But wait, there's more

[Peregrinus]

https://pacificlegal.org/nafa-amicus-brief-falls-flat/?fbclid=IwAR33k-igdhb3cNOYh56Ur0svH_cmjTb1ehvRszavbO_4nN2CdgzYZU1u i3s

In the brief, NAFA "supports regulations designed to protect individual raptors possessed, at the expense of the sport and even falconers if necessary."

The doc: https://pacificlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Peter-Stavrianoudakis-et-al.-v.-United-States-Department-of-Fish-Wildlife-Response-to-NAFA-Amicus.pdf

[Peregrinus]

In short, if you think you can trash the Constitution in a vain attempt to protect falconry, you are wrong.

[wyodjm]

In short, if you think you can trash the Constitution in a vain attempt to protect falconry, you are wrong.

"But there is no cause for confusion.
As the Plaintiffs explain in their response to NAFA filed today there is no need to sacrifice the Constitution in order to protect falconry birds. Securing a warrant before a search, or respecting falconers’ free speech rights, leaves plenty of room for the government to regulate falconry." 👍🏻

[rkumetz]

You do realize that the overly dramatic self-promoting press releases cross the boundary between inaccurate and simply laughable, right?

If AFC believes in the cause AND really cares about falconry you should have gone at this without the PLF nuts. I realize you are well intentioned despite our distance on various issues but PLF has a vastly different agenda than either of us. PLF is a Trojan horse disguised as a bunch of constitution thumping do-gooders.

[dboyrollz76]

Someone please, what’s PLF hidden agenda? I’ve been thinking about this. What do they really get other than the AFC’s money. Doing away with inspections and training for every small business and corporate power out there? They sure aren’t doing it for glory. Because they would have picked a bigger fight. Than screwing around with something that could be solved over dinner.
Seriously though, what do they stand to gain? Please!

[ericedw]

You do realize that the overly dramatic self-promoting press releases cross the boundary between inaccurate and simply laughable, right?

If AFC believes in the cause AND really cares about falconry you should have gone at this without the PLF nuts. I realize you are well intentioned despite our distance on various issues but PLF has a vastly different agenda than either of us. PLF is a Trojan horse disguised as a bunch of constitution thumping do-gooders.

They may not align with my personal political beliefs in a lot of areas, but it seems that they are pretty good at what they do and I'm glad to have them fighting on the behalf of falconers rights.

"The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) was established in 1973-74 by a group of attorneys from California's Justice Department (then under the control of Attorney-General Ed Meese) to counter reform of the welfare system, and the liberal public interest legal groups that were pressing for better environmental and health regulations. Especially targeted were the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund.

Governor Ronald Reagan of California appears to have provided the required financial links to Pittsburg billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife who funded the initial office in Sacramento, and his friend and counsellor, Ed Meese (III) became one of the founders and its chief supporter. Its expressed aim was to use its financial and litigation power to "impact the public policy agenda."

An article in the Washington Post in May 1999 reveals that "Scaife's first grants in this area (conservative public interest law movement) were made in 1974 to the Pacific Legal Foundation. In its early years Scaife kept the PLF alive. Since the mid-'70s more than $20 million in Scaife money has gone to the conservative public interest law movement "on behalf of a market-oriented economics system, traditional property rights and limited government," in the words of an internal memo written by a Scaife aide in December 1980."

The day-to-day operations of the Foundation were in the hands of Ronald A Zumbrun, who's law firm Zumbrun & Findley ran most of the cases. Before his elevation to CEO of the PLF, Zumbrun had been a lawyer with the California Department of Public Works, the California Department of Social Welfare and the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

By 1983 the organization was seen as a "growing force in public interest work" with an annual income of $2.5 million per year [3] and it had already begun to spawn other regional legal centers of a similar kind using Scaife funding. Not all of these, however, focussed on the aggressive use of litigation as did the PLF. According to a Philip Morris document urging the company to develop stronger links with the foundation: "It has participated in hundreds of cases at all court levels, winning the vast majority of those reaching final decision - including several before the U.S. Supreme Court."

[ericedw]

[QUOTE=dboyrollz76;398791Because they would have picked a bigger fight. Than screwing around with something that could be solved over dinner.
Seriously though, what do they stand to gain? Please![/QUOTE]

Not sure who you have dinner with but please bring it up in between courses.

[haggardgyr]

The support of the PLF is exactly what the falconry community has needed for decades!

I used to think that what we needed was some old retired falconer, past his actual years in the practice, that was willing to put himself on the line to defend simple constitutional rights.

Thanks to the PLF, such sacrifices from the falconry community are no longer needed!

Ron Kearney

[ericedw]

The support of the PLF is exactly what the falconry community has needed for decades!

I used to think that what we needed was some old retired falconer, past his actual years in the practice, that was willing to put himself on the line to defend simple constitutional rights.

Thanks to the PLF, such sacrifices from the falconry community are no longer needed!

Ron Kearney
z

I couldn't agree more.

[haggardgyr]

Great Summation Eric!

[haggardgyr]

PLF's agenda is to defend constitutional rights in many venues. The AFC has the same agenda within a very small venue. PLF/AFC is a match made in heaven!

Ron Kearney

[Peregrinus]

Someone please, what’s PLF hidden agenda? I’ve been thinking about this. What do they really get other than the AFC’s money. Doing away with inspections and training for every small business and corporate power out there? They sure aren’t doing it for glory. Because they would have picked a bigger fight. Than screwing around with something that could be solved over dinner.
Seriously though, what do they stand to gain? Please!


Actually, they don't get any AFC money. They operate pro-bono. They are a libertarian-oriented property rights org. If you think this could have been 'solved this over dinner', than maybe you should wonder why it wasn't done 30 years ago, or just how old your dinner might be.
I have had the privilege of dealing with the PLF attorneys at some length now. Are they falconers? Nope. But are they focused on individual property rights? Ya dang right they are! Yeah...their 'hidden agenda' is individual liberty. Imagine that! We are fortunate that they took up the cause. Thanks, PLF!

