James "Fred" Seaman - Candidate DAL

[jfseaman]

Personally. I'd like to see each person running for office open a thread on here and invite questions. Then the question and the answer is here for all to see. This way we could get to know the person running and see who does what they say they'll do and who doesnt.
OK.

[outhawkn]

Great!

So how exactly will NAFA/ Falconry and me ,the member beneift by your being elected?

[sharptail]

Great!

So how exactly will NAFA/ Falconry and me ,the member beneift by your being elected?
Hi Bill, Pretty general question...what are you looking for?

[FredFogg]

Great!

So how exactly will NAFA/ Falconry and me ,the member beneift by your being elected?

Oh, that one is easy! We would have a "Fred" as a director! clapp toungeout :D

[jfseaman]

Great!

So how exactly will NAFA/ Falconry and me ,the member beneift by your being elected?
Well, I'm definitely not the 'old guard'.

I am a do-er. I get things done. Can't be a success in business if your not.

I am so passionate about falconry that I restructured my entire life around it.

I can't say I'll do 'this' or I'll do 'that', but I can say I'll do my best to return our organization to "THE NAFA' not just 'a NAFA'.

[MrBill]

Fred,

I'm inclined to vote for the other candidate, since I have known him for a number of years; however, I want to make an informed choice.

You write:

>I am so passionate about falconry that I restructured my entire life around it.

How does passion about falconry equate to being a good director; in other words, is there a direct correlation between level of passion for falconry and level of achievement as a director?

You also write:

>I can't say I'll do 'this' or I'll do 'that', but I can say I'll do my best to return our organization to "THE NAFA' not just 'a NAFA'.

This is a vague statement. Can you clairify? Thanks.

Bill Boni
Norman, OK

[everetkhorton]

Fred:
After reading the thread " Things you would like to see from NAFA" doesn't that just want you to go out and bust your 0$$ as DAL.
Believe it or not, if you get elected there are many that feel your time belongs to them. No hawking, trips, vacation. You chose to be DAL do the job right or you should have not run for off. I do not see many people sitting at the meeting at the NAFA meets. As far as travel cost go. Look on the web site and see how many people are on some of these committees. If I was a dissatisfied with NAFA as some I would be gone in a minute. I just get real tired of hearing what is NAFA going to do for me.
OK, thats it, that's my 2 cent worth and that is all it worth. JMO. Donna, thanks for all you do for NAFA. Fred, the web site look good, lot of information, the site has the committee members on it.

[steveo_uk]

How are you going to get more people involved in NAFA and consider becoming members of NAFA. How are you going to encourage the non-longwing comunity to become more involved. How are you going to promote programs that encourage falconry down to grass root levels. What programs do you intend to promote that will take falconry out of the "step child" of hunting to a more prominent level in the hunting comunity.

Just some ideas .....

[jfseaman]

Fred:
After reading the thread " Things you would like to see from NAFA" doesn't that just want you to go out and bust your 0$$ as DAL.
Believe it or not, if you get elected there are many that feel your time belongs to them. No hawking, trips, vacation. You chose to be DAL do the job right or you should have not run for off. I do not see many people sitting at the meeting at the NAFA meets. As far as travel cost go. Look on the web site and see how many people are on some of these committees. If I was a dissatisfied with NAFA as some I would be gone in a minute. I just get real tired of hearing what is NAFA going to do for me.
OK, thats it, that's my 2 cent worth and that is all it worth. JMO. Donna, thanks for all you do for NAFA. Fred, the web site look good, lot of information, the site has the committee members on it.
When I was asked I said I would do the best job I know how to do.

I've caught game at the three field meets Cal HC, AFC and NAFA so I can concentrate on business at the meeting.

[jfseaman]

How are you going to get more people involved in NAFA and consider becoming members of NAFA. How are you going to encourage the non-longwing comunity to become more involved. How are you going to promote programs that encourage falconry down to grass root levels. What programs do you intend to promote that will take falconry out of the "step child" of hunting to a more prominent level in the hunting comunity.

Just some ideas .....
Wow, that almost sounds like running for city government. I not sure one director can fix all of what you ask, they are important issues so I'll take some time to think about them except one.

It is my believe that non-longwingers are heavily involved. That is the best thing that has happened. The president is a gos man, the people that help at the meets (all on this board) are mostly broad and short wingers. When I look at the list of officers and directors it looks pretty well mixed to me. One of them I'm pretty sure would fly anything with a hooked beak and talons.

[jfseaman]

Fred,

I'm inclined to vote for the other candidate, since I have known him for a number of years; however, I want to make an informed choice.

You write:

>I am so passionate about falconry that I restructured my entire life around it.

