State Assemblyman Peter Grannis is Governor Eliot Spitzer’s choice to head up the Department of Environmental Conservation in New York. It has been a battle for him ever since the announcement was made and it isn’t getting any easier for him. One of the best ways to judge a politician is by taking a look at voting records and such. The longer the better and that is what is troubling many of those opposed to his selection.
David Dirks of the Times-Herald Record spells it out quite nicely in his article this morning.
“He has repeatedly voted for prohibiting the possession of all firearms, including the banning shotguns as terrorist weapons,” said Jacob Rieper of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association in a letter to the Times Herald-Record
Grannis spends most of his time with Dirks trying to explain himself away.
“The DEC has nothing to do whatsoever with gun ownership, use or licensing. Somehow to morph the NRA standard questionnaire issues into opposing me as the DEC commissioner is inappropriate since the agency has nothing to do with anything the NRA concerns itself with,” he said.
Really? I thought the DEC in New York looked over hunting in that state. Doesn’t hunting involve guns? Are we to really believe that someone who wants to ban guns is the best choice for DEC Commissioner?
“I think most of the criticism has been focused on things that are not accurate,” he replied. “I’m not anti-hunting or anti-trapping. I support both sports and activities. I’m an active fly-fisherman and appreciate the outdoors. I have never taken a position that I viewed as anti-hunting.”
The key to this statement is in the last sentence when he says, “that I viewed as anti-hunting”. That’s why voting records are so important. He may not view what he does as anti-hunting but I’m afraid the majority of the rest of us do.
What about A3006, which provides for felony convictions for acts of animal cruelty, which is the same wording that groups like the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals use to define hunting?
“It was in no way ever intended to interfere or provide cover any comfort or cover to PETA or anybody else,” Grannis said. “It was designed to deal with the most depraved kinds of activities that no hunter would tolerate.”
“It was never intended”. Sometimes before bills are created and presented to the public, more thought ought to go into them, at least if you’re not on the side of PETA and HSUS.
“I think very quickly they are going to find out that I’m going to be a very good friend of theirs,” he said. “I don’t see us changing the rules or regulations of hunting in any way that would impact their interests.”
Maybe he would have been better off to have ended that last sentence before adding, “that would impact their interests”. Once again, that would be according to what he believes. So what does he believe?
Grannis faces Congressional hearings beginning today from a republican controlled Congress.
Tom Remington