[haggardgyr]

Derek,

What do you mean by writing "Doing away with inspections and training for every small business and corporate power out there"?

If you had seriously considered Nafa's Amicus Curiae and the PLF's response to it, you would understand that the AFC or the PLF does not oppose inspections or advocate for the end of training for businesses large or small. Where did you pick that up from?

[dboyrollz76]

Derek,

What do you mean by writing "Doing away with inspections and training for every small business and corporate power out there"?

If you had seriously considered Nafa's Amicus Curiae and the PLF's response to it, you would understand that the AFC or the PLF does not oppose inspections or advocate for the end of training for businesses large or small. Where did you pick that up from?
You know the whole quality control bit, like say the food inspectors when you own a restaurant. The terms of your license allows for untimely inspections. Could this be used as a avenue to say, Get a warrant. So it gives you time to pick the roaches out of the soup. OSHA inspectors, that businesses have to let in to inspect at any time. To make sure your employees were trained right and proper safety gear and follow procedures. That kinda of stuff, stipulations are all around us in permit systems. Give a inch take a mile. This just isn’t about a unwarranted search or unscheduled inspection.

[dboyrollz76]

Actually, they don't get any AFC money. They operate pro-bono. They are a libertarian-oriented property rights org. If you think this could have been 'solved this over dinner', than maybe you should wonder why it wasn't done 30 years ago, or just how old your dinner might be.
I have had the privilege of dealing with the PLF attorneys at some length now. Are they falconers? Nope. But are they focused on individual property rights? Ya dang right they are! Yeah...their 'hidden agenda' is individual liberty. Imagine that! We are fortunate that they took up the cause. Thanks, PLF!
I got a few ideas about why it hasn’t been addressed and taken care of before now.
1. It already was.
2. No body cared really till they got pissed off.
3. Who ever was doing the talking, wasn’t holding their mouth right!

[Montucky]

https://pacificlegal.org/nafa-amicus-brief-falls-flat/?fbclid=IwAR33k-igdhb3cNOYh56Ur0svH_cmjTb1ehvRszavbO_4nN2CdgzYZU1u i3s

In the brief, NAFA "supports regulations designed to protect individual raptors possessed, at the expense of the sport and even falconers if necessary."

The doc: https://pacificlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Peter-Stavrianoudakis-et-al.-v.-United-States-Department-of-Fish-Wildlife-Response-to-NAFA-Amicus.pdf

NO that was not in the brief. It was quoted from an exhibit that is a supporting reference and was misquoted by your attorney as a NAFA statement or position. IT was from A 1996 paper by Carnie and Rogers presented at a wildlife conference that articulated an "order of priorities". Birds, falconry and falconers in that order. I would encourage readers of this and related threads to read all the legal documents carefully and thoughtfully. Most of these issues revolve around conversations, social media posts, and marketing materials that are divorced from factual arguments. It concerns me that political beliefs of the petitioners are driving this more than a genuine concern for falconry, and in doing so, they are aligning with the devil. In a recent post by PLF, the lead attorney calls NAFA "a special interest group purporting to speak on behalf on falconers". Well NAFA has the largest membership rolls of any falconry member organization and AFC has what a hundred? THe fact remains that NAFA was a co-author of the falconry regs and the stipulations those authors developed had a lot of context and historical significance that folks need to appreciate. Much of this context is in the Carnie and Rogers paper posted as an exhibit in this case. Furthermore this effort to develop acceptable falconry regs in collaboration with the USFWS was the catalyst behind legalized falconry in the US. THese are straight up facts. Read the materials then decide.

[JRedig]

NO that was not in the brief. It was quoted from an exhibit that is a supporting reference and was misquoted by your attorney as a NAFA statement or position. IT was from A 1996 paper by Carnie and Rogers presented at a wildlife conference that articulated an "order of priorities". Birds, falconry and falconers in that order. I would encourage readers of this and related threads to read all the legal documents carefully and thoughtfully. Most of these issues revolve around conversations, social media posts, and marketing materials that are divorced from factual arguments. It concerns me that political beliefs of the petitioners are driving this more than a genuine concern for falconry, and in doing so, they are aligning with the devil. In a recent post by PLF, the lead attorney calls NAFA "a special interest group purporting to speak on behalf on falconers". Well NAFA has the largest membership rolls of any falconry member organization and AFC has what a hundred? THe fact remains that NAFA was a co-author of the falconry regs and the stipulations those authors developed had a lot of context and historical significance that folks need to appreciate. Much of this context is in the Carnie and Rogers paper posted as an exhibit in this case. Furthermore this effort to develop acceptable falconry regs in collaboration with the USFWS was the catalyst behind legalized falconry in the US. THese are straight up facts. Read the materials then decide.

Thank you for bringing this up John! Something to the effect of standing on the shoulders of giants comes to mind. Kind of unreal to watch all these discussions unfold the way they do. Willful ignorance is real.

[frigginchi]

This is from NAFA's site.

https://www.n-a-f-a.com/page/Ethics (https://www.n-a-f-a.com/page/Ethics)

I. Private Ownership of Raptors
NAFA is a strong supporter of private ownership rights of captive bred falconry raptors, within the overall meanings of this policy.From a practical perspective however, NAFA’s position is that the well-being of raptors is a higher priority than the rights of the falconer.Falconers do not intentionally place their own interests above the well-being of their birds.Therefore, NAFA supports the current legal frameworks which allow only duly licensed persons to possess raptors for any purpose.

[BestBeagler]

Thank you for bringing this up John! Something to the effect of standing on the shoulders of giants comes to mind. Kind of unreal to watch all these discussions unfold the way they do. Willful ignorance is real.

Interesting! I read the same thing that you highlighted in bold and can appreciate it. However, the first thing that came to my mind is people are not infallible and that on this issue NAFA may have fumbled the ball at that time in history (I'm not blaming anyone). Or they were forced too compromise on issues this being on of them. I don't know as I wasn't there.

