping to be placed in charge of it's regulation, when it's only proportionate to the overall picture.

Could someone expound on what he legislated against, exactly? Did he want to ban hunting and trapping? Did he want stiffer regulations against hunting and trapping? Was his proposed legislation against hunting and trapping in all of NY State, or was it targeted against specific areas?

What's the full picture? I'm asking because I don't know and I think tat if anyone is saying this guy should not be the DEC commissioner based on legislation he proposed, then those who are making the case against him should state it, along with some references to the specific proposal and not what might be posted on internet forums, especially those that are pro gun, pro hunting.

Here's part of the problem as I see it. There are gun advocates and hunters who consider me "anti-gun" and "anti- hunter". That's not true in any way. I have nothing against those who hunt for meat and in cases where herds need to be culled. I am opposed to high powered guns that kill from a half mile away and can go far enough to injure someone. I am also opposed to semi-automatic weapons for hunting. if you can't get close enough to shoot and can't bring it down with a lever or bolt action, they you don't have the skill use the firearm, as far as I'm concerned. And if anyone asks, yes I can get lose enough to an animal and yes I could bring it down with a single shot. I'm no stranger to firearms and was quite proficient with them. I am opposed to trophy hunting. It's like someone has a nice coat or pair of sneakers and I kill them to take them. I am opposed to hunters who advocate the killing of predators or the reintroduction of them to their natural habitat because they compete with hunters for their kill.

I also favor gun legislation and regulation as well as licensing. I don't think that anyone with a legitimate reason for carrying a firearm and without a criminal record will suffer. I also don't believe that there is a plot to take away all the guns from private citizens and that licensing is just the first step.

I have the utmost respect for firearms in the hands of people who know how to use them and are responsible.

So I am neither anti-gun nor anti-hunting, I happen to disagree on some of the issues, yet, in some perverse way, I represent a threat to some of those I disagree with.

So, I cannot accept the "This guy shouldn't", because in all too many instances, it's an attack campaign by parties who's interests are not backed 100% by the individual.

So, let's have all the FACTUAL information about the legislation being referred to. If you have a reason, you should have a basis. if you have a basis, with fact to back it up, then let's see it. if not, then don't expect support from me.

[trouthunter]

Redhawk, Just curious, do you hunt?

[redhawk]

Originally Posted by trouthunter

Redhawk, Just curious, do you hunt?

Not any more. I did when I was younger. I grew up hunting on the Rez, we had to hunt to supplement our diet.

But, after doing another kind of hunting, as well as being hunted myself, it is not a sport for me any longer.

Last thing I killed was a badger out west and I got him with a lance.

[coolrobc]

Originally Posted by redhawk

So, let's have all the FACTUAL information about the legislation being referred to. If you have a reason, you should have a basis. if you have a basis, with fact to back it up, then let's see it. if not, then don't expect support from me.

Good Point, I agree with just about everything else you stated in your argument above.

This is the only bill I could find that he directly sponsored (pertinent to the discussion at hand), which was referenced by the article I posted above.

In this Bill, it seems to be an attempt to override the authority of the DEC's trapping laws, by allowing counties to enact legislation limiting or prohibiting trapping within the given municipality.

Based on just this bill, I could understand why hunters/trappers would be opposed to him. They tend to be big fans of slippery slope arguments.

There's quite a few bills he's co-sponsored, but abstracts aren't listed on his page for cosponsored bills. Don't have time to look through all of those at the moment, but here's a link to his Sponsored Legislation at the NYS Assembly

[Buckethead]

Originally Posted by coolrobc

Good Point, I agree with just about everything else you stated in your argument above.

This is the only bill I could find that he directly sponsored (pertinent to the discussion at hand), which was referenced by the article I posted above.

In this Bill, it seems to be an attempt to override the authority of the DEC's trapping laws, by allowing counties to enact legislation limiting or prohibiting trapping within the given municipality.

