The upcoming vote

[sharptail]

I recieved another email from NAFA president Dickerson today. He anounced the close of nominations and dates for sending out the TWO (2) ballots. One obviously for upcoming director positions.

The other, on May 20th, the Board of Directors approved sending the recommendation to increase dues to the membership in accordance with NAFA by-laws.

I have read of several reasons to increase the amount of money the club gets, but can also think of a coulpe reasons to limit funds. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS?

[Paul Mascuch]

Jeff -

This year I will have been a member of NAFA for 40 continuous years. While I don't always agree with what NAFA does, overall I get more from being a member than I get frustration.

My opinion on the dues increase is mixed. I understand that costs are increasing and it has been a while since dues were increased. Another $5 or so each year is insignificant compared to the total dollars I spend on this sport every year. If they increase the dues, I'll pay and continue to be a member.

My concern is that NAFA has been losing members and I'm afraid that increasing the dues will cause more people to drop out.

I think that the current people involved in the NAFA leadership are trying to make changes and are trying to make NAFA more responsive and relevent to the membership. If there is some large challange to the soprt in the future, I think it is essential that NAFA is strong and able to represent and fight for the falconers in North America.

My 2 cents.

Best regards,

Paul

[Chris L.]

I think a list of why the due increase should be posted. Where is the extra money going? That will help people decide if it is right or wrong.

Not many will like a due increase, but if there are legitimate reasons for it I think many will agree to it.

[sharptail]

The timing of the 2 ballots is interesting... I would have prefered to have the dues increase vote after seeing who gets ellected.

[Flatwater Falconer]

I think a list of why the due increase should be posted. Where is the extra money going? That will help people decide if it is right or wrong.

Not many will like a due increase, but if there are legitimate reasons for it I think many will agree to it.


The issue is extremely well covered by Finance Committee Chair Mark Williams in the April 2010 Hawk Chalk. Please see pages 11-13.

Boiled down to one line it is this:

Publications and their postage takes $31 of $35 annual dues leaving $4 operating expenses for all other functions.
For full detail please see Mark's article.

[Eragon]

That may help the current NAFA members who have that hawk chalk but that doesn't help those of us who are about to join or are considering joining. Having the list for everybody to see could be extremely helpful. My application is going in ASAP so I hope the proccess it in time for me to vote. Knowing ahead of time could make it that much easier.

[sharptail]

Thanks Donna!

I would be in favor of cutting costs on the HAWK CHALK and one way to start would be to cut the glossy full color cover, reserving the fancier format for just the journal.

[sharptail]

Jeff -
If there is some large challange to the soprt in the future, I think it is essential that NAFA is strong and able to represent and fight for the falconers in North America

That one hit home!

[Flatwater Falconer]

Hi Jeff,

You might wish to get in touch with your director and a director-at-large. There were several options kicked around one of which was a possible option to view all publications on the web site and print your own copy or simply store the pdfs on your own computer and preserve dues at the current rate.

The survey response to this option seemed to indicate that about 3/4 of members (who responded) wanted hard copies mailed to them. The remaining members would be happy viewing the 'Chalks online and printing items as they wanted.

If this option were put into policy the idea was that your dues would not increase if you were willing to forgo printed paper copies.

Still considering dues have not increased for a long time the amount the board is recommending amounts to about 1/2 a tank of gas for a hawking trip, or a round of beers on a friday night . . . ;)

[Flatwater Falconer]

That may help the current NAFA members who have that hawk chalk but that doesn't help those of us who are about to join or are considering joining. Having the list for everybody to see could be extremely helpful. My application is going in ASAP so I hope the proccess it in time for me to vote. Knowing ahead of time could make it that much easier.

Hi Ryan,

Yes, I see what you mean. As I mentioned above it boils down to publications and postage - the one liner - that really sums it up. Another draw on the remaining $4 is the paypal FEE of $1.32 paypal levies to online renewers. So now we're looking at a figure of about $2.68 per member operating capital. This simply will not keep things working! Not a difficult concept at all - it really is this simple.

I appreciate your interest in voting! Please do get your application in quickly so you may participate. As soon as your application is processed you'll have access to the member area of the web site. The ballot will have information about proposals and candidates so you will be able to make informed selections.

All the best,

[sharptail]

That may help the current NAFA members who have that hawk chalk but that doesn't help those of us who are about to join or are considering joining. Having the list for everybody to see could be extremely helpful. My application is going in ASAP so I hope the proccess it in time for me to vote. Knowing ahead of time could make it that much easier.
Hi Ryan, great to see you as a new young falconer steppin up and getting in touch with what helps keep falconry alive and well. I hope to see NAFA change from it's past stance of not caring about maintaining member numbers and processes you new application quickly. Many say that NAFA is changing, I am waiting for more real change to pass judgement, and membership(processing new members, not loosing members ballots and even longtime memberships) has been one of the crutial subjects, in my eyes.

[Flatwater Falconer]

This year I will have been a member of NAFA for 40 continuous years. While I don't always agree with what NAFA does, overall I get more from being a member than I get frustration.

My opinion on the dues increase is mixed. I understand that costs are increasing and it has been a while since dues were increased. Another $5 or so each year is insignificant compared to the total dollars I spend on this sport every year. If they increase the dues, I'll pay and continue to be a member.

I think that the current people involved in the NAFA leadership are trying to make changes and are trying to make NAFA more responsive and relevent to the membership. If there is some large challange to the soprt in the future, I think it is essential that NAFA is strong and able to represent and fight for the falconers in North America.

Paul

With stats like that Paul I am going to ask you to run for director next year!

You mention "If they increase the dues . . . " We are they. Increasing dues (or not) is up to the voting membership. The board is making the recommendation to us, the voting members. Since the board represents us a recommendation is something to be considered and hopefully acted upon by membership.

Your statement about a strong Association is well stated. If something as elemental as fox hunting can be banned in England, our own sport could go under attack any time. For me it's not a question of if, but of WHEN. When the attack comes we will need every member (and non-member!!) to stand up or possibly lose falconry. It looks remote at present but things can and do change fast sometimes.

Thank you for your 40 years of dedication. Falconers are passionate edgy people and that's a good thing in my opinion. When all else is boiled away the one thing we all can agree on is that we want to be able to fly our bird on quality land with wild quarry abounding.

[Tony James]

With stats like that Paul I am going to ask you to run for director next year!

You mention "If they increase the dues . . . " We are they. Increasing dues (or not) is up to the voting membership. The board is making the recommendation to us, the voting members. Since the board represents us a recommendation is something to be considered and hopefully acted upon by membership.

Your statement about a strong Association is well stated. If something as elemental as fox hunting can be banned in England, our own sport could go under attack any time. For me it's not a question of if, but of WHEN. When the attack comes we will need every member (and non-member!!) to stand up or possibly lose falconry. It looks remote at present but things can and do change fast sometimes.

Thank you for your 40 years of dedication. Falconers are passionate edgy people and that's a good thing in my opinion. When all else is boiled away the one thing we all can agree on is that we want to be able to fly our bird on quality land with wild quarry abounding.

Hi Donna,

I watch this from afar with an element of sadness. Sadness at seeing a repeat of what it is that has allowed us, British fieldsportsmen, to be so easily undermined. Disunity.

Those who are expected to fight the fight are, there as here, little more than willing volunteers utilising what talent they may have, for the benefit of others. Generally that willingness costs the volunteer not just time and money, but a certain loss of faith in those they are trying to serve, as they find their motives, their falconry credentials, even their morality questioned.
How is it that we expect so much of others, while offering so little by way of support?

Forums are great places for the disaffected to pour scorn on those who have offered themselves to serve, and are rarely by comparison used to post messages of support and gratitude for their efforts --- and it would be a brave man who, after reading comments on any forum, offered himself for the cause.

I sincerely hope, in the computerised world in which we now live, that falconers in the US can find it within themselves to be more supportive (both online and off) of those who do the best they can on behalf of falconry.
You (the US) have huge enthusiasm and talent at your disposal, and it's been my priviledge to meet a number of your representatives, and believe me, the time will come when their dedication is required to stop falconry going the way of fox hunting.

Best wishes,

Tony.

[Eagle Owl]

Here is the article Mark wrote for the HC. Hopefully it will help to answer some questions some of you may have regarding the proposed membership increase. If not, talk to your directors as they will better be able to answer your questions.

Reprinted from
Hawk Chalk Vol. XLIX No. 1 — April 2010

NAFA membership dues increase proposal
By Finance Chairman Mark Williams

The issue of increasing membership dues has raised its head numerous times over the past several years and, as many long time members will be aware, NAFA has not had a dues increase for more than 25 years, since the days of Operation Falcon whereby NAFA was essentially left broke and unable to even print the publications and needed funds in order to operate. Once again a proposal has been brought before the board who are currently divided on both the timing and the need to do so. As a result, the purpose of this letter in this Hawk Chalk is to raise both awareness and insight by notifying the membership of our intent. If nothing else you are prepared and understand the rationale for this proposal. If this were to be approved by the board in the May 2010 teleconference call it would take effect March 2011.

EXPENSE CONTROL
Several years ago under the leadership of then President Perkins a NAFA Finance Committee was created to advise the board in matters of fiscal responsibility. One of the numerous responsibilities bestowed the finance committee is to look at ways to cut costs, standardize accounting practices and consider areas of income revenue. As you can imagine since its inception NAFA has grown far beyond the initial concept and now it is time, like it or not, to run it like a business. As Finance Chair and working alongside the NAFA treasurer and Finance Committee, we review the annual PnL (financial profit and loss statement) and annual operating budgets. The budgets are also provided to the Board of Directors at each AGM. Most of you may not be aware that in recent years we have run at a deficit budget. This is not fiscally responsible thing to do, particularly consciously.

Until recent years membership dues were the only source of income for NAFA. For the past several years, thanks to the efforts of field meet chairs, the NAFA meets and its raffles, (kindly funded and supported by many of our member/suppliers), have added to that income line. Previously we were just happy to cover costs.

With the assistance of the Finance Committee, we continue to monitor the expense lines and consider ways to improve, including renegotiating printing, shipping rates or general streamlining of doing business. This being said, it is time to face the brutal facts that we need to increase revenue to keep the business running and the lights on. I acknowledge that this might require a paradigm shift for some who consider NAFA a “not for profit” organization. The reality is that this is more of a reflection of our tax status than anything. Please understand that the intent here is not to make money for you, the shareholders of this organization, but to cover the costs of providing current and future services that attracted you to the organization in the first place.