I could be wrong but I'm wondering if the blow back on this issue from some of the falconry community has more to do with the fear of retaliation in other ways with the USFWS than anything else and that reality is masked by better sounding arguments? If that is the case, it will be a monumental task to unite the two groups of falconers in deciding the course of action (and get's tiresome to read). One group not being afraid to be more forceful and the other preferring a slower political wine and dine solution. Obviously, both groups are passionate about falconry and believe that they feel they know the best course of action.

Maybe it's the old good cop bad cop routine going on here. Good cop being NAFA bad cop being AFC.

[ericedw]

I don't question whether or not the current inspection rules were necessary or not to legalize falconry back in the 70's, I wasn't there and I may very well have agreed with them at the time.

But, you can only hold onto history for so long. Falconers, and especially falconry organizations, should always strive to make things better for the sport, the birds and it's practitioners.

[Saluqi]

So what are the possible outcomes if the PLF wins in California and the courts rule these falconry inspections are illegal? I would hazard a guess that either falconry would become illegal in CA since the CA regs would no longer comply with the federal regs, or CA would make inspections mandatory and to offset the additional manpower cost of doing all of these inspections they would increase the falconry permit fee to something outrageous like $500 per year. Anyone have any ideas?

[BestBeagler]

This is from NAFA's site.

https://www.n-a-f-a.com/page/Ethics (https://www.n-a-f-a.com/page/Ethics)

I. Private Ownership of Raptors
NAFA is a strong supporter of private ownership rights of captive bred falconry raptors, within the overall meanings of this policy.From a practical perspective however, NAFA’s position is that the well-being of raptors is a higher priority than the rights of the falconer.Falconers do not intentionally place their own interests above the well-being of their birds.Therefore, NAFA supports the current legal frameworks which allow only duly licensed persons to possess raptors for any purpose.

Herein lies the issue (anyone please correct me if I'm wrong), some of the falconry community believes we need to sacrifice our simple constitutional rights to ensure the well being of the birds we care for and others do not (read my previous post do they? or are the afraid from potential repercussions of pushing this issue?). I'm sure those in the camp that believe we don't need to give up a simple constitutional right would not be opposed to coming up with another avenue to ensure that the well being of raptors used in falconry is being considered.

[ericedw]

You ensure the well being of falconry raptors the same way you ensure the wellbeing of dogs, cats, horses, parrots, etc.

[Tanner]

This lawsuit threatens the future of legal wild raptor take for falconry. Period. NAFA did a great job addressing that with the amicus curiae -the extent to which raptors held under a falconry permit may be used in commercial and other activities. The NAFA brief basically says that falconry is falconry, ultimately a hunting sport – not a smorgasbord of activities including using raptors in commercials and movies, doing hawk walks/bird shows/renaissance fairs for profit….and all the other horse shit you see passed off as “falconry” in Europe, for example.

The AFC members on this forum claim infringement of free speech without stating truthfully that what that claim is really about is that Scott Timmons (and others) want to use raptors held on falconry permits to make money in the film/advertising industry and other commercial pursuits. Are you all going to own up to that? How does that constitute falconry?

If people want to do that – have at it. But fight for your own set of regulations to govern those activities. Those activities are not falconry and are not under the purview of a falconry permit!

AFC claims to be interested in preserving wild raptor take…that must be a joke considering the implications of this lawsuit. The fact is that AFC is bastardizing the definition of falconry (and therefore what activities are covered under a falconry permit).

The proof is in the pudding:

NAFA:
“Falconry is the taking [of] wild quarry in its natural state with a trained raptor.” And “.....falconry does not include the keeping of birds of prey as pets or prestige items, for captive-breeding purposes, for rehabilitation or education purposes, for shows, renaissance fairs and the like, or for purely scientific purposes.”

AFC:
"Falconry is the art of housing, tending, training, flying, and hunting with birds of prey, such as falcons, hawks, and eagles."

No person should have their property searched without a warrant – that is a totally separate issue. However, it is not an issue that is worth losing wild take over. And that is not an issue that requires a new definition of what falconry is.

[ericedw]

Any time someone suggests the loosening of falconry regs and make changes to allow more freedom the most common battle cries are "we'll end up like the UK" and "we'll lose wild take". Expanding apprentice birds, allowing them to fly captive bred birds, claiming we actually own the birds we legally harvest, allowing falconers unlimited possession of CB birds and on and on. It didn't happen then I personally don't fear it now.

[wyodjm]

NO that was not in the brief. It was quoted from an exhibit that is a supporting reference and was misquoted by your attorney as a NAFA statement or position. IT was from A 1996 paper by Carnie and Rogers presented at a wildlife conference that articulated an "order of priorities". Birds, falconry and falconers in that order. I would encourage readers of this and related threads to read all the legal documents carefully and thoughtfully. Most of these issues revolve around conversations, social media posts, and marketing materials that are divorced from factual arguments. It concerns me that political beliefs of the petitioners are driving this more than a genuine concern for falconry, and in doing so, they are aligning with the devil. In a recent post by PLF, the lead attorney calls NAFA "a special interest group purporting to speak on behalf on falconers". Well NAFA has the largest membership rolls of any falconry member organization and AFC has what a hundred? THe fact remains that NAFA was a co-author of the falconry regs and the stipulations those authors developed had a lot of context and historical significance that folks need to appreciate. Much of this context is in the Carnie and Rogers paper posted as an exhibit in this case. Furthermore this effort to develop acceptable falconry regs in collaboration with the USFWS was the catalyst behind legalized falconry in the US. THese are straight up facts. Read the materials then decide.


Thank you for bringing this up John! Something to the effect of standing on the shoulders of giants comes to mind. Kind of unreal to watch all these discussions unfold the way they do. Willful ignorance is real.

Giving credit where credit is due, Yes, Nafa was there when the original falconry regs were being drawn up in the 1970's. But that's like saying the Miami Dolphins won the Superbowl in 1973! Our social, economic and political landscape is totally different today! And yes, Nafa is the largest falconry organization. But how many of the U.S. licensed falconers actually belong to Nafa? Perhaps 1/3, if that! So, in essence, Nafa doesn’t represent the majority of U.S. falconers either! So please stop implying that they do!

