Preliminary Injunction Filed

[Peregrinus]

The Pacific Legal Foundation, representing fellow falconers along with the AFC, filed a preliminary injunction today. If it goes through, it will prohibit warrant-less searches unless or until a court rules on the suit.

https://pacificlegal.org/motion-reveals-decades-long-systemic-and-on-going-abuse-of-falconers-rights/?fbclid=IwAR2ujogmS4EV05wfW6RiL5WADgRO6ZhfNvmdZWjj tQAJPwyWwWkSIIHwPMg

Also, a great article by Peter Stavrianoudakis in the Sacramento Bee:

https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/article224990270.html?fbclid=IwAR3LXtv0X1NDhm05nuo miWas-yAk4FBTJAsWYz3GpWKXs5dJkGpxbMHPnrk

Personally, I think this is great for falconers nationwide, and hunters in general. It has the potential to set precedent which would benefit all of us. Woot!

Bridget

[jhausman]

Thanks for posting, Bridget!

[rkumetz]

I notice you started a new thread instead of continuing the one that has background information on the PLF and their litigation.

The only thing that litigation does for Peter Stavrianoudakis is to throw him under the bus and make he and his wife look like paranoid nuts who
are worried about black SUV's and helicopters showing up at his house which I suspect is far from the truth.

PLF doesn't have the best interest of the plaintiffs, falconry or hunters. They are a bunch of lawyers who need cases to let
them argue constitutional law to put on their CV's on their way to the corner office. Their position on sage grouse in another
case is diametrically opposing the best interests of falconers. I hope they stop doing us favors soon.

[Peregrinus]

Hi Ron:

I think anyone who is interested in the PLF can find all sorts of info with a simple search, or they can follow the link I provided, wherein the PLF makes their mission abundantly clear. They are a libertarian-oriented, Constitutional civil rights firm. Exactly what we need. No need to wade through pages of posts, which is why I started a new thread. "Black SUVS and helicopters" is cute partisan phraseology, but it's not what anyone is alleging. Wanting to protect one's 1st and 4th Amendment rights should not relegate one to the status of paranoid whack-job; those who believe it does have other agendas, and maybe they should get intellectually honest.
PLF, much like other civil rights outfits, maintains both the interests of their clients along with an overarching mission. The fact that they have this mission statement does not preclude them from providing excellent representation.

[rkumetz]

Hi Ron:

I think anyone who is interested in the PLF can find all sorts of info with a simple search, or they can follow the link I provided, wherein the PLF makes their mission abundantly clear. They are a libertarian-oriented, Constitutional civil rights firm. Exactly what we need. No need to wade through pages of posts, which is why I started a new thread. "Black SUVS and helicopters" is cute partisan phraseology, but it's not what anyone is alleging. Wanting to protect one's 1st and 4th Amendment rights should not relegate one to the status of paranoid whack-job; those who believe it does have other agendas, and maybe they should get intellectually honest.
PLF, much like other civil rights outfits, maintains both the interests of their clients along with an overarching mission. The fact that they have this mission statement does not preclude them from providing excellent representation.

First, I resent the implication that if I don't disagree with you that I am a partisan hack. My political affiliation is common sense. I vote for the guy or gal who seems to have their
act together and who is not interested in the partisan bickering that has paralyzed our political system.

Who is WE? AFC or falconers in general. The problem here is that the former is acting on behalf of the latter and not all of us agree with the direction they are going.

Post Operation Falconer there have not been very many instances of falconers 4th amendment rights being bruised never mind trampled. This seems to be a problem for the nanny state of California which believes they know better than you do what is good for you. I deal with their absurd labeling requirement for items which might contain potentially carcinogenic substances every day. It is a joke.

The problem here is that PLF is litigating about constitutional rights violations which have not yet happened. Their tearjerker video shows Fred Seaman who could be considered to have had his rights
violated but instead the plaintiffs are people who is worried about the same thing happening to them. I happen to think that Fred is an OK guy but he is also very opinionated (it takes one to know one LOL)
and tends to operate with his own interpretation of what should be legal. I am not saying that I don't agree with at least some of what he believes but he may also not make the best test case for this litigation and I gather that PLF is smart enough to know that so they used Plan B.

In addition, your assertions of 1st amendment issues is, in the words of Sherman Potter, horse pucky. Falconry is not a commercial pursuit and conservation law here in the US has long sought to
eliminate the commercialization of wildlife starting with Teddy Roosevelt and possibly even before. A falconry permit does not in any way infer the right to make money by doing educational presentations, bird shows or by appearing on the Late Show as a cool animal trick. It gives you right to use a bird of prey to pursue wild quarry and if you wish to talk to the Boy Scouts (oops, sorry... SCOUTS) about falconry and not get anything out of it beyond the cost of gas you are good to go. It is clear from the original complaint that the plaintiffs are interested in renumeration. If you wish to be Bill Nye the Bird Guy you can get an educational permit and stay out of jail.

PLF has no particular concern with what is good for falconers and using them for this litigation, regardless of the value of this particular litigation, lends credibility to PLF and their agenda.
Falconers are for the most part conservation minded people and PLF could care less about conservation.

I would also like to point out that I am sympathetic to a libertarian train of thought but keep in mind that libertarian doctrine taken to its most extreme level is called anarchy.

Let's get this straight. AFC is not out to do what is best for falconers in general. They are out to advance an extreme libertarian agenda which many falconers may or may not
agree with (and if the mess that they have in the UK is used as an example) may not be in the best interest of the future of falconry given the powerful animal rights and anti-hunting
organizations that seek to have us all building ships in bottles instead of going hawking.

[falcon56]

First, I resent the implication that if I don't disagree with you that I am a partisan hack. My political affiliation is common sense. I vote for the guy or gal who seems to have their
act together and who is not interested in the partisan bickering that has paralyzed our political system.

Who is WE? AFC or falconers in general. The problem here is that the former is acting on behalf of the latter and not all of us agree with the direction they are going.

Post Operation Falconer there have not been very many instances of falconers 4th amendment rights being bruised never mind trampled. This seems to be a problem for the nanny state of California which believes they know better than you do what is good for you. I deal with their absurd labeling requirement for items which might contain potentially carcinogenic substances every day. It is a joke.

The problem here is that PLF is litigating about constitutional rights violations which have not yet happened. Their tearjerker video shows Fred Seaman who could be considered to have had his rights
violated but instead the plaintiffs are people who is worried about the same thing happening to them. I happen to think that Fred is an OK guy but he is also very opinionated (it takes one to know one LOL)
and tends to operate with his own interpretation of what should be legal. I am not saying that I don't agree with at least some of what he believes but he may also not make the best test case for this litigation and I gather that PLF is smart enough to know that so they used Plan B.

In addition, your assertions of 1st amendment issues is, in the words of Sherman Potter, horse pucky. Falconry is not a commercial pursuit and conservation law here in the US has long sought to
eliminate the commercialization of wildlife starting with Teddy Roosevelt and possibly even before. A falconry permit does not in any way infer the right to make money by doing educational presentations, bird shows or by appearing on the Late Show as a cool animal trick. It gives you right to use a bird of prey to pursue wild quarry and if you wish to talk to the Boy Scouts (oops, sorry... SCOUTS) about falconry and not get anything out of it beyond the cost of gas you are good to go. It is clear from the original complaint that the plaintiffs are interested in renumeration. If you wish to be Bill Nye the Bird Guy you can get an educational permit and stay out of jail.

PLF has no particular concern with what is good for falconers and using them for this litigation, regardless of the value of this particular litigation, lends credibility to PLF and their agenda.
Falconers are for the most part conservation minded people and PLF could care less about conservation.

I would also like to point out that I am sympathetic to a libertarian train of thought but keep in mind that libertarian doctrine taken to its most extreme level is called anarchy.

Let's get this straight. AFC is not out to do what is best for falconers in general. They are out to advance an extreme libertarian agenda which many falconers may or may not
agree with (and if the mess that they have in the UK is used as an example) may not be in the best interest of the future of falconry given the powerful animal rights and anti-hunting
organizations that seek to have us all building ships in bottles instead of going hawking.

clapp

[GONEHAWKN]

clapp

i will second that Ray.........

[MrBill]

First, I resent the implication that if I don't disagree with you that I am a partisan hack. My political affiliation is common sense. I vote for the guy or gal who seems to have their
act together and who is not interested in the partisan bickering that has paralyzed our political system.

Who is WE? AFC or falconers in general. The problem here is that the former is acting on behalf of the latter and not all of us agree with the direction they are going.

Post Operation Falconer there have not been very many instances of falconers 4th amendment rights being bruised never mind trampled. This seems to be a problem for the nanny state of California which believes they know better than you do what is good for you. I deal with their absurd labeling requirement for items which might contain potentially carcinogenic substances every day. It is a joke.

The problem here is that PLF is litigating about constitutional rights violations which have not yet happened. Their tearjerker video shows Fred Seaman who could be considered to have had his rights
violated but instead the plaintiffs are people who is worried about the same thing happening to them. I happen to think that Fred is an OK guy but he is also very opinionated (it takes one to know one LOL)
and tends to operate with his own interpretation of what should be legal. I am not saying that I don't agree with at least some of what he believes but he may also not make the best test case for this litigation and I gather that PLF is smart enough to know that so they used Plan B.

In addition, your assertions of 1st amendment issues is, in the words of Sherman Potter, horse pucky. Falconry is not a commercial pursuit and conservation law here in the US has long sought to
eliminate the commercialization of wildlife starting with Teddy Roosevelt and possibly even before. A falconry permit does not in any way infer the right to make money by doing educational presentations, bird shows or by appearing on the Late Show as a cool animal trick. It gives you right to use a bird of prey to pursue wild quarry and if you wish to talk to the Boy Scouts (oops, sorry... SCOUTS) about falconry and not get anything out of it beyond the cost of gas you are good to go. It is clear from the original complaint that the plaintiffs are interested in renumeration. If you wish to be Bill Nye the Bird Guy you can get an educational permit and stay out of jail.

PLF has no particular concern with what is good for falconers and using them for this litigation, regardless of the value of this particular litigation, lends credibility to PLF and their agenda.
Falconers are for the most part conservation minded people and PLF could care less about conservation.

I would also like to point out that I am sympathetic to a libertarian train of thought but keep in mind that libertarian doctrine taken to its most extreme level is called anarchy.

Let's get this straight. AFC is not out to do what is best for falconers in general. They are out to advance an extreme libertarian agenda which many falconers may or may not
agree with (and if the mess that they have in the UK is used as an example) may not be in the best interest of the future of falconry given the powerful animal rights and anti-hunting
organizations that seek to have us all building ships in bottles instead of going hawking.

Well put, Ron.

Bill Boni

[joekoz]

Well put, Ron.

Bill Boni

Ditto - Ditto & Double Ditto!

[wyodjm]

The longer I practice falconry and attempt to stay informed with the various issues that affect the sport, the more I'm convinced that falconers are their own worst enemy.

People often half joke about it, but I have no doubt!

[rkumetz]

Wanting to protect one's 1st and 4th Amendment rights should not relegate one to the status of paranoid whack-job; those who believe it does have other agendas, and maybe they should get intellectually honest.

Just to clarify, I was not in anyway suggesting that I believe the Stavrianoudakis' to be "paranoid whack-job's" (your words) but the PLF link that you supplied does a pretty good job of painting them that way in an effort to get blood boiling in the camp of the ultra-libertarian crowd. Most middle of the road folks reading that would get that impression. When was it that someone married to a falconer was pinned to the ground and handcuffed again? I seem to have missed that part. When you are painted in the media by someone allegedly trying to "help" as worrying about hypothetical situations which have not occurred then you appear to be paranoid. And if that situation HAS occurred then the person who was handcuffed should have been the plaintiff. I would even go for the woman who reportedly had to urinate in her pants (presumably because they were worried about her flushing birds or 3-186 forms I guess) since that is a reasonable assertion that officers overstepped reasonable bounds.

I would also like to point out that in most states game wardens, CO's or whatever they are called are armed all the time. In my state they also respond to incidents when the state police are busy. They
are law enforcement officers and for a good portion of the year the people they are checking up on (let's call them hunters) are ARMED themselves so it is not unreasonable to assume that they be allowed to carry sidearms. Now if they busted down the door with a battering ram wearing helmets and carrying automatic weapons we can talk about a show of force.

PLF is doing a pretty good job of spinning this like we are living in a totalitarian prison state. I am guessing that even in California the situation is not quite that grim.

[BestBeagler]

I never knew I was in the ultra libertarian crowd till reading this thread.

[rkumetz]

I never knew I was in the ultra libertarian crowd till reading this thread.

If you believe there should be no rules then you are. :)

I think the big divide is really whether or not having a group like PLF which does not really care about the future of falconry file go to court about violations of constitutional rights that have not yet occurred and people who believe they should be able to monetize their falconry license should be able to do so.

If jackbooted storm troopers actually did break down someone's door, shove their wife to the floor and handcuff her and then proceed to take apart the whole house I would be the first guy to support going to court to prevent that from ever happening again. Even if it happened in CA and I generally just assume that what happens in CA doesn't really reflect the rest of the country. On the other hand, in the absence of such a serious abuse of power I believe that a approach that doesn't involve the courts and which is not as public is a better approach.

I have some serious reservations about why the people who are reported to have had their rights trampled on are not the plaintiffs in this case. That raises some
serious red flags for me. Something is not kosher. PLF has some sort of smoke and mirrors show going.

If you look at everything that PLF does you can see exactly how much they love to beat their chest and get as much publicity as possible.
They took this case because it was yet another constitutional case for them to argue and it is likely they did so for free.

I think that falconry is getting everything that AFC paid for and more.

[goshawkr]

If someone had posted these comments in response to something a NAFA official had posted in the NAFA subforum, the response would be (justifiable) outrage.

That is of course not to say that constructive discussion is not warranted - or even welcome - but the main thrust of the response here went well beyond that. Not counting those remarkable astute "Ditto" comments of course.

[rkumetz]

If someone had posted these comments in response to something a NAFA official had posted in the NAFA subforum, the response would be (justifiable) outrage.

That is of course not to say that constructive discussion is not warranted - or even welcom - but the main thrust of the response here went well beyond that. Not counting those remarkable astute "Ditto" comments of course.

Geoff,
I don't think anything I said was disrespectful or out of line. You and I have spoken about many of these issues and while we disagree on some we agree on others. Abuse of power IS abuse of power and that is not tolerable. What gets in my craw about this PLF litigation is that the facts seem to indicate something other than the sensational complaint and all of the flashy stuff on their web page indicate.
It sort of reminds me of the stuff you see on Fox news or PBS that is designed to get their particular audience all riled up on the far right and far left respectively. You and I know that there are three sides to every story, the two arguments that the disagreeing parties put forth and the truth.

Let's be honest, I have posed some of these questions such as why are the parties who could arguably have had their rights violated not the plaintiffs? Why are they claiming that their 1st amendment rights are violated by not being able to charge for a presentation when they can get an educational permit which allows them to do so? Stuff like that. I have seen no attempt to set the record straight.
When you ask questions and people clam up then in my book they are hiding something and I think you can agree that it sounds suspicious.

I will definitely agree on one thing: Constructive discussion IS warranted but all I see is sensational press releases and a complaint that raises some questionable claims.

Your thoughts?

[falcon56]

If someone had posted these comments in response to something a NAFA official had posted in the NAFA subforum, the response would be (justifiable) outrage.

That is of course not to say that constructive discussion is not warranted - or even welcome - but the main thrust of the response here went well beyond that. Not counting those remarkable astute "Ditto" comments of course.
Geoff, I'm not a supporter of the AFC, and I get the impression you're not a NAFA supporter. We each, as well as everyone has the prerogative to choose that which they choose to support or not(DUH), but, and this goes a bit off subject here, you would have to agree that the falconry you have been, and currently practice could not be what it is without the work NAFA has done for all of us over the years.