JUSTIFICATION
As mentioned previously and without going into line-by-line detail to every expense on the PnL here is a basic overview of why we need to increase membership dues. For the past 25 years or so our membership fees have been $35 for domestic (N.A.) membership. As within your own household in the past 25 years The cost of everything has gone up. Print and postage are no exception and today we currently pay $31 per member to provide the publications you enjoy. Add to that that those majority members who pay or renew on line costs NAFA via Paypal approximately $1.32 each (for one-year renewal, more if longer), so the remaining “revenue” to pay toward insurance, audits, non-publication mail outs, teleconference calls etc, etc, is $2.68 per member for a one year subscription. Unfortunately as our budget reflects, the $2.68 income per member is not enough and we are fast eating into any reserves we had accumulated over the years. A $10 a year increase would provide NAFA approximately $20,000 in increased annual revenue which currently would cover the costs of the budget deficit.

Most of us, including myself were not around in NAFA in the day of Operation Falcon when NAFA found itself on the brink of bankruptcy trying to defend the rights of North American Falconry. As previously eluded to, we were in the difficult situation whereby we could not even afford to print a Hawk Chalk or Journal and relied on the generous donations of some of our more affluent members in order to do so. We never want to be in that situation again. The late Ed Freienmuth, NAFA Treasurer at the time, raised our awareness that good business sense dictates to have approximately two years operating expenses in reserve in case of any unforeseen situation like happened before.

OPTIONS
One way to avoid increasing dues is to reduce some of the big expenses. In most businesses labor is the biggest expense line. As a voluntary organization this is not the issue for NAFA, but instead our biggest expense line is our publications. If members would accept perhaps one less publication and/or no color and just black and white Journals, costs can be significantly saved. Maybe some members are happy to not receive hard copy publications at all and prefer to read on line only. This could be made available if demand dictated and would save NAFA money of which we can pass onto those members by way of no membership dues increase. Alternatively you can simply pay an extra $10 proposed a year to keep the services you currently enjoy. In the teleconference call on January I raised awareness of this to the board. On the March 18 2010 teleconference call I presented this proposal to the board for a vote and five out of the nine Directors present were understandably uncomfortable, if not concerned, about raising dues even though they knew it was well overdue, in part because of the timing due to the current economic downturn we are experiencing.

Quite correctly it was felt the membership deserved and explanation or advanced notification as to why this initiative is being proposed which is the purpose of this report. Granted some Directors including myself have already done that following the January discussion and have gotten positive and supportive feedback from our constituents. By all means if you have more questions about the proposal please contact your director who should now be better informed as to why or if not, will be able to get an answer to your question.

Please understand that while the current focus is directed at increasing both membership retention and attracting new members, under the current circumstances each new member stands to cost NAFA more money than it is receiving in order to service that member. Therefore we are standing to compound our financial predicament as we increase our membership.

YOUR INPUT
Looking ahead, in the near future you will no doubt receive some notification, probably via presidential e-mail, or perhaps an on-line survey or questionnaire via our website as to some options you have available in order to remain a member and not have to pay more. For example if the $10 increment is going to cause some members great discomfort, you can remain at $35 renewals and be able to read and download a pdf copy of the publications from the NAFA website. Furthermore, you will be given an opportunity to access the membership directory on our website and print if you desire, instead of NAFA sending hard copies by mail as is currently practiced. All these are cost saving measures your board, its officers and various committees are working towards in making NAFA more efficient while maintaining if not improving services.

Previously, you the membership have asked for more transparency and input, therefore I encourage you to please look out for these communications and take time to respond.

Your input and support is both needed and appreciated.

[Hunter45]

As one of your NAFA Directors at Large, I would offer the following for your consideration and comment.

The current dues of $35 were set about 2000. Using a govenment statistics based inflation calculator (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl) that would be $44.31 in 2010. SO the proposed $45 barely covers the current inflation adjusted amount. Assuming the same inflation rate over the next 10 years (not likely in our current debt ridden society - it will likely skyrocket), $45 will take $56.97 in 2020 to have the same purchasing power. Indeed,I fought for an increase to $55 (before you pillory me for this remember I'm just the bearer of bad mathematical facts and $20 won't even move your gas gauge from empty to half full on your truck).

If you read the recent "News From NAFA" emails since the 5.20.10 Board Meeting, you will see the motions to implement a modern professional managment approach for NAFA (YourMembership.com) and the additional management survey were narrowly defeated mostly on the basis of finances (and the mistaken thought that it would offend or turn off our volunteer culture - more on this in another post). By implementing a convenience charge for those who use PayPal (to cover their fees) and just raising the dues to $50 there would have been adequate funds for
these two matters - both of which are necessary to keep NAFA advancing and providing it's members with things that both protect our sport, provide new services, ensure consistancy and quality of services, and offer the opportunity for new sources of income to NAFA.

The comment by the Brit (Tony James) on this thread is dead on - we either invest in and cooperate in building and ensuring falconry's future or we risk oblivion. I ran my campaign based on us having a unified, non-apathetic, hard working falconry community. Despite my recent personal trials and travails, I am still focused on us living this goal together. I'm into my eighth day of walking on my healed broken leg and am up to almost 2 miles. My neck brace (halo) comes off in 30 days. I hope to see many of you at NAFA this year and, God willing, I plan on being in the field with Tess giving the jackrabbits a hard time.

Take care, be positive, forgive and forget, and bring all the good you can to your personal, local, and national falconry!

[everetkhorton]

The timing of the 2 ballots is interesting... I would have prefered to have the dues increase vote after seeing who gets ellected.

Jeff:
Why would it make a difference, it would have been another .44 cents spent.

[everetkhorton]

That may help the current NAFA members who have that hawk chalk but that doesn't help those of us who are about to join or are considering joining. Having the list for everybody to see could be extremely helpful. My application is going in ASAP so I hope the proccess it in time for me to vote. Knowing ahead of time could make it that much easier.

Ryan:
You are cutting it REAL close, in regards to your becoming a member and being able to vote. How many place do you thing NAFA should put who is running for office. Look on the web site it maybe there, I am not sure. Ron Clark and Ralph Roger are running for DAL. The Great Lakes Dir. is running unopposed.

[sharptail]

Hi Tony,
Here in the US, where NAFA is concerned, things are not very simple and just supporting a club that should be working to keep falconry legal may not be all that is required. You may be aware of the current falconry law transition that the USFWS is shoving down the throats of all states and therefore all US falconers. The new laws have a sunset clause in them and if all states do not make this deadline than falconry will be no more in those states. Here we see Interior, a bunch of unelected bureaucrats, posing the biggest threat to falconry since the last time they tried to end falconry with OPERATION FALCON.

The problem that I see here is that the USFWS has a large history in falconry with a past NAFA president serving also as head of migratory birds, a very high position in the USFWS. There are other examples of high ranking agency people in our ranks and current members of the NAFA board are way to chummy with those who's job it is to place major challanges to keeping falconry legal. From my perspective it looks like complacency instead of falconry interests being served by falconers.

In my opinion this is happening here in the States with other issues, like The National Rifle Association and government pushed gun control, in violation of our national constitution, making many government officials, criminals, in my view. Us Americans seem to be asleep at the switch and about to pay dearly for it.

We have met the enemy and they are us!

[Flatwater Falconer]

Jeff:
Why would it make a difference, it would have been another .44 cents spent.

That's correct Ev. Plus the cost of printing 1500 copies to mail out.

Your Association is very carefully looking at cutting every cost and expenditure possible. You might have noticed when you received the nomination form it was printed on plain white paper. I wanted the light gray but to save $25 it was printed on white. I am doing my part as are many others serving the membership.

[everetkhorton]

That's correct Ev. Plus the cost of printing 1500 copies to mail out.

Your Association is very carefully looking at cutting every cost and expenditure possible. You might have noticed when you received the nomination form it was printed on plain white paper. I wanted the light gray but to save $25 it was printed on white. I am doing my part as are many others serving the membership.

Donna:
Maybe NAFA should print in the HC every time it comes out the names of the people that have saved the members money and how. Then they could see why there dues have remained the same for about 25 years. Also how NAFA has change the new member process to make it better.
5 bucks will not buy a double rum and coke in the bar's I go in. The best part, the raise of 5 dollars will be up to the NAFA membership they get to vote on it. JMO. Thanks for the great job you are doing for NAFA and its members!

[Eragon]

Thanks Jeff! I hope I can help out somehow! It was definately Rich and Greg that convinced me to join.

Brandi, Thanks for posting the article! That's exactly what I wanted to see!


Ryan:
You are cutting it REAL close, in regards to your becoming a member and being able to vote. How many place do you thing NAFA should put who is running for office. Look on the web site it maybe there, I am not sure. Ron Clark and Ralph Roger are running for DAL. The Great Lakes Dir. is running unopposed.

Hey Ev, I wasn't asking about who was running, but thanks for letting me know! It's interesting. Too bad that the Director is running unopposed. I was asking about the dues increase. I was only asking because I know I'm cutting it close and figured having thought about it ahead of time would make it that much faster and easier when the time comes.

[sharptail]

Hi Ryan,
Your informed vote is all that I am asking for, if not this time, than in the future!

ATB

[Lowachi]

It was definately Rich and Greg that convinced me to join.


Glad I'm good for something;)

[everetkhorton]

Thanks Jeff! I hope I can help out somehow! It was definately Rich and Greg that convinced me to join.

Brandi, Thanks for posting the article! That's exactly what I wanted to see!



Hey Ev, I wasn't asking about who was running, but thanks for letting me know! It's interesting. Too bad that the Director is running unopposed. I was asking about the dues increase. I was only asking because I know I'm cutting it close and figured having thought about it ahead of time would make it that much faster and easier when the time comes.

Ryan:
I have to agree, it well be great that you vote, many many do not. Voting shows that you are supporting the organization.

[Saluqi]

Hi Tony,
Here in the US, where NAFA is concerned, things are not very simple and just supporting a club that should be working to keep falconry legal may not be all that is required. You may be aware of the current falconry law transition that the USFWS is shoving down the throats of all states and therefore all US falconers. The new laws have a sunset clause in them and if all states do not make this deadline than falconry will be no more in those states. Here we see Interior, a bunch of unelected bureaucrats, posing the biggest threat to falconry since the last time they tried to end falconry with OPERATION FALCON.

Jeff,

You realize that all any state needs to do in order to comply with the new federal falconry regulation is to add a single line to their existing regulation that reads something along the lines of:

Notification of acquisition, disposition, or transfer of raptors shall be filed through the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 3-186A electronic reporting system unless otherwise approved by the Department.

If your state falconry association is unable to get your state G&F department to make that one small change to the regulations, then I'm not sure your state deserves to have falconry as a legal activity.




The problem that I see here is that the USFWS has a large history in falconry with a past NAFA president serving also as head of migratory birds, a very high position in the USFWS. There are other examples of high ranking agency people in our ranks and current members of the NAFA board are way to chummy with those who's job it is to place major challanges to keeping falconry legal. From my perspective it looks like complacency instead of falconry interests being served by falconers.