Look, I wish falconers were more united. I think all of us do. But the fact is, Nafa is a special interest group! So is the AFC. But I’ve had the feeling for several years now that many Nafa members act like it was some sort of religious cult! It’s just a club that is supposed to represent falconers and the interest of falconers.

I first joined Nafa in 1975! I’ve made an observation over the years. There has always been the overlying shadow of a modern day caste system existing within Nafa and it seems it has been very heavily guarded at times! That was one of the main reasons the original WRTC (now AFC) was started and by one of Nafa’s original founding fathers! How paradoxical is that? People should quit acting as if Nafa is a cult and that anyone who disagrees or publicly criticizes Nafa is committing falconry sacrilege! And please quit trying to discredit, demonize and marginalize the AFC for attempting to improve falconry in the U.S.

[frigginchi]

If the regs are written to comply with the Constitution life goes on. Laws can not conflict with the Constitution no matter how much one wants to give up their rights. I'm in California and I'm not afraid of losing falconry.

Compare the wording of state vs feds:

From the fed regs:
https://www.ncwildlife.org/portals/0/License/Documents/Falconry_Federal_Regulations.pdf
(9) Inspections. Falconry equipment and records may be inspected in the presence of the permittee during businesshours on any day of the week by State, tribal, or territorial officials.

From state regs:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=27739&inline
(A) The department may conduct unannounced visitsto inspect facilities, equipment, or raptors possessed bythe licensee, and may enter the facilities of any licenseewhen the licensee is present during a reasonable time ofthe day and on any day of the week. The department mayalso inspect, audit, or copy any permit, license, book, orother record required to be kept by the licensee under these regulations at any time. The department may denythe issuance of, or immediately suspend, the license of alicensee who refuses to be available to participate in afacility inspection or who refuses to allow inspection of afacility, license, book, or other record required to be keptby the licensee. A refusal to allow inspection may beinferred if, after reasonable attempts by the department,the licensee is unavailable for inspection. The departmentmay reinstate a license suspended pursuant to thissubsection if the licensee allows the department to inspectthe facility, license, book, or other record, and noviolations of these regulations or any license conditionsare observed during that inspection.

[frigginchi]

Not sure if I posted this before but here it goes:


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 statue, 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)

[Saluqi]

Falconry isn't a right, it's a privilege. What is a right is the right to pursue falconry, to get a falconry license, but once you have that license you must comply with the rules, or laws governing falconry in order to maintain your permit. Like driving a car, everyone has the right to get a drivers license, but the act of legally driving is a privilege, which to maintain you must comply with the traffic laws. You can't get caught driving drunk and maintain your license. If you get pulled over and the cop smells weed you have just compromised your 4th amendment rights and the cop may search your vehicle and your person because of probable cause. Did you know that DWI checkpoints are unconstitutional? It's true, but try fighting that one in court.

[Montucky]

Giving credit where credit is due, Yes, Nafa was there when the original falconry regs were being drawn up in the 1970's. But that's like saying the Miami Dolphins won the Superbowl in 1973! Our social, economic and political landscape is totally different today! And yes, Nafa is the largest falconry organization. But how many of the U.S. licensed falconers actually belong to Nafa? Perhaps 1/3, if that! So, in essence, Nafa doesn’t represent the majority of U.S. falconers either! So please stop implying that they do!

Look, I wish falconers were more united. I think all of us do. But the fact is, Nafa is a special interest group! So is the AFC. But I’ve had the feeling for several years now that many Nafa members act like it was some sort of religious cult! It’s just a club that is supposed to represent falconers and the interest of falconers.

I first joined Nafa in 1975! I’ve made an observation over the years. There has always been the overlying shadow of a modern day caste system existing within Nafa and it seems it has been very heavily guarded at times! That was one of the main reasons the original WRTC (now AFC) was started and by one of Nafa’s original founding fathers! How paradoxical is that? People should quit acting as if Nafa is a cult and that anyone who disagrees or publicly criticizes Nafa is committing falconry sacrilege! And please quit trying to discredit, demonize and marginalize the AFC for attempting to improve falconry in the U.S.

Dan, with all due respect that is pure nonsense. NAFA is the largest falconry member organization in the world nevermind North America. This is a factual statement. NAFA doesnt claim to represent all North American falconers, but has the majority membership with no close second. AFC, as I understand it, has maybe around 100 active members. The fact that NAFA was the catalyst behind legalizing falconry is not like saying the Dolphins won the Superbowl in '73. Its recognizing the key role the organization has and is playing for falconry and falconers. Attempts at denying this is not sacrilege, its just plain factually wrong. Any objective observer would conclude that North American falconry has seen a remarkable trajectory of favorable law, regs and access to wild birds relative to almost any other country. NAFA played a key role in this, often behind the scenes and taking little credit as NAFA folks supported state clubs in their respective negotiations. My opinion is that the persistent and almost irrational critiques of NAFA are more about personal politics than falconry.

[Montucky]

This lawsuit threatens the future of legal wild raptor take for falconry. Period. NAFA did a great job addressing that with the amicus curiae -the extent to which raptors held under a falconry permit may be used in commercial and other activities. The NAFA brief basically says that falconry is falconry, ultimately a hunting sport – not a smorgasbord of activities including using raptors in commercials and movies, doing hawk walks/bird shows/renaissance fairs for profit….and all the other horse shit you see passed off as “falconry” in Europe, for example.

The AFC members on this forum claim infringement of free speech without stating truthfully that what that claim is really about is that Scott Timmons (and others) want to use raptors held on falconry permits to make money in the film/advertising industry and other commercial pursuits. Are you all going to own up to that? How does that constitute falconry?

If people want to do that – have at it. But fight for your own set of regulations to govern those activities. Those activities are not falconry and are not under the purview of a falconry permit!

AFC claims to be interested in preserving wild raptor take…that must be a joke considering the implications of this lawsuit. The fact is that AFC is bastardizing the definition of falconry (and therefore what activities are covered under a falconry permit).