[rkumetz]

Geoff, I'm not a supporter of the AFC, and I get the impression you're not a NAFA supporter. We each, as well as everyone has the prerogative to choose that which they choose to support or not(DUH), but, and this goes a bit off subject here, you would have to agree that the falconry you have been, and currently practice could not be what it is without the work NAFA has done for all of us over the years.

Ray,
I know that Geoff is not a NAFA flag waver but I did not interpret his comment as being entirely anti-NAFA either. I think that this discussion has been pretty civil in both this thread and the previous PLF thread or at least by internet forum standards and I hope it stays that way.

I have tried to keep to the facts and I have posed some legitimate questions to which I have not seen answers which simply lends credence to my argument that
everything in this case is not just as the flashy press releases on the PLF and AFC web pages would like us to believe.

I, like Geoff and probably yourself, take my constitutional rights seriously so if you are either challenging them or claiming that you are defending them on my behalf then
you had better have some legitimate facts and be above board or I am going to get my panties in a bunch like I did here. All I have asked for is the complete story and
that is apparently not forthcoming. Just like the news networks that serve the outspoken left and right. frus)

[goshawkr]

Geoff, I'm not a supporter of the AFC, and I get the impression you're not a NAFA supporter. We each, as well as everyone has the prerogative to choose that which they choose to support or not(DUH), but, and this goes a bit off subject here, you would have to agree that the falconry you have been, and currently practice could not be what it is without the work NAFA has done for all of us over the years.

As soon as Ralph Rogers left the leadership of NAFA I was able to hold my nose and rejoin. Call me grudgingly supportive. I have paid dues to NAFA ever since that happened, and even weighed in frequently on the "issues". And just to clearly put this all in context, I am not a member of the AFC either although I did pay dues one year. I should fix that though.

And no, I would not have to agree with that statement. In fact, only the most partisan of partisan hacks would say that such a position is irrefutable. The level of falconry that I currently practice is in spite of the [incompetent] work that NAFA has done, not because of it. I would be happy to discuss that in a different context, in a different forum, or even better over a beverage while enjoying a fire, but I will not drift any further into the weeds on that point here. Oh, and before you think I am just a whiner, I am politically astute and know how to make things happen at both a State and a Federal level and have a few political wins to my credit here in my WA.

Again, as I said in my first response, this is the AFC area, for them to talk about their agenda and yes, even at times brag on it. Not the right place for AFC bashing nor for NAFA flag waving and especially not for the "Is it NAFA or the AFC that is pond scum" debate.

[Peregrinus]

Most falconers agree that giving up 4th and 1st Amendment rights to procure or maintain a falconry permit is unconstitutional. Politically, many of us agree on this. Still, there are a few people who have consistently, over the last 7 or 8 years, attempted to hijack threads on this AFC forum. It has
become boring and predictable. It has become clear that their problem is personal, not political, hence all of the hedging. For myself, I'll let it be. As this case moves forward, I'll post updates, (as new threads, so that they don't get buried under piles of troll posts). This is, essentially, a legacy platform, but I'll update as things unfold, so that those who may be interested can keep up. So, anti-AFC folks, keep trolling. But you'll not be able to deny for long that this is a great thing.

[Montucky]

First, I resent the implication that if I don't disagree with you that I am a partisan hack. My political affiliation is common sense. I vote for the guy or gal who seems to have their
act together and who is not interested in the partisan bickering that has paralyzed our political system.

Who is WE? AFC or falconers in general. The problem here is that the former is acting on behalf of the latter and not all of us agree with the direction they are going.

Post Operation Falconer there have not been very many instances of falconers 4th amendment rights being bruised never mind trampled. This seems to be a problem for the nanny state of California which believes they know better than you do what is good for you. I deal with their absurd labeling requirement for items which might contain potentially carcinogenic substances every day. It is a joke.

The problem here is that PLF is litigating about constitutional rights violations which have not yet happened. Their tearjerker video shows Fred Seaman who could be considered to have had his rights
violated but instead the plaintiffs are people who is worried about the same thing happening to them. I happen to think that Fred is an OK guy but he is also very opinionated (it takes one to know one LOL)
and tends to operate with his own interpretation of what should be legal. I am not saying that I don't agree with at least some of what he believes but he may also not make the best test case for this litigation and I gather that PLF is smart enough to know that so they used Plan B.

In addition, your assertions of 1st amendment issues is, in the words of Sherman Potter, horse pucky. Falconry is not a commercial pursuit and conservation law here in the US has long sought to
eliminate the commercialization of wildlife starting with Teddy Roosevelt and possibly even before. A falconry permit does not in any way infer the right to make money by doing educational presentations, bird shows or by appearing on the Late Show as a cool animal trick. It gives you right to use a bird of prey to pursue wild quarry and if you wish to talk to the Boy Scouts (oops, sorry... SCOUTS) about falconry and not get anything out of it beyond the cost of gas you are good to go. It is clear from the original complaint that the plaintiffs are interested in renumeration. If you wish to be Bill Nye the Bird Guy you can get an educational permit and stay out of jail.

PLF has no particular concern with what is good for falconers and using them for this litigation, regardless of the value of this particular litigation, lends credibility to PLF and their agenda.
Falconers are for the most part conservation minded people and PLF could care less about conservation.

I would also like to point out that I am sympathetic to a libertarian train of thought but keep in mind that libertarian doctrine taken to its most extreme level is called anarchy.

Let's get this straight. AFC is not out to do what is best for falconers in general. They are out to advance an extreme libertarian agenda which many falconers may or may not
agree with (and if the mess that they have in the UK is used as an example) may not be in the best interest of the future of falconry given the powerful animal rights and anti-hunting
organizations that seek to have us all building ships in bottles instead of going hawking.


I fifth that clapp
Ditto again :)

[rkumetz]

Most falconers agree that giving up 4th and 1st Amendment rights to procure or maintain a falconry permit is unconstitutional. Politically, many of us agree on this. Still, there are a few people who have consistently, over the last 7 or 8 years, attempted to hijack threads on this AFC forum. It has
become boring and predictable. It has become clear that their problem is personal, not political, hence all of the hedging. For myself, I'll let it be. As this case moves forward, I'll post updates, (as new threads, so that they don't get buried under piles of troll posts). This is, essentially, a legacy platform, but I'll update as things unfold, so that those who may be interested can keep up. So, anti-AFC folks, keep trolling. But you'll not be able to deny for long that this is a great thing.

Ah. Back to that again. You are right, we should not have to give up ANY of our rights to practice falconry. I have never suggested otherwise.
The question is, are we actually being asked to do so and is that what the PLF litigation is all about.

Please understand that I truly believe that you have the best of intentions. I have no doubt about that but....

You are pretty good at evasion. You you have made claims on behalf of AFC and I have asked respectful and relevant questions about the PLF litigation and its plaintiff's but all I have gotten in response is
an very offensive suggestion that I (or anyone who has questions or may disagree) do not care about constitutional rights and an accusation of being a troll.

I WAS an dues paying AFC member/supporter for a number of years. When AFC decided to put up those CNN or Fox News like clips of the Alaska debacle I decided that I was embarrassed to be
affiliated with the organization and let my membership expire. While I agree with some to many of the ideas expressed by a good number of AFC members I do not endorse, condone or
desire to support the tactics that AFC engages in. HOW you get what you want is often as important or more important than the desired result itself.

The purpose of a FORUM is to entertain meaningful dialog and share ideas and opinions in a respectful way. If the purpose of the thread was to simply announce your opinion about the
PLF litigation or the AFC's claims then perhaps putting it in the classifieds section where responses are not possible would have been a better idea. It is not really possible to hijack a
thread in which there is no actual discussion going?

As a matter of note, if you are truly interested in advancing the AFC cause then actually answering the questions that those who you accuse of being AFC detractors and trolls ask might
convince others to send you a check and join up if they like your answers. To be honest, if I thought AFC could behave like intelligent respectful adults I would send a check myself.

I think I may call Fred myself. I am sure he will tell me what he thinks.

[falcon56]

Geoff and Ron,
I wasn't in away trying to rock the boat, I was just making a statement. Geoff, I do appreciate that you support NAFA, whether begrudgingly or not. I can't say I've agreed with everything that NAFA has done, but I doubt any NAFA member can categorically state that they have totally supported everything either.
Ray

[Peregrinus]

Ron Kumetz writes: "You you have made claims on behalf of AFC and I have asked respectful and relevant questions about the PLF litigation and its plaintiff's but all I have gotten in response is an very offensive suggestion that I (or anyone who has questions or may disagree) do not care about constitutional rights and an accusation of being a troll. "

Ron I do not speak on behalf of the AFC. The 'respectful and relevant' questions to which you refer far predate any PLF litigation; anti-AFC posting on this forum has been an ongoing thing for many years. My POV is clear, as is yours. The only difference is that I don't troll forums. I will continue to post informational updates as they occur, and you're still as free as you've always been to make comments/ 'respectful and relevant' questions.

[frigginchi]

Good or bad it's in the hands of the courts now.

[goshawkr]

Post Operation Falconer there have not been very many instances of falconers 4th amendment rights being bruised never mind trampled. This seems to be a problem for the nanny state of California which believes they know better than you do what is good for you. I deal with their absurd labeling requirement for items which might contain potentially carcinogenic substances every day. It is a joke.

You have not been paying attention. But even if that were not the case, the mere potentiel for the jack booted goon squads to show up should be enough to raise alarm. Here are some brief summaries of examples from the last 20 years:



Region 1 of the US FWS lobbied hard for funding to create facilities to hold raptors seized by enforcement. The paint was not even dry on the building when they went out "hunting" for violations, using the administrative inspections, until they had all 9 chambers filled. The only case from this action I know in detail involved the seizure of a goshawk which died shortly afterwards in state custody. The falconer was cited, but charges were dropped because they were invalid. All 9 of the birds that were seized were over very tiny trivial violations or even imagined violations.
Several inspections occurred here in Washington about 9 years ago. A particularly nefarious aspect of those inspections is that all known friends of the falconer being inspected were also inspected. In one of those cases, Federal DEA agents showed up the next day based on what the US FWS agent saw during their inspection, and they were popped for their medical marijuana.
When the federal rules were revised, the US FWS region overseeing Calfiornia set out to inspect every single permittee. Some of these individual cases led to serious problems - eggs getting broken while looking for band numbers, etc.
A friend of mine - who asked me yesterday to keep the details vague - was inspected several times over the course of a few weeks until the agent finally found something that he could be cited over. The citation had no legal validity outside of the imagination of the enforcement officer and in the imagination of the US FWS bureaucrat who was using the inspection as a way to punish someone for doing something that was perfectly legal, but she did not personally approve of. This friend is well known by name to everyone reading this, and well respected and always above board in behavior. The fallout of this was a major restriction being added into the revised federal rules a few years later.


I am completely and utterly baffled that such a high percentage of falconers is actually supportive, and some even proud, of the fact that the US FWS and State Game agencies can inspect them at any time. This does not make you the special anointed elite, it makes you the [potential] victim of a federal agency. Whether that agency abuses its power currently is immaterial. The federal government can generally be divided into two sections: those departments that have recently been caught abusing their power, and those that have not been caught yet.

Just what is it that we gain by these inspections? Not a damn thing.

Sure, they usually pretty innoculous when they happen. But the stark reality is this: the agent inspecting you is there for one reason - to look for any rule violations and charge you for them. As bad as this is, its made even worse because the rules are so complex that it is not at all unusual for legal action to be taken because the authorities do not understand those rules themselves (I cited two examples of this above). Not to mention how common it is for falconers to naively violate some portion of these ridiculously complex rules because they did not understand them.

And before I wander off and babble about something else... I have seen a text sent to one falconer by another stating that it was his "right" to have an inspection triggered because he did not approve of what the other falconer was doing. Thankfully, this was an idle threat, and it happened in Washington where it would go absolutely no where, but if those two falconers were in one of the states that view falconers as crooks that have not yet been rounded up it could have gone very differently if it were more than an idle threat.


In addition, your assertions of 1st amendment issues is, in the words of Sherman Potter, horse pucky. Falconry is not a commercial pursuit and conservation law here in the US has long sought to
eliminate the commercialization of wildlife starting with Teddy Roosevelt and possibly even before. A falconry permit does not in any way infer the right to make money by doing educational presentations, bird shows or by appearing on the Late Show as a cool animal trick.

A falconry permit conveys the right to own a bird of prey. The prohibitions on free speech using a privately owned animal that is held in captivity which are in the current regulations have no relevance whatsoever to protecting wildlife.

The MBTA has, at its core, protections against commercial exploitation of our native bird life. Indeed, it came into being precisely because of that. At the time it was put in place, it was very fashionable for women to decorate their hats with a dead bird, and many species were facing extinction due to unregulated and unsustainable commercial hunting of birds for that trade.

It really does not matter if falconry is a commercial pursuit or if it is not. And in fact, your statement that it is not applies to you but does not necessarily apply more generally. Currently, in the Arabian world, its quite common for falconers to be commercially hired hands. And in fact, MBTA permits are issued to corporations all the time, so its quite possible for a corporation to obtain a falconry permit. That by its very definition would be commercial falconry.

I can really dive deep on examples of this lunacy - but here is a simple one to understand. The Afleck duck is a MBTA protected bird, used commercially (the live one that is occasionally used, not the CGI one). This is not in any way a conservation issue. It has no relevance, positive or negative, on the wild duck populations. Just like it wouldnt if some Hollywood producer wanted to pay me a zillion dollars to fly a redtail over a lake while his camera was rolling. Or if the rock star that filmed my goshawk flying so he could use images in one of his music videos had bought me lunch in gratitude instead of me just doing it as a favor. Or if I had been compensated for my time and effort during one of the many times that I have let artists use my bird as a model for their work.

Referring to your jab at the "Bill Nye the Bird Guy" - there are several examples of falconers using their birds semi or fully commercially that did great things for conservation because of it. Morley Nelson is probably the very best example, but there are others that you have heard of and seen on your very own boob tube. But that is actually completely irrelevant. The real point is that it is an abuse of power to limit your free speech with your privately owned and held wild raptor. And its even more of an abuse of power with your private held and owned captive bred raptor.


PLF has no particular concern with what is good for falconers and using them for this litigation, regardless of the value of this particular litigation, lends credibility to PLF and their agenda.
Falconers are for the most part conservation minded people and PLF could care less about conservation.

You keep bringing that up - but I am absolutely baffled at why this is relevant. Is it somehow more sacred if the lawyers are falconers? Does that make the case more pure?

The PLF core agenda overlaps our collective interests in this manner. They are just the hired gun (yes, the currency is prestige and bragging rights, but so what.....) The core concern of the PLF, in this case, is that the US governement is not respecting constitutional rights and is overstepping its authority. Just as simple, and as relevant, as that.


Let's get this straight. AFC is not out to do what is best for falconers in general.

According to whom? Who is the appointed potentate that decides which actions are best for falconers in general?? It is pretty obvious that the AFC is doing this precisely because they believe it is best for falconers in general, and I am certain that they are correct - in this particular case.

As I said before, I am not an AFC member, and I am not speaking for them. I have been very critical of some of their actions and of some of their leaders. But there has never been any doubt in my mind that they are doing what they believe is best for other falconers. As a dear friend of mine used to be very fond of saying "No one gets out of the bed in morning and says 'how can I f@#$^% things up today?'" Some do a remarkable job of appearing to have planned that out on purpose, but that is rarely if the case.

I could easily make that very same statement about NAFA over on the NAFA sub forum, but I would consider that to be very poor form.


If you believe there should be no rules then you are.