In my opinion this is happening here in the States with other issues, like The National Rifle Association and government pushed gun control, in violation of our national constitution, making many government officials, criminals, in my view. Us Americans seem to be asleep at the switch and about to pay dearly for it.

We have met the enemy and they are us!

I don't understand your concern with falconers who work for the USFWS and who also serve on NAFA. Wouldn't you rather have your own state game & fish department populated with hunters rather than tree hugging biologists? With hunters and falconers working for the state and also serving NAFA, or other hunting organizations, they are in the unique position to recognize an administrative threat, they'll have inside information to position NAFA for a meaningful response to the threat, that's why these people seek positions in these agencies, without them we would be at the mercy of biologists who are not sympathetic to falconry and hunting in general.

[MrBill]

Greg,

You are, indeed, an inspiration to all of us. And, I hope to see you and Tess at the NAFA meet.

I don't want to put a negative slant on the dues increase, but, in years gone by (before the Internet) I used to wait by my mailbox for the HC or Journal, because I was starved for current information relative to falconry. Nowadays with things like this list, and others, as well as all the other sources of information about falconry available on the web, I'm not waiting by the mailbox anymore. And, predicating a dues increase to garner needed revenue because the bulk of dues is eaten up by publications suggests that perhaps we should be thinking about going on-line with these publication, as the HC is now, and leave it at that. We could send the Journal out in print each year (for folks like me). This would free up a lot of money for the things that people feel are important for the future of falconry in the United States. At this day and age, I afraid that if we increase the dues, some folks will not renew and other may not join, and gawd knows we need all the members we can get.

Bill B.
Norman, OK

[tking308]

I just sent my application in for new membership about a month ago, so take what I say with that in mind. I applied for membership at the encouragement of my sponsor. I was hesitant because I wasn't sure if the benefits were worth the cost to me. As an outsider it also appears that there is more bickering amongst the membership than I cared to get involved in. Those things being said, and in order to keep this fairly short, I've seen the light! I understand the importance of NAFA to falconry and will gladly help support it's causes. $50 a year isn't unreasonable. I have to ask though, why limit ourselves to membership dues as a source of income. There are too many examples of "volunteer" organizations (DU, QU, TU, Pheasants unlimited etc....) that come up with ways to raise funds. Have regional banquets, on-line auctions for donated goods, increase offerings in the NAFA store. If you want to increase membership, look at what these other organizations do. They're constantly giving stuff away to intice people to join. Should that be necessary, NO, but it must help them.

Just my .02

[sharptail]

Hi Paul,
I am sure that Wyoming does deserve to have falconry! Being stonewalled by the person assigned(the head of LE) to deal with the new falconry regs is not the fault of falconers here. Her personal problems(a sexual harassment law suit) spill over into her job performance in dealing with her peers and the club.

Funny thing how drawing down a pay check from the government can help one to see things there way and abandon this countries heritage of freedom.

[Tony James]

As one of your NAFA Directors at Large, I would offer the following for your consideration and comment.

The current dues of $35 were set about 2000. Using a govenment statistics based inflation calculator (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl) that would be $44.31 in 2010. SO the proposed $45 barely covers the current inflation adjusted amount. Assuming the same inflation rate over the next 10 years (not likely in our current debt ridden society - it will likely skyrocket), $45 will take $56.97 in 2020 to have the same purchasing power. Indeed,I fought for an increase to $55 (before you pillory me for this remember I'm just the bearer of bad mathematical facts and $20 won't even move your gas gauge from empty to half full on your truck).

If you read the recent "News From NAFA" emails since the 5.20.10 Board Meeting, you will see the motions to implement a modern professional managment approach for NAFA (YourMembership.com) and the additional management survey were narrowly defeated mostly on the basis of finances (and the mistaken thought that it would offend or turn off our volunteer culture - more on this in another post). By implementing a convenience charge for those who use PayPal (to cover their fees) and just raising the dues to $50 there would have been adequate funds for
these two matters - both of which are necessary to keep NAFA advancing and providing it's members with things that both protect our sport, provide new services, ensure consistancy and quality of services, and offer the opportunity for new sources of income to NAFA.

The comment by the Brit (Tony James) on this thread is dead on - we either invest in and cooperate in building and ensuring falconry's future or we risk oblivion. I ran my campaign based on us having a unified, non-apathetic, hard working falconry community. Despite my recent personal trials and travails, I am still focused on us living this goal together. I'm into my eighth day of walking on my healed broken leg and am up to almost 2 miles. My neck brace (halo) comes off in 30 days. I hope to see many of you at NAFA this year and, God willing, I plan on being in the field with Tess giving the jackrabbits a hard time.

Take care, be positive, forgive and forget, and bring all the good you can to your personal, local, and national falconry!

Dear Greg,

your commitment to playing a part in the continuance of falconry is sobering during such difficult times for you.
I wish you well in your recovery, and thank you for maintaining that positive outlook.

Best wishes,

the Brit (Tony).

[Flatwater Falconer]

Hi All,

It's official - visit n-a-f-a.com to view a list of candidates.

The list of nominations is in the Member area under Breaking news.

Ballots will be mailed on or about July 15 for the election.

If your address has recently changed please visit the Association web site to UPDATE it so your ballot can get to you.

Every mailing we receive a half dozen returns due to slight inaccuracies in the addresses. The post office computers routinely send items back due to tiny errors. The best way to avoid delays is to check your address and update it if necessary. Even if your address hasn't changed please confirm that it is correct by going online.

Thanks to all candidates!

[Tony James]

Hi Tony,
Here in the US, where NAFA is concerned, things are not very simple and just supporting a club that should be working to keep falconry legal may not be all that is required. You may be aware of the current falconry law transition that the USFWS is shoving down the throats of all states and therefore all US falconers. The new laws have a sunset clause in them and if all states do not make this deadline than falconry will be no more in those states. Here we see Interior, a bunch of unelected bureaucrats, posing the biggest threat to falconry since the last time they tried to end falconry with OPERATION FALCON.

The problem that I see here is that the USFWS has a large history in falconry with a past NAFA president serving also as head of migratory birds, a very high position in the USFWS. There are other examples of high ranking agency people in our ranks and current members of the NAFA board are way to chummy with those who's job it is to place major challanges to keeping falconry legal. From my perspective it looks like complacency instead of falconry interests being served by falconers.

In my opinion this is happening here in the States with other issues, like The National Rifle Association and government pushed gun control, in violation of our national constitution, making many government officials, criminals, in my view. Us Americans seem to be asleep at the switch and about to pay dearly for it.

We have met the enemy and they are us!

Hi Jeff,

I'm afraid my knowledge of US falconry politics, past and present, is limited, but it seems obvious to me that US falconers (like most others) need the best possible representation, and rely on the work of committed amateur volunteers to get it.
Of course that work will fall short of being 'the best', but it will always be, at that moment, the best possible.
Falconers world-wide make incredible demands on their representatives. We expect them to be totally committed falconers, and good ones at that, and we expect them to be strong and unyielding, while at the same time being politically astute and diplomatic. We expect them to represent most forcefully the very narrow perspective that we each have, while at the same time safeguarding every other aspect of falconry. And we expect them to be vigilant to the sophisticated backdoor threats to falconry while we, considering ourselves the lifeblood of falconry, quietly enjoy flying our hawks.
Furthermore, we hold them accountable for their shortcomings, while offering neither significant financial, emotional, or practical support.

I think you're right to say the enemy is us, simply because we find it so difficult to unite in support of one another. We are, on the whole, completely unfair in our demands.

Regarding the example you cite as being of concern, I would suggest you may be well served by those who have a foot in other camps.
Good relations between falconers and conservation bodies for example, can be valuable in dispelling suspicion, myth, and mistrust. Should those relations break down, they can take many years to re-establish, during which time untold damage can occur.

I'm sure the situation is far from simple Jeff, and I apologise for passing comment as I am, but having spent many years on both sides of the fence I am convinced that our best hope lies in mutual support, or at least following the advice my mother used to give, as she said to me, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything".

Falconers really must learn to support the representatives we have, because what we have is the best available. If we had better available, they would have stepped up to the plate.

Best wishes,

Tony.

[sharptail]

Hi Tony,
It seems as if your mom has a pretty rosey view on things.
Unfortunately if no one talks about what they veiw as problems, than nothing changes. I am dissatisfied with the direction that NAFA has taken, and feel that the foot in every camp type of strategy, has failed to stave off the current attack as well as a couple of others. I think it is time to get some new ideas into the leadership of the club so we do not continue to be blind sided by those whom act like friend but are a part of a culture that attacks falconry.

The only 2 major gains that US falconry has enjoyed recently, we have had to fight for tooth and nail. One of those gains required action just short of sueing Interior. Something the NAFA board had no stomach for.

I must admit, that Brian Milsap, past head of migratory bird, for USFWF did a great job of finally pushing through the partial take of Passage Peregrines, by documenting the overwelming recovery of peregrines producing young throughout Canada, something denied by many Canadian Wildlilfe Officials. It was also in my view, 10 years overdue. I must ask, at what point, are the falconers in antifalconry camps, a part of the 'tail wagging the dog' problem? In my view, they became so, long ago. Again, in my view it is time for a change in direction at the NAFA board level. Another possible approach would be to act like a sovereign nation and allow a passage peregrine take across the lower 48 and Alaska based on healthy migration numbers and not being party to a cartel pushing international control.

Thanks for your reply and the opportunity to put my view out in the open. I hope that I have not offended you. I haven't checked, but hope that you are a NAFA member. I am sorry that our views on how to deal with what, I see as a NAFA problem, are in oppositon. I will not, just keep quite.

[Saluqi]

Hi Tony,
It seems as if your mom has a pretty rosey view on things.
Unfortunately if no one talks about what they veiw as problems, than nothing changes. I am dissatisfied with the direction that NAFA has taken, and feel that the foot in every camp type of strategy, has failed to stave off the current attack as well as a couple of others. I think it is time to get some new ideas into the leadership of the club so we do not continue to be blind sided by those whom act like friend but are a part of a culture that attacks falconry.

The only 2 major gains that US falconry has enjoyed recently, we have had to fight for tooth and nail. One of those gains required action just short of sueing Interior. Something the NAFA board had no stomach for.

I must admit, that Brian Milsap, past head of migratory bird, for USFWF did a great job of finally pushing through the partial take of Passage Peregrines, by documenting the overwelming recovery of peregrines producing young throughout Canada, something denied by many Canadian Wildlilfe Officials. It was also in my view, 10 years overdue. I must ask, at what point, are the falconers in antifalconry camps, a part of the 'tail wagging the dog' problem? In my view, they became so, long ago. Again, in my view it is time for a change in direction at the NAFA board level. Another possible approach would be to act like a sovereign nation and allow a passage peregrine take across the lower 48 and Alaska based on healthy migration numbers and not being party to a cartel pushing international control.

