RE: DEC Commissioner Nominated by Spitzer - Uh Oh
 

Exempting game animals and wild birds just avoids the point of my question. IMO, sadistic treatment of an animal is wrong and it doesn't make any difference to me whether it is a game animal or a domestic pet. Don't you agree? So again how to word it?

Look, I don't support Grannis and I might add that if you knew me you would find I am a pretty strong libertarian, politically and philisophically at odds with Spitzer and likely anyone he would appoint. I also suspect you are correct in your assesment of him. But I am also a pretty strong advocate of honesty and this thread started out by saying that the bill Grannis advocated would make hunting illegal. That was clearly a gross distortion. Sagittarius62 makes a good point about getting the facts straight. If we're going to use distortions and half truths when debating then imo we're no more principled than the animal rights wacos. I don't think that's a wise course.

RE: DEC Commissioner Nominated by Spitzer - Uh Oh
 

I think laws are already on the books tha cover these acts, are they not? What the biggest difference is, when I look at the animal cruelty laws today and this one, is the new law makes such conduct a felony. But the laws are still on the books, perhaps increasing the severity and punishmentof the laws already on the books would help?

Yes, this is exactly what it would have done, make hunting illegal, and trapping, too, perhaps even moreso. Imagine this law in effect, and someone going nuts over a coyote caught in a leg hold trap, only to know the trapper will dispatch the coyote with a club to the noggin? Could that be considered "sadistic?"When examining the letter of the law, we must realize precedence and what the language of the law can extend to cover. This is why we get lawyers involved, rather than simple speculation. NYSCC has lawyers that examine the full wording of draft bills. So too does SCOPE and the NYS NRAILA. When these lawyers indicate the laws could potentially make the act of hunting illegal, I side with that, and is the prime reason the bill was pulled (A1850) and replaced by the new one on 1/22/07 (A03006), with language specifically trying to preclude hunting and trapping from the laws.

No one with a sane mind would ever condone or support animal cruelty, in any form, let alone sadistic and malicious intent. However, we must not allow emotional heartstrings to blind us from the realities that if we let a bad law slip through, we could indeed jeopardize ourselves in the process, and this, considering the felony part, also extends to potentially losing 2nd Amendment Rights as well. We must be cautious, and, again, when the lawyers interpret the bill to show potential extension to hunting and trapping, that's enough to shut her down and say either go away or go back to the drawing board.

RE: DEC Commissioner Nominated by Spitzer - Uh Oh
 

For the most part you seem to be preaching to the choir here but on this point we will just have to agree to disagree. Not withstanding the opinion of your lawyers, the language of the bill was pretty clear and it did not make hunting illegal or at leastthe language wasintended to keep hunting legal which again, back to my point, would make denouncing Grannis for supporting it disingenuous.

The way I see this thread, you started it with what I thought was a pretty rational look at Grannis. Then somebody posted that he sponsored a bill that would ban hunting (as if that were it's intent). Then everyone went off on rants about the end of hunting. Even I was ready to post denouncing the jerk when Sagitarius posted the actual language of the bill. Like he said there was indeed "more to the story". Now as far as I'm concerned, though we all may agree that Grannis is a horrible choice, the net effect here imowas a loss of credibility to our arguments opposing him. Ifeven oneattack plays loose with the truth then what of the rest?

I think you should keep in mind that the perception of credibility is very important and once lost is very difficult to get back. Just some friendly advice from someone on your side. Good luck!

RE: DEC Commissioner Nominated by Spitzer - Uh Oh
 

Well, again, in the legal circles, Sylvan, a badly worded law, intentional or not, sets a PRECEDENCE which could be used to do just that.

I understand where you are coming from, but, as of late, nearly 100% of my colleagues are sharing the same opinions and positions concerning Grannis. We have also shared the same concerns over these pieces of legislation. We have seen many laws enacted which, through "muddy language", result in bad law and have seen these laws be upheld in court, regardless of intent of the law. Do some research, and you will find this to be TRUE.

Still not convinced? Let's take a look at what has happened in New Jersey, where Gov Corzine, just yesterday, I believe, signed the the "Community Gun Act" into law. I'll post the text later on today, as this is contained on my other computer. We have very similar bills pending in the NYS Legislature as I type.

The ultimate goal of these pieces of legislation is simply to remove your right to keep and bear arms. If you are a trapper, and someone charges you with an animal cruelty act for using a leg hold trap on a coyote, causing it "undue suffering" (who defines this and how, exactly? That's the part that is a bone of contention.... Who defines that and how!!!), you couold be charged with a FELONY. You know what that means? In NYS, if you are CHARGED with a felony, you must surrender all your firearms! If you are convicted of said felony, you never get them back.

Are you saying you are comfortable with people of Grannis' background being the one to DEFINE the cruelty for you? I, for one, am not. SInce this is NOT DEFINED, the law better DEFINE IT EXACTLY, otherwise, it is open to interpretation, and that is never a good thing when it comes to law. I am sure you agree.

Incidentally, I have found out some more concerning the confirmation process. It is similar to Federal Government, in that the State Senate confirms nominations. I have been blanketing the State Senate with the following brief letter. I recommend you do the same, in particular to your specific State Senator. You may copy and paste...

I write this to you over my grave concerns regarding the nomination of Alexander "Pete" Grannis to become Commissioner of the NYS DEC. Considering his well-known record of being against trapping, hunting and being anti 2nd Amendment rights, this nominee would do severe, if not devastating damage to the vital, and extremely lucrative industries hunting, trapping and fishing represents to NYS, industries which through tax revenues and conservation fund contributions, buttress NYS ability to protect the natural resources the Department is charged to protect. Through his own political agenda, this ability would be crippled. The people of NYS deserve much better.