Actually, that is precisely the point.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service and the state agencies are NOT following the rules. They are expressly forbidden to require administrative inspections in Migratory Bird permits. Congress put that language in the MBTA. That is apart from the 4th amendment protections being stomped on here. Well, actually, my state currently requires its agents to have a warrant before an inspection goes down, but that is a rare exception.

But there are two constitutionally enshrined rights that the USFWS is pissing on, which is an even bigger issue.

And that is without even bringing up other rights that are being trounced on here - like for example the common practice of the State and Federal agents to seize wild taken birds without any due process because they do not view them as private property (It is well established law going back to the 1600s in the US that natural resources, including wildlife, become private property when taken into private possession) This is very closely tied to the inspections because it is quite rare for a bird to be seized except for during an inspection. Its actually not unusual for a seizure to spontaneously occur during an inspection.

To turn all this back around to you and all of the "dittos".... just what EXACTLY is gained by us by having the inspections in place? What do falconers gain by being legally prevented from getting hired to fly their bird in front of a camera, or have their hawk hooded in the back of a booth at a trade show, or even by a very strict interpretation use the image of their hawk or any other in the logo of their company? I know dozens and dozens of falconers that could be in serious jeopardy over that last one.

One last thought: Martin Niemöller words always seem to apply when this is brought up.


First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a socialist.




Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a trade unionist.




Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.




Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

[rkumetz]

Geoff,
Since the OP is not interested in answering any questions or discussing the issue I have started a new thread to avoid hijacking this one any further.
As you are aware, I will be happy to have this spirited debate there though I suspect over a beer would be more enjoyable.

http://www.nafex.net/showthread.php?26417-Falconry-Regs-vs-Constitutional-Rights&p=397739&posted=1#post397739
Ron

[jclarkson]

[QUOTE=wyodjm;397684]The longer I practice falconry and attempt to stay informed with the various issues that affect the sport, the more I'm convinced that falconers are their own worst enemy.

Amen!

[jdrmd]

Geoff,
Since the OP is not interested in answering any questions or discussing the issue I have started a new thread to avoid hijacking this one any further.
As you are aware, I will be happy to have this spirited debate there though I suspect over a beer would be more enjoyable.

http://www.nafex.net/showthread.php?26417-Falconry-Regs-vs-Constitutional-Rights&p=397739&posted=1#post397739
Ron

That is the Ron I have come to know on this list. Never saw you 'triggered' like you were earlier in the discussion.

[rkumetz]

That is the Ron I have come to know on this list. Never saw you 'triggered' like you were earlier in the discussion.

Thanks (I think)
I think this is an important issue and I think that falconers need to discuss it whether in heated debate or over a beer and present a united front to the rest of the world.
It doesn't matter what we say to each other when nobody else is paying attention but when we have rival organizations claiming to represent falconers that is a problem.

Emotions have to be kept out of it. If someone disagrees with you (1st amendment right LOL) that doesn't mean they are calling you a moron or saying your opinion is irrelevant. As I understand it there was quite a bit of shouting at the meetings where they drafted the constitution in the first place so this has been going on for a while.

[JRedig]

So would anyone who knows the detail care to share what actually happened to fred seaman with the visit from enforcement? From what i'm hearing, it's a bogus story to begin with, so the fact that it landed here as the driver for a court case is incredibly suspicious. I hope that's not the case and I hope the court doesn't dig in to hard if what i've heard is the truth. Anybody know?

[ehh]

First, I resent the implication that if I don't disagree with you that I am a partisan hack. My political affiliation is common sense. I vote for the guy or gal who seems to have their
act together and who is not interested in the partisan bickering that has paralyzed our political system.

Who is WE? AFC or falconers in general. The problem here is that the former is acting on behalf of the latter and not all of us agree with the direction they are going.

Post Operation Falconer there have not been very many instances of falconers 4th amendment rights being bruised never mind trampled. This seems to be a problem for the nanny state of California which believes they know better than you do what is good for you. I deal with their absurd labeling requirement for items which might contain potentially carcinogenic substances every day. It is a joke.

The problem here is that PLF is litigating about constitutional rights violations which have not yet happened. Their tearjerker video shows Fred Seaman who could be considered to have had his rights
violated but instead the plaintiffs are people who is worried about the same thing happening to them. I happen to think that Fred is an OK guy but he is also very opinionated (it takes one to know one LOL)
and tends to operate with his own interpretation of what should be legal. I am not saying that I don't agree with at least some of what he believes but he may also not make the best test case for this litigation and I gather that PLF is smart enough to know that so they used Plan B.

In addition, your assertions of 1st amendment issues is, in the words of Sherman Potter, horse pucky. Falconry is not a commercial pursuit and conservation law here in the US has long sought to
eliminate the commercialization of wildlife starting with Teddy Roosevelt and possibly even before. A falconry permit does not in any way infer the right to make money by doing educational presentations, bird shows or by appearing on the Late Show as a cool animal trick. It gives you right to use a bird of prey to pursue wild quarry and if you wish to talk to the Boy Scouts (oops, sorry... SCOUTS) about falconry and not get anything out of it beyond the cost of gas you are good to go. It is clear from the original complaint that the plaintiffs are interested in renumeration. If you wish to be Bill Nye the Bird Guy you can get an educational permit and stay out of jail.

PLF has no particular concern with what is good for falconers and using them for this litigation, regardless of the value of this particular litigation, lends credibility to PLF and their agenda.
Falconers are for the most part conservation minded people and PLF could care less about conservation.

I would also like to point out that I am sympathetic to a libertarian train of thought but keep in mind that libertarian doctrine taken to its most extreme level is called anarchy.

Let's get this straight. AFC is not out to do what is best for falconers in general. They are out to advance an extreme libertarian agenda which many falconers may or may not
agree with (and if the mess that they have in the UK is used as an example) may not be in the best interest of the future of falconry given the powerful animal rights and anti-hunting
organizations that seek to have us all building ships in bottles instead of going hawking.

I couldn't bare to read this thread until now, when I did for some reason. Thanks so much, you've done a small bit to restore my hope for the world.

[rkumetz]

So would anyone who knows the detail care to share what actually happened to fred seaman with the visit from enforcement? From what i'm hearing, it's a bogus story to begin with, so the fact that it landed here as the driver for a court case is incredibly suspicious. I hope that's not the case and I hope the court doesn't dig in to hard if what i've heard is the truth. Anybody know?

You are not allowed to ask questions. Didn't you learn from my naughty behavior? Geez Jeff...... confusedd

[redbird1]

Geoff I agree with your lengthy post - line by line. And to be clear, I have no horrified fear of the potential outcomes that might occur if falconry were largely deregulated - frankly, I think it should be. I see no reason that ownership of captive raised raptor’s should be treated differently than any other captive bred animal (including eagles). Obviously, WC animals require some protection as a shared natural resource - but falconry regs are overkill. I am older than most - I grew up in a time when youngsters routinely kept wild babies of all species during the course of their childhood - with little government interference and no real bad outcomes. I remain befuddled by rules in my state that allow killing such animals - but not keeping them. I don’t need to be over-regulated and pass through series of government-created hoops to feel safe - or to feel elite. I just want to do as I please; harming no one. That is how I grew up - but then, I grew up in a different America.

[Montucky]

A couple of points that should be the starting point of this conversation:

Subchapter B of 50CFR Part 13 set the over-arching terms for all permits such as Taxidermy, Education, Falconry, rehab etc. In 13.47 you will see that the inspection requirement is an umbrella requirement for all permits relating to bird possession. So it's not like its some crazy thing applied only to falconry.
§ 13.47 Inspection requirement.
Any person holding a permit under this subchapter B shall allow the Director's agent to enter his premises at any reasonable hour to inspect any wildlife or plant held or to inspect, audit, or copy any permits, books, or records required to be kept by regulations of this subchapter B.

50CFR allows someone to hold a permit for education, abatement, eagle exhibition, rehab or whatever; and folks are allowed to conduct unrestrained commercial activity with non-MBTA species. Taken together its a pretty hard argument to claim the government is impinging on one's rights. If the plaintiffs want to do education, then get an education permit and do education. Let's not forget that the feedback loop between commerce and exploitation is at the very essence of why the MBTA came to be in the first place. The law was not written and maintained in law solely to address 1918 conditions.

As most people can understand, falconry is only as true to form as the people practicing it. The original authors of the regs were falconers who had a concern for the birds and a concern for falconry first and foremost. Its based on an understanding that falconry can quickly morph into something else...unless we set some sideboards for those entering into the practice. And we care about the birds - right?. We dont need our native wildlife, captive bred or otherwise, becoming a pure commodity in commerce, or the voices behind that perspective becoming majority members of our community.

What is often hard for folks to appreciate is that the wildlife agencies are our most important allies - even when they sometimes suck. They institutionally recognize and support traditional hunting practices and are the most insulated from the political influence of animal rights lobbyists. They pay their mortgage from sportsman dollars...literally.

If we truly deregulate captive bred birds or others away from wildlife agency control (by classifying them from wildlife to domestic animals)...it will still fall under the oversight of someone. Who would that be? State and federal Department of Ag or county or municipal animal services. Animal rights groups have a growing sphere of influence in these sectors...there is no telling what inspection requirements would come forth. Certainly not ones written by our own community, and likely requirements not in the interests if the birds.

I support our forefather's order of priorities: 1) the birds 2) the practice of falconry 3) the falconer

[wyodjm]

John,

I've always thought that good, sound regulations would protect falconry more than some bureaucrat! I'm not talking about field personnel, but the administrators who come and go. Promulgated regulations give us legitimacy and withstand arbitrary and fickle interpretive administration.

Years ago, I lobbied to have good, sound regulations for eagle take and basically had them, endorsed by George Allen, but something happened and the proposed regulations were sabotaged and changed. This is verifiable! Right when the states were to take over the administration of falconry.

Too much time has gone by to make any reasonable stab at fixing them at this point. I wouldn't know where to start. The politics and language of eagle regulations today is extremely convoluted!

Promulgated regulations that protected the eagle resource, were fair, and enforceable would have been the way to go. That's all we wanted.

Bureaucrats can have fairly inflated egos also. I've heard it said that ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity! :)

[joekoz]

A couple of points that should be the starting point of this conversation:

Subchapter B of 50CFR Part 13 set the over-arching terms for all permits such as Taxidermy, Education, Falconry, rehab etc. In 13.47 you will see that the inspection requirement is an umbrella requirement for all permits relating to bird possession. So it's not like its some crazy thing applied only to falconry.
§ 13.47 Inspection requirement.
Any person holding a permit under this subchapter B shall allow the Director's agent to enter his premises at any reasonable hour to inspect any wildlife or plant held or to inspect, audit, or copy any permits, books, or records required to be kept by regulations of this subchapter B.

50CFR allows someone to hold a permit for education, abatement, eagle exhibition, rehab or whatever; and folks are allowed to conduct unrestrained commercial activity with non-MBTA species. Taken together its a pretty hard argument to claim the government is impinging on one's rights. If the plaintiffs want to do education, then get an education permit and do education. Let's not forget that the feedback loop between commerce and exploitation is at the very essence of why the MBTA came to be in the first place. The law was not written and maintained in law solely to address 1918 conditions.

As most people can understand, falconry is only as true to form as the people practicing it. The original authors of the regs were falconers who had a concern for the birds and a concern for falconry first and foremost. Its based on an understanding that falconry can quickly morph into something else...unless we set some sideboards for those entering into the practice. And we care about the birds - right?. We dont need our native wildlife, captive bred or otherwise, becoming a pure commodity in commerce, or the voices behind that perspective becoming majority members of our community.

What is often hard for folks to appreciate is that the wildlife agencies are our most important allies - even when they sometimes suck. They institutionally recognize and support traditional hunting practices and are the most insulated from the political influence of animal rights lobbyists. They pay their mortgage from sportsman dollars...literally.

If we truly deregulate captive bred birds or others away from wildlife agency control (by classifying them from wildlife to domestic animals)...it will still fall under the oversight of someone. Who would that be? State and federal Department of Ag or county or municipal animal services. Animal rights groups have a growing sphere of influence in these sectors...there is no telling what inspection requirements would come forth. Certainly not ones written by our own community, and likely requirements not in the interests if the birds.

I support our forefather's order of priorities: 1) the birds 2) the practice of falconry 3) the falconer

John:

When I was a boy back in the 50’s I learned an important lesson based upon the concept that “A Little Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing”.

All too often opinions are formed after only being exposed to a small piece of information regarding a subject without understanding the “Rest of the Story”.

Just want you to know that I appreciate the in-depth knowledge you bring and share in many of your posts on this forum.

[Tanner]

I vehemently oppose the commercial use of wild-taken raptors. That agenda is a serious threat to the future of wild take in this country.

I dont care if people want to use captive bred raptors for monetary gain- have at it. However, hawk walks, abatement, showbusiness, and pet keeping are not falconry. Those activities should have their own set of regulations. Labeling those activities as “falconry” jeopardizes the legitimacy of falconry.

If this legal action is about stopping warantless searches- stick to that topic and fix it. The status of birds as private private property and commercial use of raptors is a separate question and should not be rolled into this legal action.

I dont appreciate the way the AFC regularly presumes to know what is best for all of falconry and speaks up loudly on “our behalf”. I find their approach abrasive, poorly concieved and counter productive.

[wyodjm]

All too often opinions are formed after only being exposed to a small piece of information regarding a subject without understanding the “Rest of the Story”.

This is becoming common with social media today!

[Captain Gizmo]

NAFA Counsel and assistants, plus the TAC committee have spent the last couple weeks reading and analyzing the material in this suit, both the plaintiffs brief and the laws it will address. NAFA is at this time in the process of drafting an opinion statement.

Though not legally trained I am personally able at reading dense documents. I believe that if I were to put in 100 hours of diligent study (possibly with a bit of expert guidance) I would have a basic understanding of the filed complaint, the laws it will work under, and the foreseeable results and consequences, leaving only the inevitable unforeseen consequences to fear.

Until such time as I do put in the needed study I will refrain from presenting an opinion.

Due and Considered Regards,
Thomas of the Desert

[JRedig]

This is becoming common with social media today!

Becoming? It has been the norm for years already.

[Montucky]

John:

When I was a boy back in the 50’s I learned an important lesson based upon the concept that “A Little Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing”.

All too often opinions are formed after only being exposed to a small piece of information regarding a subject without understanding the “Rest of the Story”.

Just want you to know that I appreciate the in-depth knowledge you bring and share in many of your posts on this forum.



Aw shucks ;)

[Montucky]

A paper giving some critical context regarding falconry legalization and NAFA's history in developing the federal regs. I feel very indebted to Carnie and others who put in this hard work

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/f0eo4w6qntkjxg4/AABAG6AgH2TtNODeV6aKRPWEa?dl=0

[falcon56]

I vehemently oppose the commercial use of wild-taken raptors. That agenda is a serious threat to the future of wild take in this country.

I dont care if people want to use captive bred raptors for monetary gain- have at it. However, hawk walks, abatement, showbusiness, and pet keeping are not falconry. Those activities should have their own set of regulations. Labeling those activities as “falconry” jeopardizes the legitimacy of falconry.

If this legal action is about stopping warantless searches- stick to that topic and fix it. The status of birds as private private property and commercial use of raptors is a separate question and should not be rolled into this legal action.

I dont appreciate the way the AFC regularly presumes to know what is best for all of falconry and speaks up loudly on “our behalf”. I find their approach abrasive, poorly concieved and counter productive.

clapp

[rkumetz]

You guys are brave. I got accused of being a troll for asking questions like these so I started my own thread to have an intelligent discussion.
You are welcome to move this discussion there lest you all become trolls. There is not enough room under the bridge for all of us! :)

http://www.nafex.net/showthread.php?26417-Falconry-Regs-vs-Constitutional-Rights

[rkumetz]

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/caedce/1:2018cv01505/345441

[goshawkr]

I vehemently oppose the commercial use of wild-taken raptors. That agenda is a serious threat to the future of wild take in this country.