Thanks for your reply and the opportunity to put my view out in the open. I hope that I have not offended you. I haven't checked, but hope that you are a NAFA member. I am sorry that our views on how to deal with what, I see as a NAFA problem, are in oppositon. I will not, just keep quite.

Jeff,

Can you explain to me exactly what is the "current attack" that we are under? You speak in such vague terms, spit it out. What falconers are in "anti-falconry camps"? You make it sound as if this is the last season that falconry will be legal, what exactly are you talking about? I know there are issues at hand that need to be dealt with, getting all the states compliant with the new regs, dealing in some intelligent manner with the eagle issue, and figuring out how many passage peregrines go to which states, but I think these are all things that we can work on. The chicken little attitude is self defeating from where I stand.

[Tony James]

Hi Tony,
It seems as if your mom has a pretty rosey view on things.
Unfortunately if no one talks about what they veiw as problems, than nothing changes. I am dissatisfied with the direction that NAFA has taken, and feel that the foot in every camp type of strategy, has failed to stave off the current attack as well as a couple of others. I think it is time to get some new ideas into the leadership of the club so we do not continue to be blind sided by those whom act like friend but are a part of a culture that attacks falconry.

The only 2 major gains that US falconry has enjoyed recently, we have had to fight for tooth and nail. One of those gains required action just short of sueing Interior. Something the NAFA board had no stomach for.

I must admit, that Brian Milsap, past head of migratory bird, for USFWF did a great job of finally pushing through the partial take of Passage Peregrines, by documenting the overwelming recovery of peregrines producing young throughout Canada, something denied by many Canadian Wildlilfe Officials. It was also in my view, 10 years overdue. I must ask, at what point, are the falconers in antifalconry camps, a part of the 'tail wagging the dog' problem? In my view, they became so, long ago. Again, in my view it is time for a change in direction at the NAFA board level. Another possible approach would be to act like a sovereign nation and allow a passage peregrine take across the lower 48 and Alaska based on healthy migration numbers and not being party to a cartel pushing international control.

Thanks for your reply and the opportunity to put my view out in the open. I hope that I have not offended you. I haven't checked, but hope that you are a NAFA member. I am sorry that our views on how to deal with what, I see as a NAFA problem, are in oppositon. I will not, just keep quite.

Hi Jeff,

I suppose you might say my mum likes the smell of roses around her;).

You've not offended me at all, and funny as it may sound, I perceive my lack of awareness of US issues and personalities as something of a gift in this instance, enabling me to offer my thoughts, usefully or not, without prejudice. I must tell you I am not a NAFA member, but hope that will not disqualify me from sharing a thought or two with you.

Sitting as I do, thousands of miles away, and seperated to a degree from what are very real concerns to you, it would be unrealistic of me to imagine my thoughts might be given much credibility, but I promise you our views are not in opposition, nor are our dreams or our hopes. I would also hazard a guess that your differences with some in NAFA are almost irrelevant when compared to what you share.

As passionate falconers we find it all too easy to argue with one another, sometimes venomously, over things that non-falconers would not even recognise as differences.

It is healthy to air our views, and at times to accept them as being different, but we must never conclude them to be in opposition.

Best wishes,

Tony.

[sharptail]

Greetings Paul,
If you can make nothing of it, than pay no attention and just carry on!

I haven't checked to see if you are running unopposed, is there anyone else?

[Saluqi]

Greetings Paul,
If you can make nothing of it, than pay no attention and just carry on!

I haven't checked to see if you are running unopposed, is there anyone else?

Jeff,

It was an honest question, what issues are you talking about?

No, by the way, Eric Tabb is also running for Mtn director.

[frootdog]

The timing of the 2 ballots is interesting... I would have prefered to have the dues increase vote after seeing who gets ellected.

Interesting how so? The CURRENT board is the one that came up with this what the crap does it matter who gets elected? They won't take the new posts til Jan (if I remember right). Are you saying that you will vote one way or the other based on who you like and who you don't? Oh and by the way let's spend more money by sending out 2 different mailings.

[frootdog]

Jeff,

You realize that all any state needs to do in order to comply with the new federal falconry regulation is to add a single line to their existing regulation that reads something along the lines of:

Notification of acquisition, disposition, or transfer of raptors shall be filed through the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 3-186A electronic reporting system unless otherwise approved by the Department.



It's a bit more than that Paul, but still not rocket science. TX added a line that simply said where our regs were more lenient than the current fed regs then we would defer to the fed regs to get certified. (The most glaring example was the general falconer being 2 years b4 sponsoring someone).

Also to Jeff about that looming deadline. I doubt the feds are going to be that heavy handed about it. The electronic filing JUST went live, meaning that 4 states have been operating under the new regs WITHOUT electronic filing for 6 months now. So do you think that on Jan 1, 2014 they will really pull the plug? Given that they have been very helpful so far I doubt it.

But if you think that your state can't get it crap together and doomsday is lurking then maybe Paul's right.

[sharptail]

Interesting how so? The CURRENT board is the one that came up with this what the crap does it matter who gets elected? They won't take the new posts til Jan (if I remember right). Are you saying that you will vote one way or the other based on who you like and who you don't? Oh and by the way let's spend more money by sending out 2 different mailings.What I am thinking is that I would not agree to give a board that I thought was headed in the wrong direction any more money. It had nothing to do with the cost of ballots. Sure would be convienient of we could vote online.

[Dirthawking]

Jeff, you say you do not like the direction NAFA is heading. Can you elaborate on that statement?

[FredFogg]

What I am thinking is that I would not agree to give a board that I thought was headed in the wrong direction any more money. It had nothing to do with the cost of ballots. Sure would be convienient of we could vote online.

Jeff, I too would like to know what direction you think the board is moving and what direction you believe they should be moving. Making general statements and then not clarifying them only comes across as someone complaining just to be complaining, which might not be what you are doing but until you clarify, what is one to think?

[sharptail]

Jeff, you say you do not like the direction NAFA is heading. Can you elaborate on that statement?Mario,
You have been on these boards for a long time and you likely know a lot of how I think. My complaints are not new but are none the less valid. Elements on the current board voted to punish elected board members for filibustering over private property recognition in raptors and coulple of other issues. There was a statement made about NAFA being run as a corporation, and it is not that and should not be run that way.

I am well aware that you guys running the board are in constant communication, collaborate, and do each others bidding...what do you want?

[Dirthawking]

Mario,
You have been on these boards for a long time and you likely know a lot of how I think. My complaints are not new but are none the less valid. Elements on the current board voted to punish elected board members for filibustering over private property recognition in raptors and coulple of other issues. There was a statement made about NAFA being run as a corporation, and it is not that and should not be run that way.

Jeff, I have been around here for a while, does not mean I remember how everybody thinks, or every time somebody says something. I was only asking you to clarify your statement. You still have not clarified what direction the current board/NAFA is heading. You keep saying what old board members have done.

I have never said that your opinions do not matter, and/or that they are not valid. I have only asked you to clarify. This is a calm, intelligent discussion, and I am just trying to get different points of view.



I am well aware that you guys running the board are in constant communication, collaborate, and do each others bidding...what do you want?

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. If you mean that the mods on NAFEX talk, well yes we do, does not mean that we always agree with each other either. As for doing each others bidding...how? I asked you a question as did others. We are all part of a conversation. Nobody is bashing.

[FredFogg]

Mario,
You have been on these boards for a long time and you likely know a lot of how I think. My complaints are not new but are none the less valid. Elements on the current board voted to punish elected board members for filibustering over private property recognition in raptors and coulple of other issues. There was a statement made about NAFA being run as a corporation, and it is not that and should not be run that way.

I am well aware that you guys running the board are in constant communication, collaborate, and do each others bidding...what do you want?

What Elements voted? Be specific! And if those Elements are still officers, campaign to have others elected. And a couple of other issues, again, be specific, you are just rambling! What folks want is to have a polite, informative convestation about the folks running, the issues, and what we think can and needs to be done about it to make NAFA better. I haven't seen any suggestions from you yet that help in that direction! You know a lot about falconry and the history, and your input is invaluable, but you have to try and help in a positive manner. Help NAFA Jeff, tell us what we need to know so we can make an informed decision when we vote!

[sharptail]

What Elements voted? Be specific! And if those Elements are still officers, campaign to have others elected. Well Fred,
I don't have those document on my desk currently, making it a little hard to quote them, besides running a muck of NAFA copywrite. I don't think it was Steve Jones as he wrote about in his hc directors report. I spoke to him the yesterday. He said in a prior conversation, when I asked him to run for Mountain Director that he was no longer a NAFA member. He also said, that he heard it said, during his time on the board, among directors that if members didn't like the way NAFA was run then they should just get out of the club. Just exactly what he did.

If I remember correctly it was also not Eric Edwards as per Steve Jones and I also don't think Eric operates that way.

I don't thing it could have been Bruce Haak, or Diane Moller, correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was before they were on the board.

Don't quote me but it seems like Ken Mesch was one of the ones who was getting diciplined.

Being as this was a US Issue and that the Canadian Director, Mr Williams, should have obstained, but I but I don't think he did. Who does that leave?

[frootdog]

Jeff the more you type the harder it is to understand you. So whoever you left off your list is who you THINK told Steve to quit NAFA?

[FredFogg]

Well Fred,
I don't have those document on my desk currently, making it a little hard to quote them, besides running a muck of NAFA copywrite. I don't think it was Steve Jones as he wrote about in his hc directors report. I spoke to him the yesterday. He said in a prior conversation, when I asked him to run for Mountain Director that he was no longer a NAFA member. He also said, that he heard it said, during his time on the board, among directors that if members didn't like the way NAFA was run then they should just get out of the club. Just exactly what he did.

If I remember correctly it was also not Eric Edwards as per Steve Jones and I also don't think Eric operates that way.

I don't thing it could have been Bruce Haak, or Diane Moller, correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was before they were on the board.

Don't quote me but it seems like Ken Mesch was one of the ones who was getting diciplined.

Being as this was a US Issue and that the Canadian Director, Mr Williams, should have obstained, but I but I don't think he did. Who does that leave?

Jeff, way to many don't quote me or but I think and if I remember correctly to even take any of that with a grain of salt. Here say from a prior director that quit due to who knows what reasons don't even register as valid to me. Again, give us some substance so we can make an informed decision! Better yet, tell Steve Jones to come on here and give us his reasons for quitting NAFA and what they need to do to improve.

Thanks,

[wyodjm]

I don’t visit here as much as I used to. I’m sitting here right now a bit fried. I’ve just spent the better part of 7 hours writing a 12-page letter to a USFWS official regarding eagles. I’ve been keeping up with this thread. I’m not claiming to have all the answers. Actually, any answers.

