Tags: bears, deer, environment, hunting, Mitt Romney, politics, polyester, public lands
(Worcester Telegram & Gazette) A wildlife biologist and avid hunter, who asked not to be named and worked for the state when Romney was governor confided, “I really don’t recall the Romney administration and its appointees having much interest in sportsmen or wildlife conservation. … We were small potatoes with little political or financial power … inconsequential in their estimation. …. I recall that when the Romney administration came to power, it immediately seized all state funds, including the Inland Fish & Game Fund.
“The IFGF cannot, by law, be spent on anything but fisheries and wildlife management. … The Romneyites … held onto it for months, long enough that multiple requests (from Mass Fish & Wildlife) failed to get it back, and the United States Fish & Wildlife Service finally had to write a letter informing the governor that the Massachusetts Division of Fish & Wildlife would be forfeiting a huge sum — $3.2 million, I think — in federal funds if the IFGF weren’t returned to the control of the Massachusetts Wildlife board. This finally got the Romneyites motivated, and they finally relinquished control.
“They held a press conference, and the governor came out to field headquarters and made a speech about how good it was to help out and get this funding for the sportsmen! It was almost surreal: the guy who took the Fish and Game money and held onto it, despite many calls for reason, spins the spectacle to make it sound like he’s a hero for somehow getting it back for us! … Watching that scene play out sure convinced me that he is about as genuine as polyester.”
(ThinkProgress) In response to a question about whether he would sell public lands back to the state [so they could sell them to commercial interests], Romney stated that that “I haven’t studied it, what the purpose is of the land, so I don’t want to say, “Oh, I’m about to hand it over.” But where government ownership of land is designed to satisfy, let’s say, the most extreme environmentalists, from keeping a population from developing their coal, their gold, their other resources for the benefit of the state, I would find that to be unacceptable.