This department should be run by qualified Biologists and Habitat Managers, not career politicians, as our natural resources deserve to be protected devoid of political agendas.
I urge you to please deny your support to this nomination, and speak with your colleagues to do the same. We need a true conservationist running this department, not someone with a political agenda.

Sincerely


Here is the link to the State Senator's listing. To find your specific Senator(s), use the zip code search utility. When you click on their name, their profile portal site will come up. You may click on Contact in the upper right corner, and either get an address to mail a letter to, or the email link to send this via email.

http://www.senate.state.ny.us/senatehomepage.nsf/senators?OpenForm

We must act fast. We do have a VERY SLIM CHANCE to block this, if we speak with one voice, in force.

RE: DEC Commissioner Nominated by Spitzer - Uh Oh
 

I completely agree, but in this thread (and that's my point) the bill wasn't firstpresented as "badly wordy" or just having "muddy language" it was simply presented as a billintended to ban hunting. A 1/2 truth at best, an out and out attempt to mislead at worst. I have no patience with such tactics regardless of which side uses it.

You need not attempt to convince me that Grannis and probably anybody Spitzer appoints would not be good for hunting. Like I said, you're preaching to the choir.

No offense but you don't seem to be reading what I've said or you wouldn't ask the question. What do you think I mean when I say Grannis is a "horrible" choice or "I don't support Grannis" or "I am a pretty strong libertarian, politically and philisophically at odds with Spitzer and likely anyone he would appoint" or "I also suspect you are correct in your assesment of him"? Do you know what a libertarian is?

My very simple and narrow point was made in my first post and that was "...he could well be the worst possible choice for hunters but I don't think it can be concluded simply on the basis of his advocating this bill."

You're wasting your time trying to "convince" me that Grannis or anybody else Spitzer appoints is likely to be bad news for hunters and gun owners. I find it kind of amusing that you keep trying to convince me of things that I am likely a stronger advocate of than you are. Do some research on libertarianism and maybe that will "convince" you.

Take care.

RE: DEC Commissioner Nominated by Spitzer - Uh Oh
 

Fair enough. The point I am making concerning the Bill which would have made hunting and trapping a felony under animal cruelty laws is simple. This is how these folks operate, the ANTI's.

Again, I may be preaching to the choir, but when Sag posted what he did, it illustrated TO ME that he fell into their trap. That trap, is emotionalism. Sure, it sounds real good:

yeah, sounds like a nice, fuzzy, caring, compassionate law, that every animal lover, both hunter and non hunter, trapper and bird watcher can all hold hands and sing kumbaya around the campfire together over.

Point 1: No justifiable purpose. Well, we don't need to harvest animals for food, so that one is not a justification. In some people's eyes (that is critical, because political offices and judges change PEOPLE), hunting and trapping to control animal populations and reduce potential for spread of disease, like rabies, CWD, etc, is not justifiable, because (and we've all heard this before) "nature will take its course, and that is the natural way". So toss that one, too. For sport? I don't need to get into that one, either, do I?

Now, the Environmental Conservation Law cited (the only law referenced) is nothing but THE DEFINITIONS... Here, read up

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/environmental-conservation/ENV011-0103_11-0103.html

Nothing in there about hunting at all or trapping at all. Simply definitions, covering the lot. I find it interesting to note that this does NOT cover Domestic Wild Game animals or birds...

Next Points....

The "definitions"

, with aggravated cruelty. For purposes of this section, "aggravated cruelty" shall mean conduct which: (i) is intended to cause extreme physical pain; or (ii) is done or carried out in an especially depraved or sadistic manner

So, by this statement, the interpretation of the provision is wide open. What exactly is an "especially depraved or sadistic manner?" That one depends on who is defining it, does it not? Some judge could believe, in consideration of the justifiable actions, that trapping a coyote or shooting a deer, turkey, rabbit, squirrel, woodchuck, or game bird, as sadistic, as we do derive some enjoyment out of this act, do we not? Could that also not be considered to be "especially depraved?"

The answer is clear, I believe.

Then, based on the track record of this legislator, and also some insight I have from other members of the NYS Assembly who know this guy, his intent, which I plainlyspelled out, with this bill, was very clear. He attempted to shut down hunting and trapping through expanded animal cruelty definitions (vague ones at best), and, through felony classification, use animal cruelty charges as the means to grab guns.

I understand everyone's point here, and perhaps it is because I have a lot of inside information that the general hunting and trapping public does not have, some confusion may exist. I apologize for that.

RE: DEC Commissioner Nominated by Spitzer - Uh Oh
 

Also, make no mistake, Spitzer is all about completely disarming NY's populace.

He has already clearly stated he would sign any and every Gun Control measure to hit his desk. We have currently a bill in the Assembly (no companion bill in Senate, as of yet) which would basically do this, which just got enacted in New Jersey:

I hope you find this one interesting reading. Later on, I'l pull the NYS bill which is eerily similar.

RE: DEC Commissioner Nominated by Spitzer - Uh Oh
 

As promised, here is a link to the full text of the NYS Assembly bill (currently referred to codes) which is very similar to the New Jersey Law just signed.

This one is nicely and emotionally pleasing... Its called:

Thechildren`s weapon accident prevention act

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A00076&sh=t

You'll notice a particular name in the list of folks who Introduced this bill...

Think I'm a little nuts now?

This is about Spitzer's wish to grab guns, and this guy Grannis is a facilitator.

Nice and emotional. Who isn't for protecting children?

It is the way of the ANTI, Sylvan. Mask their true intentions behind emotionally pleasing titles. But, I learned to never judge a book by its cover, or in this case, its title.