I see falconers today not being students of the sport. Real students. One of the most frustrating things I saw when I belonged to NAFA was watching many new directors not boning up on the issues at hand. I saw a few people rewriting history that made them look a little better in the light than history actually portrays them.

I know I’ve said this before but some real issues are cooking within the USFWS. Things just don’t smell right to me. It’s almost as if the USFWS is reverting back to their old anti falconry ways. I think the feds dumped a ton of garbage when they turned over the administration of falconry to the states.

I say this. I’d join NAFA again if I saw NAFA going in a positive direction. I think things are drastically different today than say 20 years ago. I’d like to see NAFA have some sort of national lobbyist that actually acted as a national liaison with Washington. I’d like to see NAFA network closely with other national hunting/sportsmen’s groups. The strength in numbers concept.

Like I said, I’m a bit fried. Sometimes I have a bit of trouble determining who I’m struggling with. The feds or other falconers. I’m in the fight. I have no choice. I don’t like the alternative of losing something that is important to me. But then maybe being a NAFA member for 30+ years and then making a choice to leave the club, doesn't give me any right to speak now. Perhaps not.

Just trying to contribute to an intelligent conversation.

[sharptail]

Jeff, way to many don't quote me or but I think and if I remember correctly to even take any of that with a grain of salt. Here say from a prior director that quit due to who knows what reasons don't even register as valid to me. Again, give us some substance so we can make an informed decision! Better yet, tell Steve Jones to come on here and give us his reasons for quitting NAFA and what they need to do to improve.

Thanks,I am not in the habit of telling Steve what to do! You can dig out this information as well as I. Who died and left you in charge?

[FredFogg]

I am not in the habit of telling Steve what to do! You can dig out this information as well as I. Who died and left you in charge?

Well, a lot of folks have died this year Jeff, but that isn't what we are talking about. I should have said, "ASK" Steve to come on board and give us his informed opinion. Sorry! And is that the only way you can reply when someone confronts what you are saying by becoming defensive? Either say something constructive or get the hell off the thread!

[frootdog]

I think the feds dumped a ton of garbage when they turned over the administration of falconry to the states.

I say this. I’d join NAFA again if I saw NAFA going in a positive direction.

The overwhelming majority of responses to the regs were for the feds to get out of it and the feds did NOT anticipate that. So it was us that got what we asked for not them dumping on the states.

You also said you would rejoin NAFA after Greg's wreck.

[FredFogg]

I’d like to see NAFA have some sort of national lobbyist that actually acted as a national liaison with Washington. I’d like to see NAFA network closely with other national hunting/sportsmen’s groups. The strength in numbers concept.



Dan, now those are suggestions that we can ask our directors to look into. Thanks for letting us know what you think, it helps all of us make informed decisions. I truly hope you do reconsider rejoining NAFA, your input can only help, even if they won't accept it (it will be their loss).

[wyodjm]

The overwhelming majority of responses to the regs were for the feds to get out of it and the feds did NOT anticipate that. So it was us that got what we asked for not them dumping on the states.

Sure. The USFWS actually listened to falconers. Ok.


Brandi and everyone else,
I am also in the process of setting up a donation page on the NAFA website!


I'm not a NAFA member, but I'd join again to help Greg out. If that's what it took.


You also said you would rejoin NAFA after Greg's wreck.

That's not what I said. Greg's my friend. I donated privately. But thanks all the same.

Cheers.

[frootdog]

Sure. The USFWS actually listened to falconers. Ok.


That's not what I said. Greg's my friend. I donated privately. But thanks all the same.

Cheers.

At least Jeff is a NAFA member. I for one am tired of hearing that you are not. We know. We get it. They did not do what you wanted. Boo Hoo. They can not possibly please everyone all the time. I despised the era of Darryl and Dan but I stuck with it. I'm glad I did too cause whether YOU see it or not things ARE changing. That is OK by me. Do I want more? You bet. Is it all going to happen overnight? No. IF you ever rejoin are you going to get your panties in a wad again? Most likely. Will I remain happy with NAFA 20 years from now? I hope but I'm also realistic and realize that like a marriage there are going to be disagreements along the way, but I'm not going to let those cloud my vision. I'm not gonna bail on the main national club either because of it.

[wyodjm]

At least Jeff is a NAFA member. I for one am tired of hearing that you are not. We know. We get it. They did not do what you wanted. Boo Hoo. They can not possibly please everyone all the time. I despised the era of Darryl and Dan but I stuck with it. I'm glad I did too cause whether YOU see it or not things ARE changing. That is OK by me. Do I want more? You bet. Is it all going to happen overnight? No. IF you ever rejoin are you going to get your panties in a wad again? Most likely. Will I remain happy with NAFA 20 years from now? I hope but I'm also realistic and realize that like a marriage there are going to be disagreements along the way, but I'm not going to let those cloud my vision. I'm not gonna bail on the main national club either because of it.

I was contributing to a conversation. I'm sorry if I offended you. I asked you once before to PM me if you had issues. You like to do this sort of stuff out in the open.

I choose not to.

Cheers.

[Dirthawking]

Let us not make this a personal bickering match. People have stated opinions/facts, others have asked for clarification. Please keep it civil, or this thread will go the way so many other NAFA threads have....LOCKED!

[sharptail]

Jeff,

It was an honest question, what issues are you talking about?

No, by the way, Eric Tabb is also running for Mtn director.Yah..I could tell by the 'chicken little' comment in post 33.

[Saluqi]

Yah..I could tell by the 'chicken little' comment in post 33.

Jeff,

I guess I don't see the sky as falling, I apologize that you took it personally. I would still be interested in hearing your opinions regarding the challenges that falconry in the USA is facing.

I'm running for a position as a NAFA director, I don't know all the issues across the mountain west, I do know the issues facing NM falconers and I have been working on them for as long as I've been a licensed falconer. If I ever serve on the NAFA board I will do what I do now to the best of my ability, that's all I can say, take it or leave it. I don't have an agenda, I'm not a breeder, or hold any special interest, I simply want to practice the sport and have access to wild taken raptors. Not everyone likes my style, so be it, I don't expect to be friends with everyone, I just want to be a falconer.

[FredFogg]

As not to pollute Jeff's thread, I am starting another thread where I want folks to list things they would like to see changed within NAFA or things that are being currently done that they would like to see done.

[sharptail]

Hi Paul,
I wanted to ask you and the other candidates for the Mountain and at large position, that I will be voting for about how you guys see the private property issue. If memory serves, NAFA has passed something, perhaps a referendum(please feel free to correct me if it is something else) stating that we are anti raptors as private property. I am aware that this is not likely to be revisited by the board anytime soon, but if by chance the deciding vote was yours to make today, how would you vote?

I am hopeing that we can get the other candidates to jump in to this also!

[Saluqi]

Hi Jeff,
I've been crunching through the NM regulations the last few weeks, updating them to include the new aspects of the federal regulations. In a meeting with LE last December the head of LE asked that we include ownership as part of the definition of falconry. Here is what I came up with, the definition has been approved by our state and George Allen.


19.35.8.7 DEFINITIONS:
A. “Falconry” shall mean the ownership, caring for, and training of raptors for the pursuit of wild game, and hunting wild game with raptors. Falconry includes the use of captive bred raptors and taking of raptors from the wild to use in the sport; and the ownership, caring for, training, and transporting raptors held for falconry.

I'm all for raptors being held as private property, just like owning a horse or a dog, the ownership can be taken away if you mistreat the animal. Unlike a TV or a car which you own, you can not abuse an animal expect that it will not be taken away from you. By the same token I'd guess like an aggressive dog that harms others, if your raptor attacks a person you may also lose it. I would vote in favor of raptors as private property.

[goshawks00]

[QUOTE=wyodjm;131285]Here’s a suggestion for anyone who will read this and assimilate the information. How about having NAFA contact past members who have left the club in the last ten years and ask them why they left and what it would take to get them to join again. Then publish the results without censoring the information.


Dan an excellent request.... Maybe one of our esteemed computer wizards here can come up with a thread that would allow (as stated) ex members ONLYthat have left NAFA to express their reasons....Maybe not so much a question and answer thread but a bare bones reasoned response without replies to those reasons... I'd hate to see it as another compost tossing contest, but rather a thread that allowed true feelings ( from those posting their reasons) so we can see the diversity of thinking within those ex members.
If we don't know why NAFA is being hamstrung how will be stop the same from continuing? Might be a good lesson for state orgs to consider also... being that many of the same issues start and fester there.

[wyodjm]

[QUOTE=wyodjm;131285]Here’s a suggestion for anyone who will read this and assimilate the information. How about having NAFA contact past members who have left the club in the last ten years and ask them why they left and what it would take to get them to join again. Then publish the results without censoring the information.


Dan an excellent request.... Maybe one of our esteemed computer wizards here can come up with a thread that would allow (as stated) ex members ONLYthat have left NAFA to express their reasons....Maybe not so much a question and answer thread but a bare bones reasoned response without replies to those reasons... I'd hate to see it as another compost tossing contest, but rather a thread that allowed true feelings ( from those posting their reasons) so we can see the diversity of thinking within those ex members.
If we don't know why NAFA is being hamstrung how will be stop the same from continuing? Might be a good lesson for state orgs to consider also... being that many of the same issues start and fester there.

I dumped my post. I had second thoughts. Should I repost it?

[Ron Clarke]

I have to ask though, why limit ourselves to membership dues as a source of income. There are too many examples of "volunteer" organizations (DU, QU, TU, Pheasants unlimited etc....) that come up with ways to raise funds. Have regional banquets, on-line auctions for donated goods, increase offerings in the NAFA store. If you want to increase membership, look at what these other organizations do. They're constantly giving stuff away to intice people to join. Should that be necessary, NO, but it must help them.

Just my .02

You may be onto something here, Todd. As a long-time Ducks Unlimited member and volunteer, I've seen firsthand what a bunch of committed duck hunters and a well-organized national group can do to raise funds.

Make no mistake, though, the difference between NAFA and DU is immense. DU has more than three-quarters of a million members and mobilizes 40,000 volunteers in a typical year. I don't know the exact number, but I'll bet DU employs more people than NAFA has members. When I was Alaska's state representative to the Pacific Flyway Council, DU routinely gave a reception (as I'm sure they did at every other meeting of every other flyway council) at the Council's meetings; each single event probably cost five or ten times the total cost of a new membership management service recently debated by the NAFA Board.