The proof is in the pudding:

NAFA:
“Falconry is the taking [of] wild quarry in its natural state with a trained raptor.” And “.....falconry does not include the keeping of birds of prey as pets or prestige items, for captive-breeding purposes, for rehabilitation or education purposes, for shows, renaissance fairs and the like, or for purely scientific purposes.”

AFC:
"Falconry is the art of housing, tending, training, flying, and hunting with birds of prey, such as falcons, hawks, and eagles."

No person should have their property searched without a warrant – that is a totally separate issue. However, it is not an issue that is worth losing wild take over. And that is not an issue that requires a new definition of what falconry is.

thanks Tanner. This is an important issue and I appreciate this perspective. The fact is this is a divide between the true interests of falconry, and those with other financial and political agendas. The politics behind the PLF and the AFC has its roots in the Wise Use Movement and other related anti-environmental movements that seek to challenge agency oversight over natural resources, and strengthen private control. That is why the PLF is doing this for free, and I personally dont appreciate the involvement of this ideological group and their meddling in falconry's future. Falconers have varying personal political beliefs, and some are just not going to see the light on this issue. The only thing we can hope is most of the readers here absorb the arguments and facts, research the PLF and their antagonistic relationship with wildlife conservation, and come to their own conclusion about what is best for falconry.

[wyodjm]

Dan, with all due respect that is pure nonsense. NAFA is the largest falconry member organization in the world nevermind North America. This is a factual statement. NAFA doesnt claim to represent all North American falconers, but has the majority membership with no close second. AFC, as I understand it, has maybe around 100 active members. The fact that NAFA was the catalyst behind legalizing falconry is not like saying the Dolphins won the Superbowl in '73. Its recognizing the key role the organization has and is playing for falconry and falconers. Attempts at denying this is not sacrilege, its just plain factually wrong. Any objective observer would conclude that North American falconry has seen a remarkable trajectory of favorable law, regs and access to wild birds relative to almost any other country.

Hi John. I appreciate your response. Actually I agreed with most of what you said. However, the point I was trying to make was that Nafa doesn't even come close to representing the majority of U.S. falconers. Perhaps 2/3 or more of U. S. licensed falconers aren't Nafa members! I agree that Nafa is the largest falconry organization.

I don't have a problem with you John. We're just having a discussion. I respect you! Again, just to be clear, I said the majority, perhaps more than 2/3's of the U.S. falconry population aren't members of Nafa! That isn't nonsense!

[Saluqi]

Hi John. I appreciate your response. Actually I agreed with most of what you said. However, the point I was trying to make was that Nafa doesn't even come close to representing the majority of U.S. falconers. Perhaps 2/3 or more of U. S. licensed falconers aren't Nafa members! I agree that Nafa is the largest falconry organization. That isn't nonsense! I don't have a problem with you John. We're just having a discussion. I respect you!

Again, just to be clear, I said the majority, perhaps more than 2/3's of the U.S. falconry population aren't members of Nafa!

Hi Dan,

I think NAFA's membership is at 1900 out of about 4300 licensed falconers in the US.

[Montucky]

Falconry isn't a right, it's a privilege. What is a right is the right to pursue falconry, to get a falconry license, but once you have that license you must comply with the rules, or laws governing falconry in order to maintain your permit. Like driving a car, everyone has the right to get a drivers license, but the act of legally driving is a privilege, which to maintain you must comply with the traffic laws. You can't get caught driving drunk and maintain your license. If you get pulled over and the cop smells weed you have just compromised your 4th amendment rights and the cop may search your vehicle and your person because of probable cause. Did you know that DWI checkpoints are unconstitutional? It's true, but try fighting that one in court.

Were talking to the sovereign citizen crowd here Paul :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7IdvKI3wX8

[rkumetz]

But how many of the U.S. licensed falconers actually belong to Nafa? Perhaps 1/3, if that! So, in essence, Nafa doesn’t represent the majority of U.S. falconers either! So please stop implying that they do!

I get your point but let's assume that NAFA and AFC are the two largest falconry organizations in the US. NAFA still has a huge membership compared to the 100ish members that AFC has.
If you want to look at pure numbers, there are probably also a number of state clubs that have more members than AFC as well.

In all honesty, how many of AFC's members are as passionate about this agenda as the most involved members?
How many of the AFC dues paying members are truly behind the quest to slay the dragon and how many continue to send in dues just to be part of another falconry organization?

[wyodjm]

Hi Paul. I had major formatting issues with my last post! My sentences were not in order!! I fixed them!

Anyway, that number of actual dues paying Nafa members seems very high to me! Thanks Paul.

[ericedw]

Paul, if you are trying to say that the difference between a right and a privilege is that privlages can be take away if you break the rules then there are no "rights" in this country. Anything can be taken away from you if you break the law (or rules), your license, your kids, your house, your freedom and even your life in some states.
I have the right to practice falconry just like anything else I want to do, no one is sitting on a throne giving out privileges to those they choose.

[wyodjm]

Were talking to the sovereign citizen crowd here Paul :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7IdvKI3wX8

Hi John. Why did you have to be insulting? We're just falconers!

[Peregrinus]

NO that was not in the brief. It was quoted from an exhibit that is a supporting reference and was misquoted by your attorney as a NAFA statement or position. IT was from A 1996 paper by Carnie and Rogers presented at a wildlife conference that articulated an "order of priorities". Birds, falconry and falconers in that order. I would encourage readers of this and related threads to read all the legal documents carefully and thoughtfully...

John-
You appear to be saying that the PLF attorney's are being disingenuous by using that quote. I'm no legal expert, and I am not well-versed in reading legal documents, but from what I see, the quote *is* in the body of the brief itself, (page 11, lines 5-9, before the exhibits) and is cited accordingly. The quote, if read in the context of the paragraph in which it appears, bolsters the assertions of the previous sentences. Why would NAFA include the quote if it did not reflect or support their position? That's the whole point of the brief, is it not? To lay out assertions and provide quotes and documents to support those assertions?

[rkumetz]

Paul, if you are trying to say that the difference between a right and a privilege is that privlages can be take away if you break the rules then there are no "rights" in this country. Anything can be taken away from you if you break the law (or rules), your license, your kids, your house, your freedom and even your life in some states.
I have the right to practice falconry just like anything else I want to do, no one is sitting on a thrown giving out privileges to those they choose.