I dont care if people want to use captive bred raptors for monetary gain- have at it.

B .S.

It is commonly stated that commercialization is a threat to wildlife, but those arguments are quite hollow and collapse with any critical examination of them. There is absolutely nothing that makes non-commercial use more sacred than commercial use. And the wild populations have no concern over whether they are harvested for commercial reasons, purely recreational reasons, or any other reason.

Wildlife management is really quite simple - the deficits to the population (natural mortality, hunting pressure, habitat impacts, etc.) have to be lower than the ability of the population to replenish itself. If that stupid simple formula is followed, it does not make any difference what the motivations are behind the human induced impacts. The passenger pigeon was not exterminated due to commercial hunting, it was exterminated because that commercial hunting was not managed in a sustainable way. There are plenty of other examples of commercial harvest devastating wildlife populations, including the ones that inspired the MBTA to begin with. There are also several examples of unsustainable recreational harvest devastating wildlife populations.

So tell, me, just how exactly is the commercial use of a wild taken raptor the death knell of falconry as we all enjoy it?

BTW - commercial use of wild taken raptors has been alive and well in the US since the mid 80s when the sale of captive bred progeny was formerly allowed.


However, hawk walks, abatement, showbusiness, and pet keeping are not falconry. Those activities should have their own set of regulations. Labeling those activities as “falconry” jeopardizes the legitimacy of falconry.

Rest assured, someone else doing other activities with a falconry bird is not going to water down your legitimacy as a falconer anywhere else but inside your own mind. All of us are pet keepers a good share of the time, so be careful about throwing that particular stone around. And the core contention is what you are able to do with a private owned raptor held under a falconry permit in addition to hunting with it.


If this legal action is about stopping warantless searches- stick to that topic and fix it. The status of birds as private private property and commercial use of raptors is a separate question and should not be rolled into this legal action.

The topic at the core of the suit is about a federal agency illegally trouncing constitutional rights. Thats one issue, even though there are two specific rights that the AFC believes have been stomped upon. Simple enough.


I dont appreciate the way the AFC regularly presumes to know what is best for all of falconry and speaks up loudly on “our behalf”. I find their approach abrasive, poorly concieved and counter productive.

And just why do you think it is appropriate to bash the AFC in their own house? This is the AFC sub forum, and at best this is very bad manners. Disagree with them, fine. But AFC bashing in the AFC forum is extremely poor taste.

[goshawkr]

A couple of points that should be the starting point of this conversation:

Subchapter B of 50CFR Part 13 set the over-arching terms for all permits such as Taxidermy, Education, Falconry, rehab etc. In 13.47 you will see that the inspection requirement is an umbrella requirement for all permits relating to bird possession. So it's not like its some crazy thing applied only to falconry.
§ 13.47 Inspection requirement.
Any person holding a permit under this subchapter B shall allow the Director's agent to enter his premises at any reasonable hour to inspect any wildlife or plant held or to inspect, audit, or copy any permits, books, or records required to be kept by regulations of this subchapter B.

ah, so because the FWS is already violating the 4th amendment with other permits, it is OK for them to do so with falconers?

No one is actually suggesting that the FWS and state agencies should not be able to enforce the rules. The argument here is simply that they should, like any other law enforcement agency, have to have enough probable cause of wrong doing to get a judge to sign off on a warrant before they invade our collective metaphorical castles. Probable cause is a pretty low legal bar - it just means the officer is 51% certain.


50CFR allows someone to hold a permit for education, abatement, eagle exhibition, rehab or whatever; and folks are allowed to conduct unrestrained commercial activity with non-MBTA species. Taken together its a pretty hard argument to claim the government is impinging on one's rights. If the plaintiffs want to do education, then get an education permit and do education. Let's not forget that the feedback loop between commerce and exploitation is at the very essence of why the MBTA came to be in the first place. The law was not written and maintained in law solely to address 1918 conditions.

Actually, I ran this by my apprentice who is a recently graduated lawyer. He is quick to admit he is not a constitutional attorney, but his take on this is that he thought this end of the suit will fall flat. He thinks there are plenty of examples where courts have OK the government from nibbling away at free speech. I asked him how that fell in line with "...shall not be infringed..." and he laughed and said that was a good question.

The feedback loop between commerce and exploitation is noted, but in this case is completely out of line and irrelevant. It is a completely inane line that has been drawn. The wild populations are not impacted in the slightest if the goshawk that I already have for falconry is filmed for commercial reasons during her off time. Or for that matter if someone totes along a camera while I am hunting and sells the footage. This is currently completely legal, provided that the producer does not compensate me in any way. I will even take this a step further - 4 years ago my goshawk was filmed by someone who was in the field with me to use in a rock video. US FWS is welcome to come bust me on that right now if they think I acted illegally. The guy who did it did not compensate me beyond thanking me. If he had so much as bought me a coke afterwards though, the current regs would call that illegal commercial use.

It is now in the hands of a court case to examine this. I think its pretty simple. The USFWS is infringing on my freedom of speech in terms of how I use my lawfully aquired, lawfully held, and privately owned wild taken goshawk by saying that I was not able to accept a token of gratitude in the above example. It is irrelevant if that gratitude was a candy bar or a sports car in my mind. Its a matter of principal.


And we care about the birds - right?. We dont need our native wildlife, captive bred or otherwise, becoming a pure commodity in commerce, or the voices behind that perspective becoming majority members of our community.

I am still waiting for the compelling argument from anyone at all on why these two things are contradictions. They simply are not.


What is often hard for folks to appreciate is that the wildlife agencies are our most important allies - even when they sometimes suck. They institutionally recognize and support traditional hunting practices and are the most insulated from the political influence of animal rights lobbyists. They pay their mortgage from sportsman dollars...literally.

Maybe you are taking this more personally than is warranted. I did not hear or see anyone say that the wildlife agencies were the enemy.

There is some very real potential for an abuse of authority, and this potential is far from imaginary. It has actually factually been realized. I detailed some of the most recent examples in post 25 (although in the first one I mentioned, I had the US FWS region wrong - it was region 6 based in Denver, and not region 1). There have been examples of Permit officials overstepping their authority in both Region 1 (North Pacific) and in Region 6. The 4th amendment is intended to be a check on this abuse of authority and power, to some degree.


If we truly deregulate captive bred birds or others away from wildlife agency control (by classifying them from wildlife to domestic animals)...it will still fall under the oversight of someone. Who would that be? State and federal Department of Ag or county or municipal animal services. Animal rights groups have a growing sphere of influence in these sectors...there is no telling what inspection requirements would come forth. Certainly not ones written by our own community, and likely requirements not in the interests if the birds.

This has not been any problem at all with the completely and utterly deregulated sale of non MBTA raptors. I fail to be convinced that this will change at all with the deregulation of MBTA captive bred raptors.... which is a complete red herring anyway as that is not part of this discussion or suit.

The USFWS actually offered to completely deregulate captive bred MBTA raptors - just like they do with captive waterfowl - until NAFA decided the sky was falling because that would mean we could do anything we wanted with our captive bred birds and did a chicken little routine and insisted that the offer be withdrawn. Thanks NAFA.... (and before anyone bitches, I am a NAFA member and I am NOT posting this in the NAFA forum.....)

[Tanner]

Thanks for sharing your mental diarrhea Geoff. I stand by what I said (that is, what I said....not what you misread and/or misconstrued).

And a criticism of the AFC in this section of the forum is exactly where it belongs.

[Joel Belcher]

B .S.

It is commonly stated that commercialization is a threat to wildlife, but those arguments are quite hollow and collapse with any critical examination of them. There is absolutely nothing that makes non-commercial use more sacred than commercial use. And the wild populations have no concern over whether they are harvested for commercial reasons, purely recreational reasons, or any other reason.

Wildlife management is really quite simple - the deficits to the population (natural mortality, hunting pressure, habitat impacts, etc.) have to be lower than the ability of the population to replenish itself. If that stupid simple formula is followed, it does not make any difference what the motivations are behind the human induced impacts. The passenger pigeon was not exterminated due to commercial hunting, it was exterminated because that commercial hunting was not managed in a sustainable way. There are plenty of other examples of commercial harvest devastating wildlife populations, including the ones that inspired the MBTA to begin with. There are also several examples of unsustainable recreational harvest devastating wildlife populations.

So tell, me, just how exactly is the commercial use of a wild taken raptor the death knell of falconry as we all enjoy it?

BTW - commercial use of wild taken raptors has been alive and well in the US since the mid 80s when the sale of captive bred progeny was formerly allowed.



Rest assured, someone else doing other activities with a falconry bird is not going to water down your legitimacy as a falconer anywhere else but inside your own mind. All of us are pet keepers a good share of the time, so be careful about throwing that particular stone around. And the core contention is what you are able to do with a private owned raptor held under a falconry permit in addition to hunting with it.



The topic at the core of the suit is about a federal agency illegally trouncing constitutional rights. Thats one issue, even though there are two specific rights that the AFC believes have been stomped upon. Simple enough.



And just why do you think it is appropriate to bash the AFC in their own house? This is the AFC sub forum, and at best this is very bad manners. Disagree with them, fine. But AFC bashing in the AFC forum is extremely poor taste.

Geoff,

You make some really good points. It seems we as falconers, and hunters in general, like to think we can take a purely scientific, unbiased view of wildlife management and rely on sound biological data when making decisions for the best way to manage our resources for sustainability. Except when we are given that option, then our passions come in to play. We throw scientific data out the window and let emotions take over. The exact same thing we accuse the animal rights activists of doing. We have no problem regulating coyotes, wolves, bears or other predators with hunting, but I can't imagine the outcry if there was even a single permit issued annually for the hunting of a Bald Eagle. Even if the biological data supported it, and I think it would, the falconry community would cry foul. Based on what? Resource sustainability? As much as we hate to admit it we are just as susceptible to irrational reasoning for the protection of the birds we enjoy.

We often hear falconers berate each other for not hunting their bird enough or just being a 'pet keeper' while it is totally acceptable to retire a perfectly healthy, vibrant bird to a breeding chamber (for commercial use) at two to three years of age. How is holding a bird in a breeding chamber and never hunting it any different than someone who lets their falconry bird sit in a chamber?

Sorry if this has gotten off topic. I am not one to comment very often as I don't think comments given in a forum always come across as intended. Just to be clear, I am in no way advocating raptor hunting and I am just as guilty as anyone for allowing irrational feelings guide my views of raptor protection.

Respectfully,

Joel Belcher

[wyodjm]

Geoff,

You make some really good points. It seems we as falconers, and hunters in general, like to think we can take a purely scientific, unbiased view of wildlife management and rely on sound biological data when making decisions for the best way to manage our resources for sustainability. Except when we are given that option, then our passions come in to play. We throw scientific data out the window and let emotions take over. The exact same thing we accuse the animal rights activists of doing. We have no problem regulating coyotes, wolves, bears or other predators with hunting, but I can't imagine the outcry if there was even a single permit issued annually for the hunting of a Bald Eagle. Even if the biological data supported it, and I think it would, the falconry community would cry foul. Based on what? Resource sustainability? As much as we hate to admit it we are just as susceptible to irrational reasoning for the protection of the birds we enjoy.

We often hear falconers berate each other for not hunting their bird enough or just being a 'pet keeper' while it is totally acceptable to retire a perfectly healthy, vibrant bird to a breeding chamber (for commercial use) at two to three years of age. How is holding a bird in a breeding chamber and never hunting it any different than someone who lets their falconry bird sit in a chamber?

Sorry if this has gotten off topic. I am not one to comment very often as I don't think comments given in a forum always come across as intended. Just to be clear, I am in no way advocating raptor hunting and I am just as guilty as anyone for allowing irrational feelings guide my views of raptor protection.

Respectfully,

Joel Belcher

I liked your comments Joel! Thanks!

All my best,

[wyodjm]

Thanks for sharing your mental diarrhea Geoff. I stand by what I said (that is, what I said....not what you misread and/or misconstrued).

And a criticism of the AFC in this section of the forum is exactly where it belongs.

I'm opposed to the commercialization of wild-taken raptors also. It's not that far fetched to imagine the nightmare that could potentially create.

On the topic of criticising the AFC, NAFA has its own dirty laundry. Its own power cluster of personalities who think their opinions and agendas speak for all licensed falconers in the U.S. Hasn't anyone read Carnie's book? :)

I don't have any answers. Heaven forbid if anyone actually does and doesn't fit neatly within the inner sanctum of the current politically correct rat pack! :)

What do falconers want? What long term goals should we be discussing to ensure falconry's future? Can the AFC and NAFA coexist, each with different, but interfacing missions? Are people so desensitized that any dialog is going to be considered "mental diarrhea"? :)

[Tanner]

Are people so desensitized that any dialog is going to be considered "mental diarrhea"? :)

Dialog can occur when people actually read/understand/address what another has said, rather than spewing every piece of minutia that occurs to them.

[wyodjm]

Dialog can occur when people actually read/understand/address what another has said, rather than spewing every piece of minutia that occurs to them.

I agree. So where do we go from here? I think most of us have lost our chance of a first impression! :)

[rkumetz]

Geoff,
I am going to have to disagree about the inappropriate nature of being critical of AFC in this area. This is a public forum not their living room. If you post something on a public forum then it is fair for anyone to respond as long as they do it in a respectful way, don't get personal and act like adults. Hopefully AFC is not run by a
bunch of millennials with swollen heads over their participation trophys who can understand that disagreeing with them is not a personal attack.

With respect to your comments about regulating wildlife I agree with your premise which essentially that sustainable take need not differentiate between what is done with the animals harvested (falconry, bird shows, eat them, etc.) but you are ignoring the fact that ANY take is under attack by emotional nuts who think that all of nature is for us to see and not touch. Hey kid don't turn over that rock and pick up a salamander or we will arrest you.....

Your interpretation of the constitution is not necessarily incorrect but then again since nobody cloned any of the guys who wrote it I can't be sure that it is
correct either. All of this boils down to a debate in a courtroom where we could gain a little or lose everything. The court system is supposed to be impartial
but it has never been and never will be free of the influence of politics. Do we really want to kick that bees' nest given that falconers represent an insignificant
number of votes and will never be heard over the loud voices, lobbying power and media access that the animal rights groups have?

In a perfect world you are absolutely correct. As long as we don't eat too many bald eagles it doesn't matter that we are eating them. Unfortunately
this is far from a perfect world. Keep in mind that this is one of the few countries where wild take is legal. It has remained so because even Audubon is ok
with "properly regulated falconry". I am having fun with my falconry. I have talked to you while you are driving along so I know you are not hold up in a bunker
somewhere waiting for the black SUVs and helicopters so I also suspect you are having fun with yours as well. So what exactly is so bad with the situation?

Again. Does the possible benefit to poking the bees' nest justify the potential that things won't go our way?

[rkumetz]

I agree. So where do we go from here? I think most of us have lost our chance of a first impression! :)

You know Dan, that is a really good observation. I think we all need to keep these discussions in perspective.

First and foremost is not taking things personally.

We have probably all been guilty of hitting enter once or twice before we contemplate how people might interpret what we are about to say as well.

Civility is something that seems to be lost in our society these days.

(although this could all just be random minutia that occurred to me :) your mileage may vary! )

[goshawkr]

I'm opposed to the commercialization of wild-taken raptors also. It's not that far fetched to imagine the nightmare that could potentially create.