DU has $20 million in investments, $100 million in assets, and raises $200 million in revenue annually. That's how they are able to offer the items they are constantly pushing as benefits of membership and rewards for additional donations. I'd encourage any falconer to volunteer at a local DU banquet. You'll see a staggeringly impressive fundraising machine dedicated to improving waterfowl habitat. The packages of outdoor gear, art, furniture, and firearms available to local committees from the DU national team are jaw-dropping. DU routinely has three or four different manufacturers issuing special edition commemorative shotguns for use in fundraising. Every year. Amazing.

Obviously, NAFA is too small to do that. But DU started small, too. So what can we do? How about this: everyone following this thread secures one item for the annual raffle at the NAFA Meet. Buy it, make it, find someone to donate it, whatever. One thing of possible interest to other falconers. One thing.

And then, through this forum or on the NAFA web site, we can compare notes on what worked and what didn't and how we might find more and better items. Along the way, maybe we'll find businesses or individuals willing to cover special items for all renewing members or bankroll a banquest or a regional meet. We are limited only by our imaginations. We can make this up any way we want.

Here's another thing we can all do. Send an e-mail to or call a NAFA director and tell him/her what's on your mind. I'll bet if directors heard from NAFEX participants once for every hundred messages posted here, that'd constitute more input than they've seen from members in a long time.

Surely, there are other ideas out there. Let's hear them.

[goshawks00]

[QUOTE=goshawks00;131294]

I dumped my post. I had second thoughts. Should I repost it?

Dan, I guess I should have said --'open a new thread on NAFEX for those that have left over the say past ten years...' I really don't see NAFA exposing it's self to the type of response that would surely follow... They know...we all know ...for the most part:D why so many have left... I mean there are many responses to the forming of new Associations with different ideas, and ideals. Most of it has been hashed out before... but I do believe a lot of falconers just quit listening to why and have moved on...

[Saluqi]

This was last summer's hot molt thread, remember?

http://www.nafex.net/showthread.php?t=5218

[Dirthawking]

Here is the problem with a thread with only reasons why people left NAFA with no questions allowed. Most of the people that have left NAFA are very vague in their reasons. Even when they do express them. I would be all for it, IF somebody could give exacts without being vague.

This thread is a perfect example of people being vague with reasons, then get upset when people ask questions for clarification. It is not personal, just looking for clarification.

[wyodjm]

This was last summer's hot molt thread, remember?

http://www.nafex.net/showthread.php?t=5218

Yes, good point.

Thanks Paul.

[frootdog]

This was last summer's hot molt thread, remember?

http://www.nafex.net/showthread.php?t=5218

Unfortunately every time elections come up it will be like this. Once a year during the molt.

[Ron Clarke]

Unfortunately every time elections come up it will be like this. Once a year during the molt.

So let's do something different this year. For every ten messages you post on this forum, send one to a NAFA director or officer and let them know what's on your mind. We can discuss things amongst ourselves here until we're blue in the face, but if the NAFA board doesn't hear any of it, they won't be able to consider your wishes.

Yogi Berra said "If you don't know where you're going, you might end up somewhere else." If you can't or don't tell NAFA directors specifically where you want the organization to go, we're virtually certain it will end up somewhere else.

[FredFogg]

So let's do something different this year. For every ten messages you post on this forum, send one to a NAFA director or officer and let them know what's on your mind. We can discuss things amongst ourselves here until we're blue in the face, but if the NAFA board doesn't hear any of it, they won't be able to consider your wishes.

Yogi Berra said "If you don't know where you're going, you might end up somewhere else." If you can't or don't tell NAFA directors specifically where you want the organization to go, we're virtually certain it will end up somewhere else.

Hmmm, NAFA has a forum, nobody uses it! Actually, how many folks on here are even on the NAFA forum?

[goshawks00]

If you can't or don't tell NAFA directors specifically where you want the organization to go, we're virtually certain it will end up somewhere else.

Interesting concept Ron, in fact so far I've found, in large part, even if you do tell them, we end up somewhere other than where we want to go:D.
OR... do you actually think this is where we (NAFA members) want to be? confusedd

[goshawks00]

Hmmm, NAFA has a forum, nobody uses it! Actually, how many folks on here are even on the NAFA forum?

I thought I was until I tried to log on ....

[frootdog]

I was contributing to a conversation. I'm sorry if I offended you. I asked you once before to PM me if you had issues. You like to do this sort of stuff out in the open.

I choose not to.

Cheers.

You did not offend me. You made your point. I made mine, maybe a little too harshly. It would appear that you are the one that is offended and that was not and is not my intention. If that is the case then I apologize for coming off a bit too rough.

[Peregrinus]

This thread is a perfect example of people being vague with reasons, then get upset when people ask questions for clarification. It is not personal, just looking for clarification.

I left for several reasons. I can be quite specific about them all, but the last sraw for me was Agenda 8.3, (August 2008). It was the main reason I left NAFA. Some of the motions passed in that Agenda were breathtaking in their temerity. I administered the remainder of the election and then bailed. If some of those agenda items were reversed, I would consider re-joining.

[sharptail]

Here is the problem with a thread with only reasons why people left NAFA with no questions allowed. Most of the people that have left NAFA are very vague in their reasons. Even when they do express them. I would be all for it, IF somebody could give exacts without being vague.

This thread is a perfect example of people being vague with reasons, then get upset when people ask questions for clarification. It is not personal, just looking for clarification.Looks like the 'fishin' is a little slow Mario...is it time to change bait?

[goshawks00]

thumbsuppclapp

[Dirthawking]

So exactly how am I fishing? You two (you know who you are) are complaining about NAFA and why you will not join and/or quit. But you will not answer questions as to why. I don't care. I am a NAFA member. I am happy to be one. I do my part and volunteer during the meets, and any other time I can. If I have a problem with something with the club, then I get it addressed. I call somebody. I do not sit here on a public forum and bitch about it, with out ever doing anything about it.

Paul is running for a position. You were complaining and he asked you what you would like to see changed. As a director, he should do that. As a concerned falconer, you should answer his question.

Now, how am I fishing. Seems to me that you are the one fishing. Or should I say, stirring the pot!

But then again, by my answering you, you get what you want....

[FredFogg]

I left for several reasons. I can be quite specific about them all, but the last sraw for me was Agenda 8.3, (August 2008). It was the main reason I left NAFA. Some of the motions passed in that Agenda were breathtaking in their temerity. I administered the remainder of the election and then bailed. If some of those agenda items were reversed, I would consider re-joining.

Bridget, please do be specific! I for one would like to know what was in Agenda 8.3 that caused you to quit NAFA. And I would like to know if anything that was passed then is different now. I tried looking up Agenda 8.3 but couldn't find it. Let us know and then if we agree and don't like what happened and is still in place, we can complain to our directors to have it changed.

Also, I started another thread asking what folks would like changed in NAFA and there have been a few responses and I hope the NAFA directors take a look at what folks have asked for and bring it up at the next meeting. So far, all points I have seen mentioned are things I agree NAFA should be involved in and should be trying to do or help with.

[Flatwater Falconer]

99% of the existing board and officers back when these people walked away do not serve on the board now. This is a very different set of volunteers giving 110% to do what is best for falconry, membership and the Association.

The door is open for any and all falconers to join. There is only so much we can do to mend fences. Sometimes taking a large step toward a solution isn't even enough because the other person isn't willing to do anything except degrade an organization that no longer exists as it did a decade ago. Many of the board, officers and regular members are very willing to talk things out if the falconers who are upset are in turn willing. If you think about it . . . we are all subject to making mistakes . . . so letting the old junk go could be a beginning. Pitching in to unify falconers is a beginning. Doing something positive is a beginning. Empty complaints won't get much done. How's about you folks who complain get in and do some work?

As far as complaints being vague . . . I emailed a seriously angry former member and the courtesy of a reply to me was not even given. What can one do in the face of this sort of treatment? The person goes on to complain about NAFA not listening and not doing anything . . . seriously ironic isn't it?

[Peregrinus]

Bridget, please do be specific! I for one would like to know what was in Agenda 8.3 that caused you to quit NAFA. And I would like to know if anything that was passed then is different now. I tried looking up Agenda 8.3 but couldn't find it. Let us know and then if we agree and don't like what happened and is still in place, we can complain to our directors to have it changed.

Hi Fred:

The Agenda, like other past Agendas, was published on the Website. Unfortunately, because it was published on the Member's Only portion of the website, it wouldn't be correct for me to disseminate it to non-members, which is what I would be doing if I posted it on this forum.

I would suggest any interested NAFA members to contact their director and ask to see it if it is not still up on the website. Not that I would at all blame NAFA for taking it down; I would think it to be rather embarassing.

Bridget

[Eagle Owl]

Hi Fred:

The Agenda, like other past Agendas, was published on the Website. Unfortunately, because it was published on the Member's Only portion of the website, it wouldn't be correct for me to disseminate it to non-members, which is what I would be doing if I posted it on this forum.

I would suggest any interested NAFA members to contact their director and ask to see it if it is not still up on the website. Not that I would at all blame NAFA for taking it down; I would think it to be rather embarassing.

Bridget

Bridget,

They only have 2009 and 2010 agendas/minutes on the website. Here is what it says at the bottom of that page:


Note: Minutes of prior meetings are available to NAFA Members by contacting the NAFA Corresponding Secretary via email with your request.
It is our intent to only place the current year and previous year agendas on the web site.

So we will have to get the past agenda from Donna.....Any chance you can get that to us, please?

[Flatwater Falconer]

Re: past agendas

I sent everything I had to the Archives. We will have to ask for a copy of 8.3 which I will be happy to do IF it will help in some way. If it is only going to be used to bash the Association . . . well . . . as members it is our right to view records so will proceed if you so direct.

[Peregrinus]

As far as complaints being vague . . . I emailed a seriously angry former member and the courtesy of a reply to me was not even given. What can one do in the face of this sort of treatment? The person goes on to complain about NAFA not listening and not doing anything . . . seriously ironic isn't it?

Hey Donna:

Let it be known that I am not trying to bash NAFA. I just stated one reason for my having left the organization. And I hear you about the complaints. I received them too, and some were obviously disingenuous.

Personally, I look forward to seeing what changes NAFA makes. It may come to a point where it adopts a libertarian enough stance for me to re-join. I certainly wish it no ill will, whatever course it decides to take. Until then, we can only do as you so wisely advise: volunteer our time in falconry organizations on state or national levels to forward our aims and protect the right to practice the sport.

Best,

[Ron Clarke]

Interesting concept Ron, in fact so far I've found, in large part, even if you do tell them, we end up somewhere other than where we want to go:D.
OR... do you actually think this is where we (NAFA members) want to be? confusedd

Aside from a handful of people using the electronic trumpet of this virtual forum, the bulk of the membership and former membership is quiet. That's an unfortunate reality of most groups like ours. If members don't offer suggestions or complaints, and keep sending their dues, it's hard to come up with a defensible conclusion other than NAFA is going where the bulk of its members want it to go. Yes, membership is down from the peak of some years back, as it is for lots of organizations. I think it would be a useful exercise to contact former members and find out why they are former and not current participants in NAFA. That'll cost money -- is that where the NAFA membership wants to deploy the group's limited finances? Good question. Barring taking every last detail to the membership for a vote, the directors get to make the call as they see fit based on what they're hearing (or not hearing) from the membership.