Hi Eric,
I sometimes envy the level at which you practice falconry so I say the following with the utmost respect. What you are describing goes beyond constitutional rights and borders upon anarchy.
Fortunately or unfortunately (and I agree that often the latter is the case) the majority get to dictate what is and is not acceptable. They make the rules.

Our court system no longer relies on a strict interpretation of the constitution and the perception of the intentions of the founding fathers. Activist judges interpret what is best for all of us.
Just look at the patriot act and the current direction that the debate about 2nd amendment rights is taken and it is obvious that the majority of our fellow Americans ARE in fact willing to give up
freedom for what they perceive as security. In most cases that security is simply not having to be involved with anything themselves. The more of a nanny the state is the better for them.
Congress is no longer interested in the constitution or in the compromise that is supposed to keep our government reasonably well oiled so when they have a chance they appoint judges that
are so far to the left or to the right that they are lucky the word isn't flat or they would fall off.

As a very small minority of the population which is at odds with much larger animal rights groups full of nuts and those who believe that fieldsports range from antiquated and unnecessary to unethical or immoral we need to keep sight of the fact that litigation in a federal court may improve our lot or it may attract attention that will end up screwing us in the long haul. I will concede that CA and some other states have abused their power but those issues could have been addressed without involving USFWS which has largely stepped out of the falconry biz.

Here is my summarized beef with this whole AFC action: AFC has embarked on a mission to have PLF take legal action in a federal court on behalf of falconers. All falconers are along for the ride now
whether they signed up or not. Our falconry may be affected so we are party to this litigation. I have asked some legitimate questions about the litigation that has been undertaken on my behalf and
I have been accused of not caring about my constitutional rights, inferred to be ignorant, and accused of hijacking threads and being a troll. What I have NOT received is any sort of answers to my
my question as a plaintiff in this action who was not given any choice as to whether or not I participated.

[Saluqi]

Paul, if you are trying to say that the difference between a right and a privilege is that privlages can be take away if you break the rules then there are no "rights" in this country. Anything can be taken away from you if you break the law (or rules), your license, your kids, your house, your freedom and even your life in some states.
I have the right to practice falconry just like anything else I want to do, no one is sitting on a throne giving out privileges to those they choose.


That's correct, falconry is a privilege because to do it legally you need to have a permit, just like driving.

Wikipedia:

A privilege is a certain entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. ... By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth.

[Peregrinus]

I get your point but let's assume that NAFA and AFC are the two largest falconry organizations in the US. NAFA still has a huge membership compared to the 100ish members that AFC has.
If you want to look at pure numbers, there are probably also a number of state clubs that have more members than AFC as well.

In all honesty, how many of AFC's members are as passionate about this agenda as the most involved members?
How many of the AFC dues paying members are truly behind the quest to slay the dragon and how many continue to send in dues just to be part of another falconry organization?

Hi Ron:

The AFC has always been a small, politically motivated club with decidedly libertarian tendencies. Anyone who joins knows this, especially after the Great Conflagration of 2007-8, (to which I had a front row seat). NAFA's numbers have been declining steadily for many years. Now, perhaps some of the decline is due to ideological disagreement, but I don't think that accounts for most of it. The truth is that online engagement has replaced, to a large degree, the social function of the club. I think we've seen this in state club enrollment as well.

[Montucky]

John-
You appear to be saying that the PLF attorney's are being disingenuous by using that quote. I'm no legal expert, and I am not well-versed in reading legal documents, but from what I see, the quote *is* in the body of the brief itself, (page 11, lines 5-9, before the exhibits) and is cited accordingly. The quote, if read in the context of the paragraph in which it appears, bolsters the assertions of the previous sentences. Why would NAFA include the quote if it did not reflect or support their position? That's the whole point of the brief, is it not? To lay out assertions and provide quotes and documents to support those assertions?

It was a quote and referred to in a reference with a exhibit. The point is that your attorney represented it in a disingenuous way as a NAFA position statement when it was really a quote from an outside document that was in fact paraphrasing NAFA's "order of priorities" which not as slanted as you are suggesting.

[Peregrinus]

That's correct, falconry is a privilege because to do it legally you need to have a permit, just like driving.

Wikipedia:

A privilege is a certain entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. ... By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth.

Privilege comes from the Latin privus lege, or, private law. We don't have a system of private law in the U.S. A revolution was fought over it; the distinction is not small. Just because rights are legally restricted, (i.e. free speech is a right but you can't yell 'fire' etc.) does not make it less of a right. Just because you have to prove that you're not a danger to others on the road doesn't make driving a privilege. You have the right to own property, but that doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it. When we get into the mindset that the government can and should bestow privilege, in we're in big trouble.

[ericedw]

Here is my summarized beef with this whole AFC action: AFC has embarked on a mission to have PLF take legal action in a federal court on behalf of falconers. All falconers are along for the ride now
whether they signed up or not. Our falconry may be affected so we are party to this litigation. I have asked some legitimate questions about the litigation that has been undertaken on my behalf and
I have been accused of not caring about my constitutional rights, inferred to be ignorant, and accused of hijacking threads and being a troll. What I have NOT received is any sort of answers to my
my question as a plaintiff in this action who was not given any choice as to whether or not I participated.

No organization or individual can ever represent the beliefs and will of every licensed falconer in the country. It has never worked that way, if we're going to act only when we all give unanimous consent then nothing would ever get done. And yes, some actions will effect everyone one way or the other. But, it's any one of our right to stand up and defend ourselves and our rights. I wish them luck and hope there is a positive outcome for all falconers.

[haggardgyr]

Privilege comes from the Latin privus lege, or, private law. We don't have a system of private law in the U.S. A revolution was fought over it; the distinction is not small. Just because rights are legally restricted, (i.e. free speech is a right but you can't yell 'fire' etc.) does not make it less of a right. Just because you have to prove that you're not a danger to others on the road doesn't make driving a privilege. You have the right to own property, but that doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it. When we get into the mindset that the government can and should bestow privilege, in we're in big trouble.