I would concede that a great starting point for commercial use of raptors would to be to say it should be with captive bred only, although as I mentioned I see no rational difference to forbid this for wild taken birds, provided the take from the wild is sustainable. I do not agree that there will be a sudden glut of impact on the wild raptor population for a commercial use here or there. There just is not that kind of demand out there. As has already been pointed out, any demand for hawks in commercial uses is already being filled with non MBTA birds or more usually by Computer Animation.

Arguably one the very best single things that ever happened for the conservation of raptors was when Morley Nelson and his sons began using wild taken golden eagles and other wild taken raptors in the film industry for some of Walt Disney's (back when he still ran the company personally) nature films. At the time, neither eagles nor raptors were protected by the MBTA. This was a leading cause for the public perception of raptors to shift from viewing raptors as the serial killers of nature to something worthy of respect and protection.

With the insatiable appetite in the Arabian world for falcons, I suppose I could conceive of a way that commercial harvest and sale could be impactful to falconry. But that commercial influence is already at play with gyrfalcon and even to a lesser degree peregrine harvest. I have a few friends that make a decent amount of money selling captive bred falcons to the Arabs, and this certainly has an impact on the value of wild gyrfalcons and desire to get these wild falcons into breeding programs so their progeny can be sold.

A key sticking point is nailing down what commercialization means. Selling the birds themselves? Using them in some commercial production? Having one perched in the back of your office while you are earning a living? Is a hawk sitting in your booth a tradeshow? On your logo for your company? I have had my photograph in a commercial newspaper a few times with my wild taken hawk - is that commercial use? I have met some BlankBehindTheEyes enforcement types that would definately argue that it was, even though I was not paid. Where is the line?

[goshawkr]

Your interpretation of the constitution is not necessarily incorrect but then again since nobody cloned any of the guys who wrote it I can't be sure that it is
correct either. All of this boils down to a debate in a courtroom where we could gain a little or lose everything. The court system is supposed to be impartial
but it has never been and never will be free of the influence of politics. Do we really want to kick that bees' nest given that falconers represent an insignificant
number of votes and will never be heard over the loud voices, lobbying power and media access that the animal rights groups have?

There are scenarios where that is a valid concern, but this is not one of them. Courts are a pretty closed loop system. The AR nuts can write letters or even file friend of the court briefs, but that is about it. Let the bees buzz all they want!

Going before the courts like this has a pretty simple spectrum of outcomes, provided it actually makes it far enough along to go to a judge before it is dropped. Those outcomes range from nothing changes and the regs as written stay put to the AFC gets the regulations they are challenging struck down. The mid points are that one rule stands and the other is struck down or that there is some compromise that the judge(s) impose on the FWS to make changes to the rules to make them constitutional.


I have talked to you while you are driving along so I know you are not hold up in a bunker somewhere waiting for the black SUVs and helicopters so I also suspect you are having fun with yours as well. So what exactly is so bad with the situation?

I guess that is an easy position to take, when all of these scenarios are purely theoretical.

I have had two close friends stomped on by the US FWS jack boots. Bullet point 1 and 4 from the examples I gave in post 25 were cases that I watched, with a certain degree of horror and trepidation, quite closely in real time as they unfolded. The nightmare of these real and valid examples of inspections being used as an abuse of authority was something I experienced - thankfully for me in a second hand manner. The example in the second bullet point I gave was not someone I personally knew at the time, although I do know them now, and it occurred just 20 miles from where I sit as I type this.

I do not need this to happen to me to want it corrected. Its enough that it happened to anyone. For that matter, its enough that it could happen.

No, I do not hide in a blanket fort and wait for the black helicopters.

[JRedig]

And just why do you think it is appropriate to bash the AFC in their own house? This is the AFC sub forum, and at best this is very bad manners. Disagree with them, fine. But AFC bashing in the AFC forum is extremely poor taste.

I’m curious Geoff, just what/who’s house do you think this is? This is the afc sub forum of *nafex*. It is a platform provided by nafex for topics specific to the afc. That’s it.

[goshawkr]

I’m curious Geoff, just what/who’s house do you think this is? This is the afc sub forum of *nafex*. It is a platform provided by nafex for topics specific to the afc. That’s it.[/COLOR]


Fair enough point.

However, some of the statements made here would not have been tolerated if they had been made over on the NAFA sub forum directed at NAFA. There is not a consistent standard of politeness (on the part of the posters) at the very least.

[rkumetz]

However, some of the statements made here would not have been tolerated if they had been made over on the NAFA sub forum directed at NAFA. There is not a consistent standard of politeness (on the part of the posters) at the very least.

Geoff,
I am not quite sure what you are talking about. I read the OP and asked a bunch of relevant questions in a respectful way as I did in the previous APC sub forum post on this issue. In both cases my questions were ignored and I was accused not only of being a person who doesn't care about their constitutional rights (which I read as being accused of being ignorant and apathetic) but also of being a troll. So who exactly shows a lack of respect? If you make claims in a public forum and you are not willing to answer questions you may want to try a billboard since that is one way advertising assuming that the person who reads it is disinclined to climb it with a can of spray paint.

You yourself write some pretty terse material and I suspect that those who know you simply write it off as Geoff eschewing the pleasantries and getting down to business. What was said here that was not polite? Or in the words of Ricky Ricardo, "splain Lucy" confusedd

[goshawkr]

I am not quite sure what you are talking about.

The statements to the effective of "... NAFA is not out to do what is best for falconers in general..." would never be tolerated over on the NAFA sub forum. I do not understand why they are tolerated here, or why people think such statements are polite, here.

The leaders of the AFC are in fact doing what they think is best for falconers in general. That is their core mission. You and others may disagree with that assessment (as do I in many circumstances....).

[joekoz]

NAFA sent out the following e-mail message to all of their member's yesterday:

Dear NAFA Member:

As reported in February, NAFA had been monitoring and examining the main complaints of a lawsuit filed on behalf of a few falconers in California. The lawsuit covers a wide variety of issues ranging from what constitutes a reasonable search to how, and even whether, the government can regulate what you do with falconry birds, captive bred and taken from the wild. For these reasons, we took our time to carefully analyze and understand the complaints. As I mentioned then, there are many legal nuances to the complaints, and the possible outcomes are numerous. The potential to impact our sport is significant.

The Board of Directors instructed NAFA General Council to prepare an amicus curiae brief for consideration. Sadly the plaintiffs sought to limit NAFA’s involvement in the case and objected to our request to the court. NAFA did prevail and yesterday General Counsel’s completed brief was presented to and approved by the NAFA Board of Directors and subsequently filed.

NAFA’s amicus brief covers the salient points of the case and provides NAFA’s opinions, positions, and concerns. The brief speaks to the fundamental and guiding principle of both NAFA and the falconry community that focuses on the wildlife we employ, the game we pursue, and the conservation-ethics that are essential to our hunting heritage.

Below are links to:

NAFA’s Amicus Brief, filed 3/22/2019
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.n-a-f-a.com/resource/resmgr/docs/legal/amicus_brief_of_the_north_am.pdf

NAFA's Supporting Documents, filed 3/22/2019
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.n-a-f-a.com/resource/resmgr/docs/legal/nafa_exhibit_submitted_with_.pdf

California Department of Fish and Game Motion to Dismiss, filed 3/15/2019
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.n-a-f-a.com/resource/resmgr/docs/legal/cdfw_motion_to_dismiss.pdf

US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Motion to Dismiss, filed 3/15/2019
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.n-a-f-a.com/resource/resmgr/docs/legal/usfws_motion_to_dismiss.pdf

Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, filed 1/18/2019
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.n-a-f-a.com/resource/resmgr/docs/legal/first_amended_complaint_for_.pdf

Original Complaint, filed 10/30/2018
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.n-a-f-a.com/resource/resmgr/docs/legal/original_complaint_against_c.pdf


As the case unfolds, we will work to keep you up to date of any important developments.

[MrBill]

Hey Geoff, ole buddy,

I am surprised that you--of all people--would be for censoring what people say on here. And, last I checked this is not an AFC forum. As for what NAFA would do as it pertains to their forum, who knows? But, if they chose to delete attacks upon their organization, that would certainly be within their purview to do so, as it is their forum. When it comes to social media, Freedom of Speech has certain limitations. And, speaking of Freedom of Speech, as long as you have been around and involved with social media, you should know that, if nothing else, it has revealed the imperfections of human nature, and we are who we are, no more, no less, which is not going to change. I used to be like you, as you know, and it took me a loooong time to realize that I was not going to change anyone's mind with my well-thought-out rants; if anything, I was simply pissing people off, which was not my intent, and it is not yours, but people can form very strong opinions about people via these forums having never met them. Just something to think about.

BTW, I have learned a lot from this discussion.

Take care,

Bill Boni

[dboyrollz76]

Looks like usfws, is saying they don’t have a dog in the fight and that this should handled at a state levels and that they do not conduct searches. By handing regulations and permits over to the states to enforce. They have essentially removed themselves from this law suit and asking complaints against them be dismissed.

[MrBill]

Looks like usfws, is saying they don’t have a dog in the fight and that this should handled at a state levels and that they do not conduct searches. By handing regulations and permits over to the states to enforce. They have essentially removed themselves from this law suit and asking complaints against them be dismissed.

That makes sense to me.

Bill Boni

[frigginchi]

I think the reason USFWS is involved is that they provide the framework to which the state regulations are based of of and that the state claims it is only following the USFWS framework. Just a guess.


Looks like usfws, is saying they don’t have a dog in the fight and that this should handled at a state levels and that they do not conduct searches. By handing regulations and permits over to the states to enforce. They have essentially removed themselves from this law suit and asking complaints against them be dismissed.

[dboyrollz76]

I think the reason USFWS is involved is that they provide the framework to which the state regulations are based of of and that the state claims it is only following the USFWS framework. Just a guess.
That’s right, but how will the court view it. I’m sure it’s obvious that usfws framework is responsible for the constitutional violation. But if they are not the ones enforcing the regulations, if the falconer was searched by state authorities then the state violated his constitutional rights. USFWS can’t be held responsible for this, but their framework incited it. This should have been done a few years back when there was, clear and substantial constitutional violation. Like when the regulations were wrote. But then again by excepting the terms of the regulations knowing it includes the provision of search of premises. I could be argued with success that you contracted away or waiver this constitutional protection. The same as one would waive their right to remain silent or to an attorney.
It’s sad, but if I was the judge I would have to say, the falconer knowing this provision existed prior to obtaining a falconry permit waived his right to a warranted search.
even though it conflicts with the 1st and 4th. By obtaining and signing on these rights are waived, at that point you have agreed to their terms.
If was was the judge I would rule this way, you signed on, you knew it could happen you waive your rights. Glad I’m not the judge.

[goshawkr]

Joe,

Thanks for posting those documents pertaining to the case and NAFAs statements.

Interesting that in the statement with regards to the 4th amendment argument NAFA seems to have completely missed the point that the complaint is not directed at the pre-licensing inspection. I think all of us are in favor of some form of that (even though it is laughably ineffective when State Agencies conduct them since they know nothing about falconry husbandry.


... And, last I checked this is not an AFC forum....

Then Bill, you are not paying attention: Forum -> National Falconry Organizations -> American Falconry Conservancy

Chris has set NAFEX up with areas focused on specific interest areas, and this one is the area for the AFC. NAFA has one of its own as well.


I am surprised that you--of all people--would be for censoring what people say on here.

I am not advocating for censorship, but for politeness and respect for opposing points of view.

Over the years when some of the militant AFC supporters and others who did not like NAFA were bashing NAFA on the NAFA forum, and even in some of the more generalized discussions, they were rightly chastised. I was crying foul because the same consideration was not made over here in this discussion, IMO when similar statements were made directed at the AFC. I know from personal communication that the original poster shares that opinion, which is precisely why she does not participate on here any more than popping in to spread news every off an on.

In the end, its up to Chris to decide what behavior is over that line, and some of the NAFEX moderators have been in here participating in this discussion and they act as his surrogates, so I suppose they collectively disagree with me.


Looks like usfws, is saying they don’t have a dog in the fight and that this should handled at a state levels and that they do not conduct searches. By handing regulations and permits over to the states to enforce. They have essentially removed themselves from this law suit and asking complaints against them be dismissed.

Not a surprise, but the FWS absolutely and definitely is involved. They imposed the federal regulations. And those regulations REQUIRE states to formulate state regulations which include administrative inspections. When the FWS turned over falconry administration to the states they would not have certified any State's regulations that did not include administrative inspections at any reasonable hour. Luckily for me Washington currently requires an enforcement officer to get a warrant before they perform an inspection. Which isnt hard to do, but it does keep inspections from happening just because an officer wanted some entertainment for the day.

The FWS also explicitly reserved the right to conduct inspections when the regulations were handed down to the States 10 years ago, and they stated so in the Federal Register. As far as I am aware, they have not conducted any since that time, but that does not absolve them of involvement in this. I also found it a bit horrifying that the FWS did not even know for certain if they had conducted inspections in the last 5 years.

If that were not the case, and California went and implemented the inspection process all on their own, then I would agree with them.

Its all up to the judge though.

[goshawkr]

That’s right, but how will the court view it. I’m sure it’s obvious that usfws framework is responsible for the constitutional violation. But if they are not the ones enforcing the regulations, if the falconer was searched by state authorities then the state violated his constitutional rights. USFWS can’t be held responsible for this, but their framework incited it. This should have been done a few years back when there was, clear and substantial constitutional violation. Like when the regulations were wrote. But then again by excepting the terms of the regulations knowing it includes the provision of search of premises. I could be argued with success that you contracted away or waiver this constitutional protection. The same as one would waive their right to remain silent or to an attorney. [QUOTE]

It was attempted then. There was a legal push from the predecessor to the AFC and one of their attorneys that nearly had the inspections pulled from the regulations. I do not at the moment recall why it failed. I have this dim recollection that someone in the US FWS found an argument that made their legal department feel cozy with keeping the inspection around.

[QUOTE]It’s sad, but if I was the judge I would have to say, the falconer knowing this provision existed prior to obtaining a falconry permit waived his right to a warranted search.
even though it conflicts with the 1st and 4th. By obtaining and signing on these rights are waived, at that point you have agreed to their terms.
If was was the judge I would rule this way, you signed on, you knew it could happen you waive your rights. Glad I’m not the judge.

That is a common argument, but it is not legal for the Government to coerce you to give up your rights in that manner.

Having said that, all of our rights have a lot of legal cracks that have been found by various court rulings to apply. Actually to the extent that I think it is rather laughable to think of any of them as "rights" at all. More like "rough legal notions".

[goshawkr]

That’s right, but how will the court view it. I’m sure it’s obvious that usfws framework is responsible for the constitutional violation. But if they are not the ones enforcing the regulations, if the falconer was searched by state authorities then the state violated his constitutional rights. USFWS can’t be held responsible for this, but their framework incited it. This should have been done a few years back when there was, clear and substantial constitutional violation. Like when the regulations were wrote. But then again by excepting the terms of the regulations knowing it includes the provision of search of premises. I could be argued with success that you contracted away or waiver this constitutional protection. The same as one would waive their right to remain silent or to an attorney.

It was attempted then. There was a legal push from the predecessor to the AFC and one of their attorneys that nearly had the administrative inspections pulled from the regulations entirely. I do not at the moment recall why it failed. I have this dim recollection that someone within the US FWS found an argument that made their legal department feel cozy with keeping the inspection around.


It’s sad, but if I was the judge I would have to say, the falconer knowing this provision existed prior to obtaining a falconry permit waived his right to a warranted search.
even though it conflicts with the 1st and 4th. By obtaining and signing on these rights are waived, at that point you have agreed to their terms.
If was was the judge I would rule this way, you signed on, you knew it could happen you waive your rights. Glad I’m not the judge.

That is a common argument, but it is not legal for the Government to coerce you to give up your rights in that manner.