[MrBill]

Dan writes:

>I see falconers today not being students of the sport. Real students.

Would you mind explaining what you mean here, Dan, since I am a falconer of today. Thanks.

You also write:

>One of the most frustrating things I saw when I belonged to NAFA was watching many new directors not boning up on the issues at hand. I saw a few people rewriting history that made them look a little better in the light than history actually portrays them.

Can you be more specific, please.

>I know I’ve said this before but some real issues are cooking within the USFWS. Things just don’t smell right to me. It’s almost as if the USFWS is reverting back to their old anti falconry ways. I think the feds dumped a ton of garbage when they turned over the administration of falconry to the states.

A little more specificity here would be great also. Thanks, again.

You continue:

>I say this. I’d join NAFA again if I saw NAFA going in a positive direction.

Why do you think the current leadership is not going in a positive direction?

Once again, you write:

>But then maybe being a NAFA member for 30+ years and then making a choice to leave the club, doesn't give me any right to speak now. Perhaps not.

Dan, no one needs to tell you that you are free to say whatever you want, but, it seems strange (to me) that someone would make the effort to complain about a club that they are no longer a member of. But, that's just me.

Bill B.
Norman, OK

[frootdog]

Bill.
clappclappclapp

[sharptail]

Aside from a handful of people using the electronic trumpet of this virtual forum, the bulk of the membership and former membership is quiet. That's an unfortunate reality of most groups like ours. If members don't offer suggestions or complaints, and keep sending their dues, it's hard to come up with a defensible conclusion other than NAFA is going where the bulk of its members want it to go. Yes, membership is down from the peak of some years back, as it is for lots of organizations. I think it would be a useful exercise to contact former members and find out why they are former and not current participants in NAFA. That'll cost money -- is that where the NAFA membership wants to deploy the group's limited finances? Good question. Barring taking every last detail to the membership for a vote, the directors get to make the call as they see fit based on what they're hearing (or not hearing) from the membership.Hi Ron,
In the interest of finding how you might run this club, as a candidate perhaps you could focus on the things that created such a stir in the past, such as private ownerhip, diciplining duely elected directors who were representing the viewes of there districts, pushing rules through that made it much more difficult to recall and a host of other things. Would you change them or just leave then as they are?


Yes...lets have a look a agenda 8.3 and perhaps looking into 8.2 and 8.4 as a little background, is in order. Instead of polling lost members, with its cost, maybe we can learn how our future directors view things, and go from there.

[haggardgyr]

I would like to see Agenda 8.3 discussed again. When that came out, I decided that NAFA is just too liberal for my tastes. For example, the following was found on NAFAs website. As far as I am concerned its ambiguity is telling....

"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."

For me, refusal to acknowledge 'falconer's rights' with resolve, is suspect. The concept of private property can never be questioned. Just because a vehicle must be licensed, doesn't mean your car isn't your private property!

[wyodjm]

I see falconers today not being students of the sport. Real students.

Would you mind explaining what you mean here, Dan, since I am a falconer of today. Thanks.

I'll do my best to try and explain, without going into great detail:

Perhaps I should have said many falconers today. People who have studied falconry's history. That's all I meant Bill.

One of the most frustrating things I saw when I belonged to NAFA was watching many new directors not boning up on the issues at hand. I saw a few people rewriting history that made them look a little better in the light than history actually portrays them.

Can you be more specific, please.

What I meant by this was incoming board members not educating themselves about many of the issues NAFA was facing.

I know I’ve said this before but some real issues are cooking within the USFWS. Things just don’t smell right to me. It’s almost as if the USFWS is reverting back to their old anti falconry ways. I think the feds dumped a ton of garbage when they turned over the administration of falconry to the states.

A little more specificity here would be great also. Thanks, again.

I’m not really sure about it myself Bill, but we’re seeing some major shifts in the Service’s philosophy about wildlife use. Falconry being one of these things. Strange new policies springing up about the use of eagles, perhaps goshawks, and the Service setting the stage for things to come.

I say this. I’d join NAFA again if I saw NAFA going in a positive direction.

Why do you think the current leadership is not going in a positive direction?

I’m not saying that. It’s too early to tell. That’s my honest answer.

But then maybe being a NAFA member for 30+ years and then making a choice to leave the club, doesn't give me any right to speak now. Perhaps not.

Dan, no one needs to tell you that you are free to say whatever you want, but, it seems strange (to me) that someone would make the effort to complain about a club that they are no longer a member of. But, that's just me.

Bill B.
Norman, OK

Surely you can’t interpret my above statements as complaining. They’re just observations.

I’ll tell you what Bill, We’ve known each other for a few years now. Please feel free to call me and we can discuss some of these issues in as much detail as you’d like. To be honest, I’m really not sure of your motives. Feel free to PM me and I’ll give you my phone number.

[MrBill]

Dan,

Thanks for your response, as it give me and others some insight into the depth of your convictions.

As to my motives for asking these questions, I have always been one (as you should well know) that struggles with rather vague categorical statements about anything, regardless of topic; it doesn't have to be NAFA. However, in all candor, I am now a fan of NAFA, and am wishing it well, so I am probably being a little defensive of where I think they are currently trying to go. I say that I am "now a fan" because I have not always been in their corner on things, but I do think they are making a "legitimate" attempt to turn things around, and be more responsive to the general membership.

I terms of discussing these things with you in private, I really think that they should be discussed in the open, for the benefit of all concerned; but, that's just me.

Take care,

Bill B.
Norman, OK

[Ron Clarke]

Hi Ron,
In the interest of finding how you might run this club, as a candidate perhaps you could focus on the things that created such a stir in the past, such as private ownerhip, diciplining duely elected directors who were representing the viewes of there districts, pushing rules through that made it much more difficult to recall and a host of other things. Would you change them or just leave then as they are?


Yes...lets have a look a agenda 8.3 and perhaps looking into 8.2 and 8.4 as a little background, is in order. Instead of polling lost members, with its cost, maybe we can learn how our future directors view things, and go from there.

Generally speaking, I'd like NAFA to work toward falconry being regulated according to its effects, i.e., no detectable biological impact on raptors or quarry, with a few positives (e.g., encounters with gun hunters in the field resulting in greater public awareness of the value of raptors, educational programs at schools and civic groups, captive breeding and release of rare species, rehab, etc.) thrown in. I'd like to see NAFA more engaged with scientific investigations of raptors, their habitat, and their prey, with members involved both as field researchers and assistants and as funders of important work. I'd like to see NAFA find creative ways to raise enough money to fund some studies of our own. I'd like NAFA to be well-prepared and fully armed legally to challenge the authorities when warranted. We're such a small group, we're frequently an afterthought or don't even enter the equation at all when the feds promulgate regulations. I'm not advocating rampant litigation or frequent threats or anything of the sort. The rulemakers need to know we have valuable expertise and are eager to help, and also that we are a force to be reckoned with when they get off track.

For example, the golden eagle situation is one place I'd like to see NAFA be more legally assertive. The feds are operating on questionable biological grounds, and administratively, they're having a hard time following their own rules. If you think that sort of thing affects only eagle falconers, think again. There are some disturbing stipulations in the eagle regs that, if interpreted strictly and foisted on falconry regulations overall, could seriously reduce or even prevent falconry take of raptors from the wild. This is serious business and I'm glad NAFA's Eagle Committee has drafted an action plan to address these concerns on short-, mid-, and long-term bases.

In the "put your money where your mouth is" department, I've become a member of both the Conservation and Technical Advisory Committees of NAFA. One standout in the CC's work (aside from the history-making passage peregrine take) has been drafting NAFA's comments on the proposal to list Queen Charlotte goshawks as endangered in Canada. One aspect of that effort was working to make sure if the Canadians did list the subspecies, it wouldn't impair U.S. take of goshawks for falconry on a "similarity of appearance" clause that dogged the peregrine situation for years. That letter is posted on the NAFA web site.

My work with the TAC includes working with state organizations facing adoption of the new federal regs, notably learning from states that have successfully certified their new rules with the USFWS how they managed their regulatory processes, what worked and what didn't, what they would have done differently, etc. The results of those discussions are posted on the NAFA web site.

I'm also working with the TAC to help states update their apprentice manuals and processes. That project has just begun, but promises to be challenging, rewarding, and ultimately beneficial to falconry all over the country.

Sorry, I don't have agendas 8.2, 8.3, or 8.4 memorized. I can't tell you how I would have voted as a board member on any of those agenda items because I don't have everything in front of me that the board had at its disposal. If you want to know my personal views, tell me which of those issues you're interested in and I'll tell you. When I ran for NAFA Director-At-Large last year, I promised this forum several things: I'd answer questions; I'd always use my real name; and I'd always post several different ways to contact me. That offer's still good. For those who'd prefer, I'll communicate via PM, but my default mode will always be to share my views publicly on this forum.

You mentioned private ownership of raptors. From what I recall of the resolution before the NAFA board, I thought it could have been much better written and likely would have voted to table it for purposes of a massive rewrite. In my mind, there were stronger arguments in favor of the status quo, but I'm a scientist -- I'll change my mind in light of new information. My first question when considering any proposal is "what problem are we trying to solve?" The private ownership proponents I've talked to have been frustratingly vague on that front. Meantime, the discussion has become largely moot, as the USFWS has acknowledged raptors held under falconry permits are private property. I'm not sure a post-game round of "woulda shoulda coulda" gets us anywhere. There are plenty of other things to work on. If people left NAFA over this, what could NAFA do to bring them back? Let me put it to you directly: what do you want to have happen?

On the changes to recall petitions and submitting matters to the membership via petition, I thought it ridiculous and unfortunate that a handful of (what was it? three?) members could force a vote to recall a director. It was a disruptive, unnecessary expense, and failed by a landslide. Am I remembering correctly in thinking the final vote received fewer votes to recall than the number of signatures on the original petition? What a waste of energy. The new threshold of 25% of members to trigger a recall or send a decision to the membership is higher than I would have preferred, but, again, I'm not privy to all the information and subsequent debate the directors had, so maybe there are good reasons for that.

As far as the petition for honorary membership for Mr. Beebe and Mr. Webster, there is a whole lot I'm unfamiliar with, including Colorado corporate codes and subsequent legal opinions. Personally, I do not favor conferring honorary membership on either individual. However, on the face of it, it seemed to me the board erred in disallowing the petition. Maybe the subsequent legal wrangling clarified things, but I'm not privy to that information.