Man's rights come from God, Nature, or Nature's God....take your pick. Government does not create rights, nor can it take them away. A moral government is one that recognizes and insures a defense of rights.

Ron Kearney

[Saluqi]

Privilege comes from the Latin privus lege, or, private law. We don't have a system of private law in the U.S. A revolution was fought over it; the distinction is not small. Just because rights are legally restricted, (i.e. free speech is a right but you can't yell 'fire' etc.) does not make it less of a right. Just because you have to prove that you're not a danger to others on the road doesn't make driving a privilege. You have the right to own property, but that doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it. When we get into the mindset that the government can and should bestow privilege, in we're in big trouble.

Exactly, and this cuts directly to the heart of the matter, the AFC sees falconry as a God given right, and the US government sees it as a privilege which can only be legally practiced by those who hold a permit. The AFC seeks to abolish all falconry regulation with the exception of those that say you can not harm anyone in the practice of falconry. The effect such deregulation would be the immediate loss of wild take in the United States of America.

I stand by what I have said in the past many times. If an individual wants to practice falconry without any regulations, then have at it. File 3-186a forms and say that your birds have died, and do not renew your state permit. Go about your falconry business free of regulation, trap whatever birds you want to fly, breed them, sell them to like minded folks, hunt whenever and whatever species you chose, and keep your fat mouths shut. It's very simple, and very libertarian.

[rkumetz]

Man's rights come from God, Nature, or Nature's God....take your pick. Government does not create rights, nor can it take them away. A moral government is one that recognizes and insures a defense of rights.
Ron Kearney

So now that you are here on NAFEX to do your own bidding, exactly how do the falconry regulations interfere with my 1st amendment rights? If I want to go to a boy scout troop and talk about falconry with a bird on my fist I am able to do so and not only that, they can reimburse me for my gas. Getting paid to do presentations is not even remotely within the scope of a falconry permit. More importantly if you wish to use birds for presentations and get paid you can simply get an educational permit for about $100 per year. The same price you paid for the special purpose abatement permit that you use to get paid to use your birds to do abatement. It is called the cost of doing business. If you are not going to make at least $100 doing those commercial activities then you might want to simply ask for gas money anyway.

I am really tired of hearing the "you can't tell me what to do" crowd telling me that I am ignoring my rights being trampled so I am either irresponsible or ignorant.
There are never any details forthcoming.

Like for example, why has AFC / PLF chosen to go to federal court with plaintiffs who just imagine that their rights might be violated when the video poster boy was allegedly invaded by armed storm troopers
and another falconer wet herself because she was not allowed to leave the room to prevent her from flushing her 3-186's. Or might it be that those people are either not interested in participating
or oooh wait... maybe they are not as innocent as the PLF would have you believe? Maybe the judge would have actually issued a warrant anyway?

Let's ditch the smoke and mirrors show. We are not as ignorant or apathetic about our rights as these promotional threads would lead people to believe.

[dboyrollz76]

So now that you are here on NAFEX to do your own bidding, exactly how do the falconry regulations interfere with my 1st amendment rights? If I want to go to a boy scout troop and talk about falconry with a bird on my fist I am able to do so and not only that, they can reimburse me for my gas. Getting paid to do presentations is not even remotely within the scope of a falconry permit. More importantly if you wish to use birds for presentations and get paid you can simply get an educational permit for about $100 per year. The same price you paid for the special purpose abatement permit that you use to get paid to use your birds to do abatement. It is called the cost of doing business. If you are not going to make at least $100 doing those commercial activities then you might want to simply ask for gas money anyway.

I am really tired of hearing the "you can't tell me what to do" crowd telling me that I am ignoring my rights being trampled so I am either irresponsible or ignorant.
There are never any details forthcoming.

Like for example, why has AFC / PLF chosen to go to federal court with plaintiffs who just imagine that their rights might be violated when the video poster boy was allegedly invaded by armed storm troopers
and another falconer wet herself because she was not allowed to leave the room to prevent her from flushing her 3-186's. Or might it be that those people are either not interested in participating
or oooh wait... maybe they are not as innocent as the PLF would have you believe? Maybe the judge would have actually issued a warrant anyway?

Let's ditch the smoke and mirrors show. We are not as ignorant or apathetic about our rights as these promotional threads would lead people to believe.
clapp

[ericedw]

If I want to go to a boy scout troop and talk about falconry with a bird on my fist I am able to do so and not only that, they can reimburse me for my gas.

I'm not arguing whether it violates my 1st amendment rights or not, I'm not a lawyer or more importantly a judge, but in FL this isn't true. Part of the issue here is we all operate under slightly different rules in our particular state. In FL I am not allowed to take my bird to a school, boy scout troop or anywhere without a separate "Wildlife Exhibition" permit. Whether I'm getting paid or doing it for free. I have to buy a $50 permit. I don't know CA laws either. I know the federal rules allow it but that doesn't matter if the state doesn't.

[dboyrollz76]

Man's rights come from God, Nature, or Nature's God....take your pick. Government does not create rights, nor can it take them away. A moral government is one that recognizes and insures a defense of rights.

Ron Kearney
This is funny, But due to the terms of nafex I can’t address it from a religious point. But I can say we are capable of knowledge and love to make educated decisions, to be a lawful and just people. To obey the laws of the land. If you obey the laws of the land, then you should have no worries or fears of what may come crashing through the door.

[frigginchi]

Assuming those that are doing the crashing have your same beliefs. lol


This is funny, But due to the terms of nafex I can’t address it from a religious point. But I can say we are capable of knowledge and love to make educated decisions, to be a lawful and just people. To obey the laws of the land. If you obey the laws of the land, then you should have no worries or fears of what may come crashing through the door.

[rkumetz]

I'm not arguing whether it violates my 1st amendment rights or not, I'm not a lawyer or more importantly a judge, but in FL this isn't true. Part of the issue here is we all operate under slightly different rules in our particular state. In FL I am not allowed to take my bird to a school, boy scout troop or anywhere without a separate "Wildlife Exhibition" permit. Whether I'm getting paid or doing it for free. I have to buy a $50 permit. I don't know CA laws either. I know the federal rules allow it but that doesn't matter if the state doesn't.