Having said that, all of our rights have a lot of legal cracks that have been found by various court rulings to apply. Actually to the extent that I think it is rather laughable to think of any of them as "rights" at all. More like "rough legal notions".

[MrBill]

Then Bill, you are not paying attention: Forum -> National Falconry Organizations -> American Falconry Conservancy

Chris has set NAFEX up with areas focused on specific interest areas, and this one is the area for the AFC. NAFA has one of its own as well.

Sorry, Geoff, I did not know this. And, yes, NAFA does have their own forum, but it is no where as active as this one; that's for sure.

Bill Boni

[rkumetz]

Then Bill, you are not paying attention: Forum -> National Falconry Organizations -> American Falconry Conservancy

Chris has set NAFEX up with areas focused on specific interest areas, and this one is the area for the AFC. NAFA has one of its own as well.

Geoff,
With all due respect, I think that you are making some sort of assumption(s) here. That is not entirely your fault since I searched and cannot find any sort of rule
that says you are NOT correct but I also could not substantiate that you ARE correct.

Chris sets up these forums for a number of reasons. One is for sponsor companies like MRT and Western Sporting to interface with customers and potential customers.
I would agree that with the exception of legitimate product gripes (I bought an xyz and it does not in fact core a apple as advertised) doing stuff like talking about
a competitor would be in poor taste. Those vendors pay for advertising to support our ability to pontificate and share the 999 opinions per 1000 falconers.

With respect to NAFA and AFC forums it is somewhat less clear. As far as I can tell neither pays for their respective sub forum and what Chris's intentions are
I cannot say. Perhaps we need some clarification from him as to what the rules are.

Are these sub forums for open discussions relevant to issues pertaining to NAFA and AFC or are they for those organizations to thump their chests free of
someone calling "BS" on them so their dues paying members can have a nice warm feeling of money well spent?

Chris?

[Peregrinus]

Ron:

I don't think anyone has a problem with people chiming in on any threads, club-oriented or not. Not everyone has to agree. But when the same few people consistently, and over the course of several years, reply to every single post on a forum with a chorus of declamations? When it becomes impossible to make announcements of club activities without being subsumed by an avalanche of negative posts by the same few people? That's called 'hijacking a forum', and it's a well-documented phenom. I can't speak for Chris, but I'm pretty sure he did not mean for club forums to become dog-fighting pits.

[rkumetz]

Ron:

I don't think anyone has a problem with people chiming in on any threads, club-oriented or not. Not everyone has to agree. But when the same few people consistently, and over the course of several years, reply to every single post on a forum with a chorus of declamations? When it becomes impossible to make announcements of club activities without being subsumed by an avalanche of negative posts by the same few people? That's called 'hijacking a forum', and it's a well-documented phenom. I can't speak for Chris, but I'm pretty sure he did not mean for club forums to become dog-fighting pits.

I see your point but there is a big difference between announcing a meet or a picnic and having a fringe legal group file a lawsuit against a federal agency purportedly on behalf of all falconers. My opinion was the same when I was paying dues to the AFC. Your actions may affect my falconry and I am entitled to both disagree and say so.

As a matter of note, I believe that your and AFC's intentions are honorable. I cannot say the same for PLF. They are using AFC and
Falconry to further their own agenda. Possibly at the expense of the sport of falconry. I can only hope that I am wrong.

[dboyrollz76]

Ron:

I don't think anyone has a problem with people chiming in on any threads, club-oriented or not. Not everyone has to agree. But when the same few people consistently, and over the course of several years, reply to every single post on a forum with a chorus of declamations? When it becomes impossible to make announcements of club activities without being subsumed by an avalanche of negative posts by the same few people? That's called 'hijacking a forum', and it's a well-documented phenom. I can't speak for Chris, but I'm pretty sure he did not mean for club forums to become dog-fighting pits.
I understand, it’s kinda like how your trying to hijack a persons freedom of speech because they may not be on par with your club or post on to many threads. I have not seen anywhere in the forum rules that says a person can only post on certain threads or only so many. Throughout history delegation of negative points of topic have diverted disaster.

[dboyrollz76]

I see your point but there is a big difference between announcing a meet or a picnic and having a fringe legal group file a lawsuit against a federal agency purportedly on behalf of all falconers. My opinion was the same when I was paying dues to the AFC. Your actions may affect my falconry and I am entitled to both disagree and say so.

As a matter of note, I believe that your and AFC's intentions are honorable. I cannot say the same for PLF. They are using AFC and
Falconry to further their own agenda. Possibly at the expense of the sport of falconry. I can only hope that I am wrong.
NAFA, on a legal note has set the stage for an affirmative defense, it will probably work out.

[Peregrinus]

I understand, it’s kinda like how your trying to hijack a persons freedom of speech because they may not be on par with your club or post on to many threads. I have not seen anywhere in the forum rules that says a person can only post on certain threads or only so many. Throughout history delegation of negative points of topic have diverted disaster.

First Amendment rights cannot be hijacked on internet forums, because they don't exist there. There is nothing in forum rules about how often or on what topics one may post. However, hijacking threads is a well-known tactic. Those who call it out are not depriving anyone of their Constitutional rights. Thanks for playing.

[dboyrollz76]

First Amendment rights cannot be hijacked on internet forums, because they don't exist there. There is nothing in forum rules about how often or on what topics one may post. However, hijacking threads is a well-known tactic. Those who call it out are not depriving anyone of their Constitutional rights. Thanks for playing. first amendment rights exist anywhere any time. Including this forum. Upon signing up you’ve read the rule agreed to terms of conditions. By doing this you agree to waive your free speech and agree not to talk about religion or politics. Along with harassment or flaming on other forum members. Violation in your agreement You can be penalized. It’s a fundamental right to ones own expression in many ways. The only time that freedom dose not exist is when you knowingly and willingly, for whatever ever reason are coerced or are willing to give that right away.

[ericedw]

The only time that freedom dose not exist is when you knowingly and willingly, for whatever ever reason are coerced or are willing to give that right away.

Like inspections on a falconry permit??

[dboyrollz76]

Like inspections on a falconry permit?? I would believe so, I’m pretty sure everyone read the regulations upon signing on as part of the permit Your are basically asked to waiver your right to unwarranted search and profitable use of raptors held on your permit. No one was tricked or lead to believe otherwise. It’s the same as if your sitting in a courtroom being tried and your asked if you want a attorney and you say no, and the records show you waived this right.
Sure, you can pound somebody’s face into the construction, and probably win these kinds of cases. It’s not a for sure thing. Especially if the sole purpose is to nullify your agreement. And no wrong or harm was done to you and the letter of law followed with lawful procedures as stated it the regulations you agreed to when signing your permit application.
If the falconry community finds this issue more than unbearable, a legislative approach would probably be far more productive.

[ericedw]

Legislative approaches have been tried on both the federal and state level, didn't work. Next step it seems would be to let the courts decide, we'll see how it turns out. Personally, I hope the plaintiffs win. And I applaud their courage.

[dboyrollz76]

Well if it dose work its going to go from what’s considered a unwarranted search that you agreed to could happen at anytime to mandatory inspections. How many of you you here have actually had usfws or state wildlife officers show up at your door? Minus the California incident!

[ericedw]

Me, 3 times in the past 3 years. Our state agency has decided to inspect all "captive wildlife" permit holders every 2 years, falconry falls under that group.

So, sounds like if it's not your problem then it doesn't matter?

[frigginchi]

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

[dboyrollz76]

Me, 3 times in the past 3 years. Our state agency has decided to inspect all "captive wildlife" permit holders every 2 years, falconry falls under that group.

So, sounds like if it's not your problem then it doesn't matter?
No. It at all, I was just curious! If they are doing mandatory now then if the pull the reasonable search regulations they will probably replace it with a mandatory search.

[rkumetz]

Me, 3 times in the past 3 years. Our state agency has decided to inspect all "captive wildlife" permit holders every 2 years, falconry falls under that group.

So, sounds like if it's not your problem then it doesn't matter?

As a person who agrees completely with Martin Niemoller it most certainly is of concern though whether or not it is a "problem" the jury is still out.

What constitutes an inspection? Do they make an appt at a reasonably convenient day and time? What exactly do they feel they are entitled to inspect? Is this a 15 minute deal where you show them your 3-186's, they see if you have a reasonable mews and equipment and then vanish or is it some sort of witch hunt? I am banking on you being reasonable in assessing the witch hunt thing because there are some who feel that if a cop drives by their house the man is trying to keep them down.

I suspect that 3 times in 3 years is a bit excessive but how do they decide who gets inspected and how often? For example I would contend that if an apprentice gets ditched by their sponsor who says they are a disaster and their bird is not well cared for then that might be a reasonable cause to take a peek.

[frigginchi]

What about the lady that is making it her crusade to end falconry drops a dime on every falconer in the state just to hassle falconers? https://stopfalconry.com

[Saluqi]

What about the lady that is making it her crusade to end falconry drops a dime on every falconer in the state just to hassle falconers? https://stopfalconry.com

Chi, dude, expand your thoughts a little bit, and think this through. If this rehabber has it out for falconers you had better believe that the state G&F is well aware of her and her hatred of falconers, so do you really think the FLG&F is going to take her word for anything? I don't think so. Rehabbers create much bigger headaches for G&F, at least here, than falconers do, by a long shot.

[rkumetz]

What about the lady that is making it her crusade to end falconry drops a dime on every falconer in the state just to hassle falconers? https://stopfalconry.com

We have a lot of those irrational tree hugging granola munching types here. In fact, National Audubon told me that they consider our state chapter to be a "fringe element".
What we do have going for us is a strong field sports tradition and in recent years our relationship with F&W has become more cordial to the extent that they would likely
view a nut like that as abusing state resources by trying to use F&W for her personal crusade against falconry.

It would seem to me that falconers encouraging law enforcement to come and see that they have nothing to hide would let some air out of her zeppelin of stupidity.

That is precisely the sort of lunatic that I worry about when I think about falconry deregulation. If there are no rules which we participate in making to abide by then emotional ideas about what we should
and should not do with animals become the only test. Poor regulations that are livable are, IMO, preferable to being subject to the emotional dandruff of lunatics.

[goshawkr]

It would seem to me that falconers encouraging law enforcement to come and see that they have nothing to hide would let some air out of her zeppelin of stupidity.

That is precisely the sort of lunatic that I worry about when I think about falconry deregulation. If there are no rules which we participate in making to abide by then emotional ideas about what we should
and should not do with animals become the only test. Poor regulations that are livable are, IMO, preferable to being subject to the emotional dandruff of lunatics.

To your first (quoted) point, I believe that it is naive to think that when said enforcement officers show up that they will 1) understand suitable falconry facilities, even were some to jump up and punch them in the nose and 2) understand esoteric and complex and a lengthy body of rules about a subject in which they have no expertese and even less interest. It is not a rare scenario for citations and seizures of birds to happen during administrative inspections for either or both of those reasons. Of the adminstrative inspections I am aware of, I believe ~10% resulted in seizure or a citation, which is a shockingly high rate.

To your second point, just exactly how is it going to empower these types if the provisions are removed from the rules that allow enforcement to drop by on a whim? You have expressed some concern about this court case attracting attention, but the groups that want to do away with falconry are already well aware of us.

There have been scenarios where that proverbial whim was created by members of the public. Indeed, it could even be easily argued that Operation Falcon was created by complaints from the general public - although in that fine example of abused enforcement power they had warrants when they dropped by. I know of a few cases where the

Realistically, its only a minor inconvience to an enforcement officer to get a warrant if they really think something is afoot.

[rkumetz]

To your first (quoted) point, I believe that it is naive to think that when said enforcement officers show up that they will 1) understand suitable falconry facilities, even were some to jump up and punch them in the nose and 2) understand esoteric and complex and a lengthy body of rules about a subject in which they have no expertese and even less interest. It is not a rare scenario for citations and seizures of birds to happen during administrative inspections for either or both of those reasons. Of the adminstrative inspections I am aware of, I believe ~10% resulted in seizure or a citation, which is a shockingly high rate.

To your second point, just exactly how is it going to empower these types if the provisions are removed from the rules that allow enforcement to drop by on a whim? You have expressed some concern about this court case attracting attention, but the groups that want to do away with falconry are already well aware of us.

There have been scenarios where that proverbial whim was created by members of the public. Indeed, it could even be easily argued that Operation Falcon was created by complaints from the general public - although in that fine example of abused enforcement power they had warrants when they dropped by. I know of a few cases where the

Realistically, its only a minor inconvience to an enforcement officer to get a warrant if they really think something is afoot.

Come on Geoff, I am not naive. I understand that most LE people have little comprehension of falconry or the nuances of how the regulations apply. That is why those of us who would rather avoid unfortunate confrontation reach out and try to educate them. Build a relationship with members of their community and all of a sudden you start to gain respect through association.
Remember when your parent's told you not to hang out with the wrong kind of kids? When I moved here a warden showed up to inspect me. He was courteous and informed me up front that
he knew little to nothing about falconry other than what he had read in My Side of the Mountain as a kid. Then he proceeded to start taking photos. I asked him if his report was so detailed that
he needed photos and he said "No, if you don't mind these are for my grandson. He will think this is cool".

We have started an initiative to do falconry boot camps for our wardens and we have taken our falconry coordinator hawking with an open invitation to all to come out with us or come visit if they would like to learn about falconry.

Your thought process also has a bit of an indictment of the law enforcement community in general as being inept or generally abusing power. I realize that you probably did not intend to
carry it that far but as a fire chief I work with LE people all the time. The vast majority are dedicated and reasonably easy to get along with if you take into account that they spend their day
dealing with assholes and most people treat them poorly just because they have a badge and gun. Yes, there are bad apples but making that assumption going into an interaction with LE
is likely to make things go the wrong way fast.

With respect to the second point, cruise around NAFEX and you will find more than a couple of threads where falconers have used the fact that the sport is regulated both federally and at the state level to weave their way around local regulations, zoning problems and HOA rules. The same is true of the animal rights nitwits. If you are conducting your falconry within the bounds of
the regulations they can whine and "drop a dime" on you but inevitably you will be judged by the letter of the law rather than their emotional drool. You and I know that no matter how bad the
rules are (yes, I realize you think they are worse than I do box2) but I know you are smart enough to know that you stand a better chance with the regs than defending yourself against a
posse of irrational emotionally driven nuts who think that wildlife should be "lookie no touchie".

Your final point is a very good one. With respect to all of that PLF crap, if CA law enforcement operating in their climate of over regulation wants to harass you they will simply get a judge with animal rights activist sympathies to issue a warrant.

[Montucky]

With respect to the second point, cruise around NAFEX and you will find more than a couple of threads where falconers have used the fact that the sport is regulated both federally and at the state level to weave their way around local regulations, zoning problems and HOA rules. The same is true of the animal rights nitwits. If you are conducting your falconry within the bounds of
the regulations they can whine and "drop a dime" on you but inevitably you will be judged by the letter of the law rather than their emotional drool. You and I know that no matter how bad the
rules are (yes, I realize you think they are worse than I do file:///C:/Users/JMGOOD~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif) but I know you are smart enough to know that you stand a better chance with the regs than defending yourself against a
posse of irrational emotionally driven nuts who think that wildlife should be "lookie no touchie".

This is a concept that critics of NAFA and government have generally overlooked. That fact that we are couched within a wildlife management paradigm means we have been given a legal open road by wildlife agencies who, by definition, support our enterprise in the face of a myriad of obstacles. It is fortuitous to say the least compared to say the British model. Overall, most of the falconers I know have had at least one unfortunate interaction with LE's but the net experience has been either benign or positive. I would have tip my hat to AFC if they were just trying to make a nuanced change to inspections - whereby the inspection to certify a new falconer's facilities (and falconers that moved to the state) was mandatory, but any re-inspection would have some more sideboards to it.