All that said, let me offer an observation. This discussion is an example of why people are reluctant to run for NAFA directorships. Why would any sane person subject him or herself to this? (By that measure, I suppose I'm questioning my own sanity, but we're all a little nuts to be wrapped up in this sport, aren't we?) I fully expect a complete dissection of this screed and that I'll be taken to task for choosing the wrong word or quoting the wrong pundit or whatever. That's just the price of playing the game. But it's even tougher when members and former members are still stewing about things the NAFA board did two and three or more years ago, can't or won't say specifically what it is they wish had been done differently back then, and can't or won't articulate clearly where they'd like the organization to go from here, yet want to know precisely that from potential directors. If the answers aren't exactly what they'd hoped to hear, they can sit back and say "well, they won't listen to me, they aren't listening to the membership, they don't represent falconers the way I think they should, and they're off on their own agenda," and either sit and grouse on this forum, leave the club, or both. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If directors don't know what you want, but someone with a differing view presents clear goals and reasoned arguments to support those goals, guess whose views are most likely to prevail?

Meantime, I'll continue to volunteer time and effort on projects I think will benefit falconry, and encourage you all to do the same. It's a gorgeous sunny day in Southeast Alaska, and I'm going to get out into it. A la vol!

[FredFogg]

I would like to see Agenda 8.3 discussed again. When that came out, I decided that NAFA is just too liberal for my tastes. For example, the following was found on NAFAs website. As far as I am concerned its ambiguity is telling....

"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."

For me, refusal to acknowledge 'falconer's rights' with resolve, is suspect. The concept of private property can never be questioned. Just because a vehicle must be licensed, doesn't mean your car isn't your private property!

Ron and everyone else, please look at the thread I just started called Agenda 8.3. I see no reason why we can't discuss it.

[MrBill]

Bridget,

You write:

>I left for several reasons. I can be quite specific about them all,

Would you please be specific then, particularly since there are "several reasons." Thanks.

Bill B.
Norman, oK

[tking308]

All that said, let me offer an observation. This discussion is an example of why people are reluctant to run for NAFA directorships. Why would any sane person subject him or herself to this? (!

Ron, clappclappclapp
I think sometimes the people complaining forget how much they are paying NAFA leadership. This is a volunteer organization, if you think you can do it better, PROVE IT!

[JRedig]

Surely, there are other ideas out there. Let's hear them.

Bumping this topic up...

Is there any capacity that NAFA can acquire grants to help cover operating costs? My mother is the head of a non-profit with about 13k members, she acquires about $250k in grants each year to cover their budget etc and establish investments for the future. I don't know if there is a capacity in which we can do that, or maybe we already do, but it might be something to consider if we don't.

I for one am happy to pay more for dues, I spend double on other clubs I belong to for annual dues for the same reasons we are talking about increasing things.

[jfseaman]

Bumping this topic up...

Is there any capacity that NAFA can acquire grants to help cover operating costs? My mother is the head of a non-profit with about 13k members, she acquires about $250k in grants each year to cover their budget etc and establish investments for the future. I don't know if there is a capacity in which we can do that, or maybe we already do, but it might be something to consider if we don't.

I for one am happy to pay more for dues, I spend double on other clubs I belong to for annual dues for the same reasons we are talking about increasing things.
Thats a wonderful idea.

We need professional help with lobbying and this kind of thing.

[Eagle Owl]

Thats a wonderful idea.

We need professional help with lobbying and this kind of thing.

You have to be careful with lobbying, being a nonprofit. NAFA is, I believe, a 501(c)3 nonprofit. Under that particular status, you are only allowed to spend I believe it is 20% of funds on political aspects (that includes monies and volunteer time). I will have to dig through all my 501(c) notes to get all the numbers correct, but before any big ideas are hatched, you need to first make sure what nonprofit status NAFA is and get the percentage that is already spent on lobbying.

[jfseaman]

You have to be careful with lobbying, being a nonprofit. NAFA is, I believe, a 501(c)3 nonprofit. Under that particular status, you are only allowed to spend I believe it is 20% of funds on political aspects (that includes monies and volunteer time). I will have to dig through all my 501(c) notes to get all the numbers correct, but before any big ideas are hatched, you need to first make sure what nonprofit status NAFA is and get the percentage that is already spent on lobbying.
I'm aware of the 501(c)3 limitations.

With %95 of the budget going to the publications, there's not much worry about hitting the 501(c)3 limit.;);)

There are far more effective ways to this than merely dumping money on a lobbyist.

[Tony James]

You have to be careful with lobbying, being a nonprofit. NAFA is, I believe, a 501(c)3 nonprofit. Under that particular status, you are only allowed to spend I believe it is 20% of funds on political aspects (that includes monies and volunteer time). I will have to dig through all my 501(c) notes to get all the numbers correct, but before any big ideas are hatched, you need to first make sure what nonprofit status NAFA is and get the percentage that is already spent on lobbying.

If I may offer an additional opinion Brandi, it's not just in regard to these kind of regulations that consideration should be given.
Jeff makes a good suggestion regards finances for your consideration, but the first thing to identify is need. What does NAFA need more money for?
If it needs more money to pay reasonable travel expences and suchlike, or to organise a big field meeting or social gathering, or even the establishment of a 'fighting fund', this money would normally be best raised through member's subscriptions (which he also suggests as being reasonable) rather than externally.
But unless the need is identified and agreed prior to significant fund raising, there is sadly nothing more certain to create division amongst falconers than wealth --- and as the arguments rage about potential use and misuse of any new found wealth, the goodwill and the good work becomes stiffled by negativity.

Best wishes,

Tony.

[joekoz]

If I may offer an additional opinion Brandi, it's not just in regard to these kind of regulations that consideration should be given.
Jeff makes a good suggestion regards finances for your consideration, but the first thing to identify is need. What does NAFA need more money for?
If it needs more money to pay reasonable travel expences and suchlike, or to organise a big field meeting or social gathering, or even the establishment of a 'fighting fund', this money would normally be best raised through member's subscriptions (which he also suggests as being reasonable) rather than externally.
But unless the need is identified and agreed prior to significant fund raising, there is sadly nothing more certain to create division amongst falconers than wealth --- and as the arguments rage about potential use and misuse of any new found wealth, the goodwill and the good work becomes stiffled by negativity.

Best wishes,

Tony.

As I read the above quote, my mind went immediately to the Boy Scout motto “BE PREPARED”. Money should be set aside for a “FIGHTING FUND” so when the time comes (and with all of the anti-groups out there it most likely will) the organization will have the financial resources available to insure the protection of our interests.

Grants are just one approach to acquiring additional funds. There are others also that are available including Memorial Donations, Endowments, etc.

[Eagle Owl]

I'm aware of the 501(c)3 limitations.

With %95 of the budget going to the publications, there's not much worry about hitting the 501(c)3 limit.;);)

There are far more effective ways to this than merely dumping money on a lobbyist.

First of all, NAFA has money set aside in CDs and in the Legal fund, which is a substantial amount of money, and that is also included in the total amount that is looked at when calculating the amount spent lobbying. Secondly, it is not just about money...ANY time spent lobbying by ANY member is also included in that percentage. I am just saying you have to be very careful when you start spouting lobbying. It can screw NAFA in the end if the laws are not followed.

[jfseaman]

First of all, NAFA has money set aside in CDs and in the Legal fund, which is a substantial amount of money, and that is also included in the total amount that is looked at when calculating the amount spent lobbying. Secondly, it is not just about money...ANY time spent lobbying by ANY member is also included in that percentage. I am just saying you have to be very careful when you start spouting lobbying. It can screw NAFA in the end if the laws are not followed.
Hi Brandi,

I'm not trying to be contrary or aggressive or combative, just trying to clarify so please forgive be but I'm having a hard time understanding your position.

I'm in the midst of all these 501(c)3 issues with CHC right now so...

It seems to me like you are saying it's just to dangerous to have NAFA associated with any lobbying efforts, is that what you mean?

or

Do you mean that when a plan is worked on to help ensure preservation of our falconry rights, we need to be cognizant of the limitations of the form of incorporation granted to us by the government on behalf of the people?

[Eagle Owl]

Hi Brandi,

I'm not trying to be contrary or aggressive or combative, just trying to clarify so please forgive be but I'm having a hard time understanding your position.

I'm in the midst of all these 501(c)3 issues with CHC right now so...

It seems to me like you are saying it's just to dangerous to have NAFA associated with any lobbying efforts, is that what you mean?

or

Do you mean that when a plan is worked on to help ensure preservation of our falconry rights, we need to be cognizant of the limitations of the form of incorporation granted to us by the government on behalf of the people?

Fred, I have done all the research as well. THA has been working on this for about 4 years now. One of the main reasons we have not moved forward is because of the lobbying aspect. We do not want to limit ourselves. But I don't really know why you don't understand my position. In my first post I said
you need to first make sure what nonprofit status NAFA is and get the percentage that is already spent on lobbying.. I am just trying to make everyone aware that lobbying is not just about money and with a nonprofit status, depending on which 501(c) you are, will depend on how much lobbying can be done. I have not once said it is not a good idea. Just that you need to be careful with making plans without first talking with NAFA to see where they sit with the amount of lobbying already being done.

[jfseaman]

OK.

That's why I encouraged state organizations/clubs to affiliate with 'Outdoor Heritate Alliances'. The alliances are the lobbying groups. Their incorporation structure allows them to stay within their limits. Membership in the alliance is way under the limits on a 501(c)3.

In other words, we can't go it alone. All field sports are under threat. Falconry and archery are low man on the totem poll. The national organizations, and alliances understand that and will support falconry as it represents the finger in the dam.

There is no way CHC or THA can directly employ a lobbyist. The lowest price is far beyond their limits. Forming ranks with all the other field sport organizations through these alliances is legal and cost effective.

[Tony James]

As I read the above quote, my mind went immediately to the Boy Scout motto “BE PREPARED”. Money should be set aside for a “FIGHTING FUND” so when the time comes (and with all of the anti-groups out there it most likely will) the organization will have the financial resources available to insure the protection of our interests.

Grants are just one approach to acquiring additional funds. There are others also that are available including Memorial Donations, Endowments, etc.

Hi Joe,

Baden Powell was definitely onto something with that one, and for sure falconry would benefit from a few pounds (sorry, dollars) tucked away for a rainy day. But falconry needs to be aware that money often comes with strings attached, and in my view at least, we need to maintain elements of the credibility that we have enjoyed through being represented by enthusiastic, dedicated, amateur volunteers.
We've also been fortunate that some of those people have been of such high calibre, that frankly we could never afford them if they were acting on our behalf professionally.

Best wishes,

Tony.