As it turns out, I very recently had some discussions with a law professor who seems to differ with PLF on the matter.
Now you and I know that lawyers fatten their retirement accounts by arguing things until the cow comes home so that in itself is not surprising.
It is really too bad that my daughter wasn't being paid to disagree when she was a teenager because that would have paid for college.

The 1st amendment issue hinges upon whether or not it is your free speech that is being squashed. In this case, it is not. What is not permitted is the use of your bird held on a falconry permit which
does not (in your state) allow you to use that bird for purposes other than falconry. You can stand behind a podium, on a soap box or dangle from a trapeze by your knees and TALK about falconry
if you don't bring your bird.

Of course in a practical sense your state is shooting itself in the foot because any time they can get someone to go out and get the general population enthusiastic
about wildlife it is in their own best interest. I disagree with their policy but it is reaching to say that it infringes upon your 1st amendment rights.

[rkumetz]

Assuming those that are doing the crashing have your same beliefs. lol

I don't mean this in a disrespectful way but it seems that your state seems to have a disproportionate number of issues with this whole armed storm troopers inspecting
things issue. Given that they pay for commercials that portray y'all as laid back dudes with no worries in the world that seems sort of odd.

Is there some sort of attitude prevalent in CA government which causes this? Is it an issue outside of falconry?

Given the absurd disclaimers about carcinogenic substances that everyone has to use to sell any sort of product in CA I am given to believe that it can't
be just falconry.

You seem to be pretty well informed and a thoughtful sort of fellow so I would appreciate you sharing your thoughts as a CA resident.

[dboyrollz76]

California is beautiful country, I loved it. But there are so many people. And law enforcement is crazy at best, if you fit the profile or somewhat do. You’ll have issues and don’t get on their bad side make them mad. You’ll probably end up as a cold case, in some parts. You, want to talk about over regulated. California’s regulations have regulations to regulate the regulations to regulate.
The thing that really turned me off about California is paying a dollar at McDonald’s to use the bathroom. I mean really, coin vended bathroom use. That shit should be unconstitutional. Eye balls floating while I’m behind 50 people in line to get quarters for the bathroom.

[rkumetz]

The thing that really turned me off about California is paying a dollar at McDonald’s to use the bathroom. I mean really, coin vended bathroom use. That shit should be unconstitutional.

Pun intended? You do realize how funny that is, right? toungeout

[dboyrollz76]

Pun intended? You do realize how funny that is, right? toungeout
Yes.

[SkyRider]

I have tried to read as many sources on this topic as I can. And the more I have read, the less sure I am. This leads me to believe there is no easy answer, which is apparent from the very passionate arguments (both with very good points) coming from each side.

I will say this... as someone “on the fence” who is trying to decide what he feels is best for falconry as a whole... the publications the PLF have come out with feel more like attacks and smear campaigns to me. They seem as though they are designed to enrage me against the way things currently are and make me feel ashamed if I’m not.

That doesn’t sit well with me. Appeal to me with logic and reason. Don’t try to rally me with the troops and shame those who don’t get in line. That will turn me against your cause (I am not saying this is the intent of the PLF, merely my current perception).

I will continue to watch, read, and learn as much as I possibly can. I may never make a decision one way or another. But initially, I’m disappointed in the public approach taken by the PLF.

[ericedw]

Great news, none of our opinions really matter, the decision will be in the hands of the judge. We can debate this all day for entertainment but it won't be decided by popular opinion. I anxiously await the outcome.

[rkumetz]

Great news, none of our opinions really matter, the decision will be in the hands of the judge. We can debate this all day for entertainment but it won't be decided by popular opinion. I anxiously await the outcome.

Regardless of outcome or even what I think about AFC & PLF I find it encouraging that so many NAFEX members are willing to think about it and form an opinion. I am ok with people that disagree with me as long as they have some intelligent argument. Apathy I cannot tolerate.

[rkumetz]

Great news, none of our opinions really matter, the decision will be in the hands of the judge. We can debate this all day for entertainment but it won't be decided by popular opinion. I anxiously await the outcome.

Isn't this being heard by what is arguably the most liberal federal court in the country? how do you suspect that leaning will affect the ruling?
We all know that few federal judges are appointed who do not have an activist bent.

[MrBill]

NO that was not in the brief. It was quoted from an exhibit that is a supporting reference and was misquoted by your attorney as a NAFA statement or position. IT was from A 1996 paper by Carnie and Rogers presented at a wildlife conference that articulated an "order of priorities". Birds, falconry and falconers in that order. I would encourage readers of this and related threads to read all the legal documents carefully and thoughtfully. Most of these issues revolve around conversations, social media posts, and marketing materials that are divorced from factual arguments. It concerns me that political beliefs of the petitioners are driving this more than a genuine concern for falconry, and in doing so, they are aligning with the devil. In a recent post by PLF, the lead attorney calls NAFA "a special interest group purporting to speak on behalf on falconers". Well NAFA has the largest membership rolls of any falconry member organization and AFC has what a hundred? THe fact remains that NAFA was a co-author of the falconry regs and the stipulations those authors developed had a lot of context and historical significance that folks need to appreciate. Much of this context is in the Carnie and Rogers paper posted as an exhibit in this case. Furthermore this effort to develop acceptable falconry regs in collaboration with the USFWS was the catalyst behind legalized falconry in the US. THese are straight up facts. Read the materials then decide.

Thanks for pointing this out, John.

Bill Boni

[frigginchi]

This just happened. https://www.yahoo.com/news/sales-soar-judge-rules-californias-062323757.html


Isn't this being heard by what is arguably the most liberal federal court in the country? how do you suspect that leaning will affect the ruling?
We all know that few federal judges are appointed who do not have an activist bent.

[JRedig]

So I have heard almost the entirety of this PLF lawsuit was dismissed recently. I don't see any news stories, anyone have any updates?