[/URL]

That in and by itself does not really say he is against trapping. What is does say is that counties who want different standards than NYS provides may do so. Local, responsible management of the species based on voter's opinions would win with me every time.

below is an example from the proposed amendment:

"Trappers and wildlife managers play on the public`s fear of rabies and
other diseases by arguing that trapping is necessary to control the
spread of disease. However, the Centers for Disease Control, the
National Academy of Sciences, and the World Health Organization, as well
as many other scientific, public health, and veterinary organizations,
disagree. The National Academy of Sciences subcommittee on rabies
concluded that, "Persistent trapping or poisoning campaigns as a means
to rabies control should be abolished. There is no evidence that these
costly and politically attractive programs reduce either wildlife reser-
voirs or rabies incidence. The money can be better spent on research,
vaccination, compensation to stockmen for losses, education and warning
systems.,,16

Rather, trapping can actually increase the spread of disease. 17 By
removing mature animals who have acquired immunity to disease, trappers
make room for newcomers who may not be immune. In addition, animals
infected with rabies do not eat during the latter stages of the disease,
and therefore do not respond to baited traps. Hence, traps set in an
area infected with rabies will more than likely capture healthy animals
rather than infected animals, thereby increasing the likelihood that the
disease will spread."

That, to me looks like a pretty good argument, depending on the science which it was based on. Every amendment, and bill brought to a vote is just someone's opinion on how things should be done. In this instance, the bill is citing a "public safety" issue, real or imagined. I personally didn't like the wording of the first paragraph, but either way the author has a valid point. I would not reject this candidate based on that example.

[coolrobc]

Originally Posted by Buckethead

That in and by itself does not really say he is against trapping. ...

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Buckethead

... What is does say is that counties who want different standards than NYS provides may do so. ...

and this is why I said,

Originally Posted by coolrobc

Based on just this bill, I could understand why hunters/trappers would be opposed to him. They tend to be big fans of slippery slope arguments.

(emphasis added)

To further explain my point; by allowing the smaller municipalities to legislate restrictions on hunting or in this case trapping, would would allow for a "chipping away" of the freedoms currently exercised by people who hunt and trap. There's a pretty pervasive fear in people who engage in hunting and trapping that any sort of legislation that further restricts their ability to engage in those activities, will eventually lead to the out right banning of them.

I realize I may not have been completely clear in my initial statement, but if you reread it with the clarification above, I think you get my point.

Also, I think it's silly to say he's not against it, because the legislation references 2 counties that tried to restrict trapping(Suffolk and Rockland), and them being overturned by the state on the issue. This legislation would allow those counties to overrule the existing statutes and make what is otherwise legal statewide, illegal.

Why else would he put forward this type of legislation? Last I heard, their has never been a huge outcry for "county's rights" like "state's rights". He's had a number of other pieces of legislation that he's submitted regarding animal cruelty with reference in most cases to animal testing, so their not pertinent to the question adressed above. It's not a huge jump, based soley on this bill, to say he's against trapping.

Additionally I have to say I disagree with the additional layers of bureaucracy that this type of legislation would add. We have a state agency to address the issue, we don't need county government to regulate it as well. Who's the enforcement going to fall to? It's currently with the DEC, so does that mean that the county sheriff's department and indivisual municipalities would be responsible?

I think he's got a great record on many environmental issues, and based on that I think his appointment makes sense. If he is in fact against hunting and trapping, which this bills leads me to believe he is, I disagree with his appointment.

[redhawk]

Wow! We have dialog. Facts.

Have at it folks and those of us who are ignorant of the issues surrounding this will be enlightened. Then perhaps we will be in a better position to make a decision, whether it be yea or nay!

[coolrobc]

Originally Posted by redhawk

Wow! We have dialog. Facts.

Have at it folks and those of us who are ignorant of the issues surrounding this will be enlightened. Then perhaps we will be in a better position to make a decision, whether it be yea or nay!

I thought you raised an excellent point above about facts. All to many times we rely on the media or our own "special interest groups" to properly inform us.

I'd really be interested to know what the other legislation they referenced in the newspaper article was. I just don't have time to look for it now.