I think that once a falconer is vetted with permits and inspections, maybe it would be nice to have a slightly higher bar. As I have mentioned before, the problem is that there is a larger regulatory norm for all migratory bird permits under Subchapter B of 50CFR. So breaking into this requirement is a bigger hurdle that just falconry, and the reasoning behind MBTA regs, are, in my opinion, are not unreasonable if you have a broader view of conservation vs looking through a straw at "rights".

Furthermore - if you look into the history of the 1970's development of the federal regs between NAFA leaders and the USFWS - you will see that the reason we have legal falconry and the abundance access to wild birds is largely due to a strategic argument on the part of our forefathers. Two early leaders of our community in the US (the first NAFA president) and in Canada were raptor perpetrators straight up. THe US person was literally busted in a falcon smuggling scheme and was associated with McPartlin. No matter how much we want to feel like we are a largely victimized community, this event was a very unfortunate, damaging situation. Added to that there were a number of advocacy groups that were poised to fight legalized falconry. So these NAFA regs authors had a needle to thread and did so deftly. By the 1980's regs update, the feds even acknowledged in writing the role of falconers in conservation and our benign impact. This trend of acceptance just increased more and more....and this is directly based on the sophistication and leadership of this small group of NAFA leaders who negotiated falconry in the context of our Wildlife Model of Conservation. Its a fact.

Of course the paradigm behind PLF and their ideological funders is the opposite of our own conservation paradigm. They take a fundamental opposition to the very idea of a public resource, democratic access, and conservation in general. They fight time-tested conservation model by using "rights" arguments - suggesting it is the manifest destiny of folks (especially industry) to be able to take what they want and benefit from it financially without interference or consequence. They see mainstream conservation practices as extreme government over-reach.



Subchapter B of 50CFR Part 13 set the over-arching terms for all permits such as Taxidermy, Education, Falconry, rehab etc. In 13.47 you will see that the inspection requirement is an umbrella requirement for all permits relating to bird possession
§ 13.47 Inspection requirement.
Any person holding a permit under this subchapter B shall allow the Director's agent to enter his premises at any reasonable hour to inspect any wildlife or plant held or to inspect, audit, or copy any permits, books, or records required to be kept by regulations of this subchapter B.

[goshawkr]

This is a concept that critics of NAFA and government have generally overlooked. That fact that we are couched within a wildlife management paradigm means we have been given a legal open road by wildlife agencies who, by definition, support our enterprise in the face of a myriad of obstacles. It is fortuitous to say the least compared to say the British model. Overall, most of the falconers I know have had at least one unfortunate interaction with LE's but the net experience has been either benign or positive. I would have tip my hat to AFC if they were just trying to make a nuanced change to inspections - whereby the inspection to certify a new falconer's facilities (and falconers that moved to the state) was mandatory, but any re-inspection would have some more sideboards to it.

Then why have you not tipped your hat? The scope of the 4th amendment argument is LASER focused on the administrative inspections after permitting, and does not affect the inspections before getting the license. It also seems that NAFA missed that point in their response, because they seemed to be focusing a lot of energy on how important inspections were as part of the permitting process.


I think that once a falconer is vetted with permits and inspections, maybe it would be nice to have a slightly higher bar. As I have mentioned before, the problem is that there is a larger regulatory norm for all migratory bird permits under Subchapter B of 50CFR. So breaking into this requirement is a bigger hurdle that just falconry, and the reasoning behind MBTA regs, are, in my opinion, are not unreasonable if you have a broader view of conservation vs looking through a straw at "rights".

So do I! Its called a warrant. Any cop that cannot convince their pal the judge that they have enough probable cause to give someone a sniff shouldn't have their badge in the first place. Its not hard to do that little bit of homework. That is a key tenant to the US legal system - get some evidence of wrong doing, then go harass someone when you are close to being ready to make a case. NOT harrass first and build the case later, which is what the US FWS and some state wildlife agencies have been doing.

The core nefarious problem with Administrative inspections is that it empowers the enforcement officers to just go fishing for problems. It is also all to easy for this to be used punitively by officials who want to punish someone (this has happened a few times in the last ~15 years), or by falconers who want to trigger an inspection to "get" at another falconer. Both of these problems were exactly why the fourth amendment was instituted in the first place!

This made even worse in our case because the rules are so ridiculously complex that no one really understands them well - not the officers doing the inspections, not the paper pushing permit issuing beurocrats, and especially not the falconers. Simple transgressions very easily get blown way out of any sane proportion.


Of course the paradigm behind PLF and their ideological funders is the opposite of our own conservation paradigm. They take a fundamental opposition to the very idea of a public resource, democratic access, and conservation in general. They fight time-tested conservation model by using "rights" arguments - suggesting it is the manifest destiny of folks (especially industry) to be able to take what they want and benefit from it financially without interference or consequence. They see mainstream conservation practices as extreme government over-reach.

The core problem is that the conservationists have taken the pendulum WAAY too far down the protection spectrum. No one disputes that it is important to protect resources for future generations. But an overall hands off approach is not the correct way to go either.

Conservation and liberty and access to resources are not mutually exclusive concepts. There is tension between them, and compromises must be reached. However, there is no conflict between the 1st amendment and the 4th amendment and raptor conservation. Absolutely none whatsoever.


Subchapter B of 50CFR Part 13 set the over-arching terms for all permits such as Taxidermy, Education, Falconry, rehab etc. In 13.47 you will see that the inspection requirement is an umbrella requirement for all permits relating to bird possession § 13.47 Inspection requirement. Any person holding a permit under this subchapter B shall allow the Director's agent to enter his premises at any reasonable hour to inspect any wildlife or plant held or to inspect, audit, or copy any permits, books, or records required to be kept by regulations of this subchapter B.

And exactly how does the fact that this regulation is higher up in the tier does it magically become constitutional?

You are quite right that we need to look at several places in 50 CFR, and section 13 is a particularly imporant area that applies to all permits, not just MBTA permits.

[Montucky]

Then why have you not tipped your hat? The scope of the 4th amendment argument is LASER focused on the administrative inspections after permitting, and does not affect the inspections before getting the license. It also seems that NAFA missed that point in their response, because they seemed to be focusing a lot of energy on how important inspections were as part of the permitting process.



So do I! Its called a warrant. Any cop that cannot convince their pal the judge that they have enough probable cause to give someone a sniff shouldn't have their badge in the first place. Its not hard to do that little bit of homework. That is a key tenant to the US legal system - get some evidence of wrong doing, then go harass someone when you are close to being ready to make a case. NOT harrass first and build the case later, which is what the US FWS and some state wildlife agencies have been doing.

The core nefarious problem with Administrative inspections is that it empowers the enforcement officers to just go fishing for problems. It is also all to easy for this to be used punitively by officials who want to punish someone (this has happened a few times in the last ~15 years), or by falconers who want to trigger an inspection to "get" at another falconer. Both of these problems were exactly why the fourth amendment was instituted in the first place!

This made even worse in our case because the rules are so ridiculously complex that no one really understands them well - not the officers doing the inspections, not the paper pushing permit issuing beurocrats, and especially not the falconers. Simple transgressions very easily get blown way out of any sane proportion.



The core problem is that the conservationists have taken the pendulum WAAY too far down the protection spectrum. No one disputes that it is important to protect resources for future generations. But an overall hands off approach is not the correct way to go either.

Conservation and liberty and access to resources are not mutually exclusive concepts. There is tension between them, and compromises must be reached. However, there is no conflict between the 1st amendment and the 4th amendment and raptor conservation. Absolutely none whatsoever.



And exactly how does the fact that this regulation is higher up in the tier does it magically become constitutional?

You are quite right that we need to look at several places in 50 CFR, and section 13 is a particularly imporant area that applies to all permits, not just MBTA permits.

Because they petitioners are not asking for a nuanced change to the inspection criteria. Secondly Im not sure that the legal distinctions about inspection types have been made clearly or are even recognized by the agencies as legally distinct.

As for the pendulum...thats your opinion but I disagree. The big bad federal rules in place (like CWA, CAA, ESA, NEPA, MBTA amendments, and others) were passed during Republican administrations with broad support from Congress and the public. THe fact is that conservation was bipartisan then. Did you know how many US Senators voted for the Wilderness Act of 64 and The Land and Water Conservation Act? 99 with the dissenting 1 vote thinking they didnt go far enough. Different times. Real conservatives voted for and in many cases, devised these laws....The republicans of that era were losing a lot of other arguments like, well.....the whole Civil Rights argument, war argument, even economic arguments during CLinton's booming economy...so what to do?

Just say government itself is bad. Its a poisonous, deplorable platform as it destroys trust in everything. If a candidate doesnt believe in the measured role of government services and the government's responsibility to follow and enforce democratic laws, and they are in power, they can strip funds to agencies themselves, watch them fail their mission, then say I told you so. Reagan and others picked up this anti-environmental rhetoric and defunding tactic as a key strategy. Its been an effective tool.

Anyway the fact is there has been a lot of nuanced case law behind public trust concepts and reasonable law enforcement access to private land as it related to taking of fish and wildlife.

As for 50 CFR my point is this rule was not arbitrarily thrown at the falconry community - it was always going to be a prerequisite to any special possession permit under the MBTA. Officers dont need a court order to obtain the identity of all drivers and occupants of a moving vehicle without digressing into a constitutional thing...as such wildlife officers can assess the identity of protected wildlife in private holding and the license of the person holding it. To claim its constitutional issue is a failed argument, which will play out in this case shortly.

[frigginchi]

No they can not just pull you over just to identify you or the occupants of your car. No they can not come to your home to see what birds you have in possession absent your consent. They can ask you for your falconry license if you are in public with your bird. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-officer-pull-over-reason.html

[Montucky]

No they can not just pull you over just to identify you or the occupants of your car. No they can not come to your home to see what birds you have in possession absent your consent. They can ask you for your falconry license if you are in public with your bird. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-officer-pull-over-reason.html

nice try changing my words. oh brother....all cops need to have some reason to pull you over, just like they might have some reason to do an inspection. Yes they can ask for the ID's of occupants...and yes they can enter your raptor facilities during reasonable hours. If you keep your birds in your house then they can go inside your house.

[goshawkr]

.all cops need to have some reason to pull you over, just like they might have some reason to do an inspection. Yes they can ask for the ID's of occupants.

They can ask sure, but they cannot require that they are produced with the exception of the driver without further probable cause of wrongdoing. And in fact they are only able to demand the driver's ID to confirm that the driver is legally authorized to operate a dangerous piece of machinery on public roads. The first line of police work is quite often to see if you can get someone to incriminate themselves by divulging information.

It is not unusual to find police officers who are not aware of their limitations to be able to demand the IDs of the other occupants, and it is even not unusual for a judge to go along with it, but there have been SCOTUS cases that have addressed this.


and yes they can enter your raptor facilities during reasonable hours. If you keep your birds in your house then they can go inside your house.

Well, that is currently up for the courts to decide. Your interpretation is not anywhere near as rock solid as you believe it to be. I have spoken to a number of attorneys, some constitution specialists, that are absolutely astounded that this requirement is in place. Their opinion is that the 4th amendment argument raised by the AFC/PLF is a slam dunk cinch.

[sharptail]

Well if it dose work its going to go from what’s considered a unwarranted search that you agreed to could happen at anytime to mandatory inspections. How many of you you here have actually had usfws or state wildlife officers show up at your door? Minus the California incident!

I have. State and Federal at the same time, shortly after 6:00 am. I invited them in, made coffee and consented to let them search my house. The federal agent was rude, put his hands on my wife, to prevent her from going up the stairs before him. When he lied and falsely accused me of wrong doing, I backed them out of the front door with my finger in their chests. I told them not to come back without a warrant. This was shortly before 'Operation Falcon' broke on the scene and they were obviously trying to include me without cause.

Geoff listed a few instances of state and federal enforcement abuses. There have been many in my 50+ years of falconry but 2 that stand out, here in Wy. The first is the Jason Jones case, where he filed paperwork listing the raptors he was importing form Utah, upon moving to Wyoming. I was told that the falconry contact person at Game and Fish missed the whole second page of birds listed and admitted the fact in an interoffice memo. Jason was criminally charged with illegal possession of all of the raptors he had listed on the second page and only after he was able to present a copy of the memo, in court, were charges dropped. Jason told me that he was called to give testimony in the state House of Reps.. He was present when congressmen grilled and chastised the director of Game and Fish. His was one of two cases influencing the decision to withhold funds at budget time. The second case is Dave Franke. He was federally charged over a paper work filing mistake. The Feds. were pressing him to plead guilty and upon multiple occasions dropped the charges as the trial was about to begin, as in the day of, only to refile them the next day. Just pure harassment. His case dragged on for years.

[frigginchi]

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/523/

U.S. Supreme CourtCamara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967)Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco
No. 92
Argued February 15, 1967
Decided June 5, 1967
387 U.S. 523
Syllabus
Appellant was charged with violating the San Francisco Housing Code for refusing, after three efforts by city housing inspectors to secure his consent, to allow a warrantless inspection of the ground-floor quarters which he leased and residential use of which allegedly violated the apartment building's occupancy permit. Claiming the inspection ordinance unconstitutional for failure to require a warrant for inspections, appellant while awaiting trial, sued in a State Superior Court for a writ of prohibition, which the court denied. Relying on Frank v. Maryland, 359 U. S. 360 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/359/360/case.html), and similar cases, the District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the ordinance did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The State Supreme Court denied a petition for hearing.
Held:
1. The Fourth Amendment bars prosecution of a person who has refused to permit a warrantless code enforcement inspection of his personal residence. Frank v. Maryland, supra, pro tanto overruled. Pp. 387 U. S. 528 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/523/case.html#528)-534.
(a) The basic purpose of the Fourth Amendment, which is enforceable against the States through the Fourteenth, through its prohibition of "unreasonable" searches and seizures is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials. P. 387 U. S. 528 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/523/case.html#528).
(b) With certain carefully defined exceptions, an unconsented warrantless search of private property is "unreasonable." Pp. 387 U. S. 528 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/523/case.html#528)-529.
(c) Contrary to the assumption of Frank v. Maryland, supra, Fourth Amendment interests are not merely "peripheral" where municipal fire, health, and housing inspection programs are involved whose purpose is to determine the existence of physical conditions not complying with local ordinances. Those programs, moreover, are enforceable by criminal process, as is refusal to allow an inspection. Pp. 387 U. S. 529 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/523/case.html#529)-531.
(d) Warrantless administrative searches cannot be justified on the grounds that they make minimal demands on occupants;
Page 387 U. S. 524
that warrant in such cases are unfeasible; or that area inspection programs could not function under reasonable search warrant requirements. Pp. 387 U. S. 531 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/523/case.html#531)-533.
2. Probable cause upon the basis of which warrants are to be issued for area code enforcement inspections is not dependent on the inspector's belief that a particular dwelling violates the code, but on the reasonableness of the enforcement agency's appraisal of conditions in the area as a whole. The standards to guide the magistrate in the issuance of such search warrants will necessarily vary with the municipal program being enforced. Pp. 387 U. S. 534 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/523/case.html#534)-539.
3. Search warrants which are required in nonemergency situations should normally be sought only after entry is refused. Pp. 387 U. S. 539 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/523/case.html#539)-540.
4. In the nonemergency situation here, appellant had a right to insist that the inspectors obtain a search warrant. P. 387 U. S. 540 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/523/case.html#540).
237 Cal.App.2d 128, 46 Cal.Rptr. 585, vacated and remanded.

[goshawkr]

all cops need to have some reason to pull you over, just like they might have some reason to do an inspection.

Just noticed something that you said here John.

That is precisely what is so nefarious about the regulations as they are written right now. As they regs are on paper, the US FWS does not need to have any reason whatsover to do an inspection. Most states just copied the federal language, including mine. My State agency is currently respecting the 4th amendment and is stating that drop in inspections require a warrant first.

There was a flurry of inspections here in the Seattle area a bit over 10 years ago by US FWS agents. I am not sure how the first inspection got started, beyond that it was around the time that the regulations had changed, and they wanted to go sniff around and see who was violating the rules. I personally know 4 people who were visited. The first one that I am aware that was visited was a rather naive kid at the time that had a friendly chat with the agents. One question that was asked is "What are the names of the falconers you know and that you go hunting with?" Most of the people who were mentioned also got a visit. And none of them had any reason to be visited beyond the whim of the agency.

No citations were issued, no seizures of birds happened, but that is quite beside the point.

[Saluqi]

Just noticed something that you said here John.

That is precisely what is so nefarious about the regulations as they are written right now. As they regs are on paper, the US FWS does not need to have any reason whatsover to do an inspection. Most states just copied the federal language, including mine. My State agency is currently respecting the 4th amendment and is stating that drop in inspections require a warrant first.

Hi Geoff,

Could you post a link, or the text from your state regs that specify that LE must have a warrant? I think that could be very useful. Thanks.

[goshawkr]

Hi Geoff,

Could you post a link, or the text from your state regs that specify that LE must have a warrant? I think that could be very useful. Thanks.

Hey Paul.

Its not in our regs. It is the interpretation of our State Fish and Game agency that the 4th amendment restricts the ability to perform inspections. I find this mildly unsettling because down the road we could get another set of lawyers/beaurocrats who would see things differently. Also, the US FWS expressly retained the ability to perform their own enforcement activities, including inspections, when they handed administration of falconry down to the states, and they commonly see themselves as being "above" any state law or any state interpretation of federal law.

Here is the link to our inspections regulations - no mention either way of a warrant. https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=220-420&full=true#220-420-270

[frigginchi]

The MBTA requires a search warrant.

SEC. 5. ø16 U.S.C. 706 That any employee of the Department of Agriculture authorized by the Secretary of Agriculture 4 to enforce the provisions of this Act shall have power, without warrant, to arrest any person committing a violation of this Act in his presence or view and to take such person immediately for examination or trial before an officer or court of competent jurisdiction; shall have power to execute any warrant or other process issued by an officer or court of competent jurisdiction for the enforcement of the provisions of this Act; and shall have authority, with a search warrant, to search any place. The several judges of the courts established under the laws of the United States, and United States commissioners may, within their respective jurisdictions, upon proper oath or affirmation showing probable cause, issue warrants in all such cases. All birds, or parts, nests, or eggs thereof, captured, killed, taken, sold or offered for sale, bartered or offered for barter, purchased, shipped, transported, carried, imported, exported, or possessed contrary to the provisions of this Act or of any regulation prescribed thereunder shall, when found, be seized and, upon conviction of the offender or upon judgment of a court of the United States that the same were captured, killed, taken, sold or offered for sale, bartered or offered for barter, purchased, shipped, transported, carried, imported, exported, or possessed contrary to the provisions of this Act or of any regulation prescribed thereunder, shall be forfeited to the United States and disposed of by the Secretary of the Interior in such manner as he deems appropriate.

https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/Migratory%20Bird%20Treaty%20Act.pdf

[Saluqi]

Hey Paul.

Also, the US FWS expressly retained the ability to perform their own enforcement activities, including inspections, when they handed administration of falconry down to the states, and they commonly see themselves as being "above" any state law or any state interpretation of federal law.

No, the USFWS turned all of the inspections over to the state, no where do they expressly retain the ability to perform their own inspections. This was one of the big changes that came about in these new regulations, all law enforcement was turned over to the states. That said, individual states could add more restrictive language and grant federal law enforcement the ability to perform inspections.

From 50 CFR 21.29

(ii) You must submit to your State, tribal, or territorial agency that regulates falconry a signed and dated statement showing that you agree that the falconry facilities and raptors may be inspected without advance notice by State, tribal (if applicable), or territorial authorities at any reasonable time of day, but you must be present. If your facilities are not on property that you own, you must submit a signed and dated statement showing that the property owner agrees that the falconry facilities and raptors may be inspected by State, tribal (if applicable), or territorial authorities at any reasonable time of day in the presence of the property owner; except that the authorities may not enter the facilities or disturb the raptors unless you are present.


(9) Inspections. Falconry equipment and records may be inspected in the presence of the permittee during business hours on any day of the week by State, tribal, or territorial officials."

[Montucky]

The MBTA requires a search warrant.

SEC. 5. ø16 U.S.C. 706 That any employee of the Department of Agriculture authorized by the Secretary of Agriculture 4 to enforce the provisions of this Act shall have power, without warrant, to arrest any person committing a violation of this Act in his presence or view and to take such person immediately for examination or trial before an officer or court of competent jurisdiction; shall have power to execute any warrant or other process issued by an officer or court of competent jurisdiction for the enforcement of the provisions of this Act; and shall have authority, with a search warrant, to search any place. The several judges of the courts established under the laws of the United States, and United States commissioners may, within their respective jurisdictions, upon proper oath or affirmation showing probable cause, issue warrants in all such cases. All birds, or parts, nests, or eggs thereof, captured, killed, taken, sold or offered for sale, bartered or offered for barter, purchased, shipped, transported, carried, imported, exported, or possessed contrary to the provisions of this Act or of any regulation prescribed thereunder shall, when found, be seized and, upon conviction of the offender or upon judgment of a court of the United States that the same were captured, killed, taken, sold or offered for sale, bartered or offered for barter, purchased, shipped, transported, carried, imported, exported, or possessed contrary to the provisions of this Act or of any regulation prescribed thereunder, shall be forfeited to the United States and disposed of by the Secretary of the Interior in such manner as he deems appropriate.

https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/Migratory%20Bird%20Treaty%20Act.pdf

although this has been brought up before...this section you are referencing here is unrelated to falconry and similar permitting. Permits are exceptions to the basic statute and these are detailed in Subchapter B of 50CFR. In section 704 of this link....it gives Authority to the Secretary to set permitting rules etc.

[goshawkr]

No, the USFWS turned all of the inspections over to the state, no where do they expressly retain the ability to perform their own inspections. This was one of the big changes that came about in these new regulations, all law enforcement was turned over to the states. That said, individual states could add more restrictive language and grant federal law enforcement the ability to perform inspections.

From 50 CFR 21.29

(ii) You must submit to your State, tribal, or territorial agency that regulates falconry a signed and dated statement showing that you agree that the falconry facilities and raptors may be inspected without advance notice by State, tribal (if applicable), or territorial authorities at any reasonable time of day, but you must be present. If your facilities are not on property that you own, you must submit a signed and dated statement showing that the property owner agrees that the falconry facilities and raptors may be inspected by State, tribal (if applicable), or territorial authorities at any reasonable time of day in the presence of the property owner; except that the authorities may not enter the facilities or disturb the raptors unless you are present.


(9) Inspections. Falconry equipment and records may be inspected in the presence of the permittee during business hours on any day of the week by State, tribal, or territorial officials."

No where in that language does it say that US FWS cannot perform these inspections.

And in the register comments when those regulations were first published, the US FWS explicitly stated that they were not relinquishing their authority to do those inspections entirely. No surprise - when have you ever seen a government agency surrender power and authority?

[Saluqi]

No where in that language does it say that US FWS cannot perform these inspections.

And in the register comments when those regulations were first published, the US FWS explicitly stated that they were not relinquishing their authority to do those inspections entirely. No surprise - when have you ever seen a government agency surrender power and authority?

No Geoff, you said that the " the US FWS expressly retained the ability to perform their own enforcement activities, including inspections," which is wrong. Here's the register comments that you referenced, seems to me the feds relinquished their authority to perform inspections.

• ‘‘Does the FWS retain the authority
to suspend or revoke falconry permits
under 50 CFR. If not, this should be
stated. Exactly what authority does the
Service (LE) retain under the proposed
regulations, i.e. with no Federal permit.
This should be clarified and stated in
the regulations.’’

Response. We do not believe that the
regulation change affects law
enforcement substantially, or that there
are additional regulatory or permitting
burdens placed on the States, tribes, or
territories. With one exception, Service
enforcement of the provisions of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald
and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle
Act, 16 U.S.C. 668-668d) are not affected
by the regulations change. The
exception is that, because the Service
will no longer issue falconry permits,
Service law enforcement officers will
not have the authority to conduct
inspections of falconers’ records and
facilities, unless the Service officers also
are delegated State law enforcement
authority. The Service will not have
authority to suspend or revoke permits
issued by the States, tribes, or
territories, but compliance with all
provisions of these regulations remains
under the purview of the Service, and
falconry permittees are subject to
Federal prosecution for failure to
comply with the regulations.

[goshawkr]

Thanks for the correction Paul.

I recalled a different comment, but did not take the time to confirm it

[haggardgyr]

Some frequently asked questions and answers.

Great read!


https://pacificlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/falconers_faq-1.pdf

[rkumetz]

Some frequently asked questions and answers.

Great read!


https://pacificlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/falconers_faq-1.pdf


So I guess nobody from AFC or PLF is interested in explaining how not being able to use a bird held on falconry permit for a commercial venture
is a violation of your 1st amendment rights. You can talk all you want about falconry, your bird or anything else and you can put a picture that you did not
get paid for in a publication (print or electronic) for a non-commercial purpose. You simply can't make a profit on it. My guess is that this has something to do
with setting a precedent regarding commercial use in general which will then affect the abatement businesses run by you and others. Let's call a spade a spade, shall we?

The constitutional law professor that I spoke to about this litigation nearly blew his coffee out of his nose when I mentioned that part.

I realize that y'all think you are doing us a big favor but had you decided to pursue gross abuses of power on the part of the whackos
running the State of California and leave the rest of us as curious onlookers I would have felt a lot better about all the help I am getting.
Some of us are busy cultivating a working relationship with both our state agencies and USFWS.

[rkumetz]

So is there any news on this landmark litigation?

[frigginchi]

Suing the government is never an expedient thing.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/26054858/Stavrianoudakis_et_al_v_US_Department_of_Fish__Wil dlife_et_al


So is there any news on this landmark litigation?

[rkumetz]

[QUOTE=frigginchi;401692]Suing the government is never an expedient thing.


Frivolously suing the government even less so. What a waste of my tax dollars. The part about searches is debatable. The part about 1st amendment rights is a cover for commercialization of a falconry permit. A spade is a spade.

Thanks for the link. I am guessing that PLF and AFC don't plan to update anyone unless the update lets them thump their chests.

[Saluqi]

Here's the latest:

"Judge O’Neill found that licensed falconers have a First Amendment right to express themselves with their raptors that is subject to the strictest constitutional scrutiny."

Whatever that means, I guess "express themselves with their raptors" means charge money to do ads and show people their birds?

https://pacificlegal.org/falconers-win-important-first-victory-in-civil-liberties-lawsuit/?fbclid=IwAR3oJmNi8rYFN0Pbj2088WNJBzzxLK-8W_OYwUar0Q7vtVtq09kubR6tLuw

[rkumetz]

Here's the latest:

"Judge O’Neill found that licensed falconers have a First Amendment right to express themselves with their raptors that is subject to the strictest constitutional scrutiny."

Whatever that means, I guess "express themselves with their raptors" means charge money to do ads and show people their birds?

https://pacificlegal.org/falconers-win-important-first-victory-in-civil-liberties-lawsuit/?fbclid=IwAR3oJmNi8rYFN0Pbj2088WNJBzzxLK-8W_OYwUar0Q7vtVtq09kubR6tLuw

Despite the PT Barnum-esque hoopla it the ruling means nothing other than the case can continue. I wonder if PLF has a sign in their office that says "This way to see the egress"? :D

[dboyrollz76]

Ambiguity, the poet of the of all that is wrote as law or regulation. I guess if I’m reading it correctly, that they actually had a warrant when they searched this fellas property. (Judge O’Neill declined to rule on the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) claims because they have not recently suffered warrantless searches.)

[rkumetz]

https://www.courthousenews.com/federal-judge-upholds-warrantless-searches-for-falconers/?fbclid=IwAR04d5DbwKX4hsJsZ29OHYWtP6WRKM2vLpygK6O8 BGq8HYm0G5tVBiGbdqs

[JRedig]

I'll bump this thread too, it seems ron's link covers the findings though.

[goshawkr]

"standing" is a horribly abused legal concept for throwing cases against the government out. I also think it was likely incorrectly argued.

The federal government has forced all 49 states that implemented falconry regulations to write state regulations to allow these warrantless searches. And some of those HAVE been excuted on. Some states have been more draconian with others on how they interpret inspections. California Fish and Wildlife for example publicly opined a few years ago that they had the legal authority to do an inspection whenever they wanted and they would act on that authority. My state has been relatively chill about it, and our falconry coordinator that recently retired was rumored to have taken the stand that in Washington inspections cannot happen without a warrant (I was not in on that conversation directly).

All the same, a graduated apprentice of mine was subjected to a drop in inspection here in Washington in late December [of 2021] without a warrant. This caused a lot of stir at the time with the local falconry community - especially since the falconry program coordinator with our wildlife department had been on the job for all of 2 months when this happened. However, as the facts came out everyone - including my former apprentice - agreed that the inspection was justified. Although there was still some friendly criticism for how it was executed. Turns out my apprentices neighbor had complained to fish and game that someone was keeping hawks caged up and was mistreating them. That complaint SHOULD have been followed up on - and when it was it was found to be baseless.

Still - it was a very nerve wracking experience for my former apprentice. And HE is an attorney...

[rkumetz]

"standing" is a horribly abused legal concept for throwing cases against the government out. I also think it was likely incorrectly argued.

The federal government has forced all 49 states that implemented falconry regulations to write state regulations to allow these warrantless searches. And some of those HAVE been excuted on. Some states have been more draconian with others on how they interpret inspections. California Fish and Wildlife for example publicly opined a few years ago that they had the legal authority to do an inspection whenever they wanted and they would act on that authority. My state has been relatively chill about it, and our falconry coordinator that recently retired was rumored to have taken the stand that in Washington inspections cannot happen without a warrant (I was not in on that conversation directly).

All the same, a graduated apprentice of mine was subjected to a drop in inspection here in Washington in late December [of 2021] without a warrant. This caused a lot of stir at the time with the local falconry community - especially since the falconry program coordinator with our wildlife department had been on the job for all of 2 months when this happened. However, as the facts came out everyone - including my former apprentice - agreed that the inspection was justified. Although there was still some friendly criticism for how it was executed. Turns out my apprentices neighbor had complained to fish and game that someone was keeping hawks caged up and was mistreating them. That complaint SHOULD have been followed up on - and when it was it was found to be baseless.

Still - it was a very nerve wracking experience for my former apprentice. And HE is an attorney...


We are fortunate in VT that our relationship with F&W is pretty good.
Our falconry coordinator is interested in what we do and our new commissioner thinks falconry is cool.

Cultivating a relationship with your local warden(s) is a great way to have someone dispelling rumors that
you are a shady hawk abuser when someone talks about inspecting you and if not they are likely to be
present so at least you have a face that you know present for the inspection. I try to remember to
invite our warden out hawking whenever we get a new one. Those of you in law enforcement will back
me up when I say that anyone who treats you in a friendly manner is a nice change when you are in
a job where people tend to dislike what you do for a living.

[rkumetz]

BTW I think the judge did exactly what the PLF attorneys were hoping for.

I maintain that they took the AFC case because their agenda is to take on any cases that they can which will allow
them to pad their CV's with litigation which might put them before the Supreme Court.

PLF has no interest in falconry (and most likely most of the other issues that they argue) whatsoever.

I hear that Soldier of Fortune Magazine has spun off a sister publication: "Attorney of Fortune" :)