How does passion about falconry equate to being a good director; in other words, is there a direct correlation between level of passion for falconry and level of achievement as a director?

You also write:

>I can't say I'll do 'this' or I'll do 'that', but I can say I'll do my best to return our organization to "THE NAFA' not just 'a NAFA'.

This is a vague statement. Can you clairify? Thanks.

Bill Boni
Norman, OKHi Bill,

Then vote for Ron. I like him to. He's been to my house, he came over with Fidel DeLatore so I could put a Marshall trackpack on Fidel's Barbary, tiercel I think.

You edited out important parts of my post. I'm a get it done person. That's how I'll help. Specifics... It's not just me that would have to help steer the organization to where we want it to be so how can I provide specifics.

As for vague, your original question was vague so you get a vague answer.

[MrBill]

Thanks, Fred. I was just curious.

Bill Boni
Norman, OK

[sharptail]

To me, Fred running for DAL is an invitation to the many lost members, who felt that NAFA no longer represented there views mainly about the private property/illegal search/so called inspection issue, to rejoin. I see his campaign as an olive branch of peace to both sides of this issue, an opportunity for healing and for NAFA to again represent most if not all of the US falconers as well as others. I am sure that there are some in the club that would prefer that the group of falconers described above, not be repatriated. To not do so, leaves the falconry community fractured and weakened, in the face of our enemys. Instead of a race to convience new members to our ranks to choose sides and join 1 club or the other, we are better off having 2 international clubs that are moving towards common goals, and not competeing.

Unfortunately, I see the 'old guard' playing politics...I am a candidate/I am not running..the old politics as usual, jockeying to control the field...there candidate wins but falconry really looses.

[outhawkn]

First thing Fred, thanks for your willingness to take this Q & A session on.

Two things I'd most like to see happen:

A changing off the guard. You cant change NAFA if the same people are running it. So you meet that requirement.
Secondly, I like to see a director that worked towards what the members wanted rather than their own personal agenda. Its great that you have ideas. But I want sombody thats going to work for what I want, presuming of course my wants are in the majority. If you'll do that, then you have my vote.

[raptrlvr]

I am pretty sure that just about everyone on this forum has changed their life for falconry in one way or another. I know I have. But, I would never want the head aches involved with the job you are after.

[jfseaman]

First thing Fred, thanks for your willingness to take this Q & A session on.

Two things I'd most like to see happen:

A changing off the guard. You cant change NAFA if the same people are running it. So you meet that requirement.
Secondly, I like to see a director that worked towards what the members wanted rather than their own personal agenda. Its great that you have ideas. But I want sombody thats going to work for what I want, presuming of course my wants are in the majority. If you'll do that, then you have my vote.
I don't have any 'wants' or 'personal agendas' except freedom. Freedom to practice my falconry. Freedom from illegal search.

[everetkhorton]

Fred, Thanks for running for DAL!

[Zarafia]

Fred, I saw that you stated on another thread that you would prefer that all non native raptors require a permit of some sort.
May I ask why?
I believe that in order to hunt with a non-native raptor you must posses a falconry license and put that non-native raptor on it.
In Florida you must apply for a permit to keep eleven or more exotic birds anyway. Why do you think that there needs to be more severe restrictions for non-native birds that are also raptors?
This would seem to me to be a step backwards.

[outhawkn]

Fred, I saw that you stated on another thread that you would prefer that all non native raptors require a permit of some sort.
May I ask why?
I believe that in order to hunt with a non-native raptor you must posses a falconry license and put that non-native raptor on it.
In Florida you must apply for a permit to keep eleven or more exotic birds anyway. Why do you think that there needs to be more severe restrictions for non-native birds that are also raptors?
This would seem to me to be a step backwards.

Good question Mere....

[jfseaman]

Fred, I saw that you stated on another thread that you would prefer that all non native raptors require a permit of some sort.
May I ask why?
I believe that in order to hunt with a non-native raptor you must posses a falconry license and put that non-native raptor on it.
In Florida you must apply for a permit to keep eleven or more exotic birds anyway. Why do you think that there needs to be more severe restrictions for non-native birds that are also raptors?
This would seem to me to be a step backwards. I don't think there should be more sever restrictions.

I don't think there should be any restrictions for exotics at all except federal registration. The only reason for that is to have proof of ownership. No one steals registered birds because the feds track them.

I don't trust the states. Like you say, FL has special restrictions. In CA last time I asked, hunting with an exotic was a 'gray area', which to me means LE will ticket you then you get to pay a lawyer to prove you didn't do anything wrong. I don't like 'gray areas' and I don't like different rules in different states.

I know in some states, you can register your exotic on your falconry license but does that count against your possession limit? What happens if you cross state lines with it and the next state treats it completely differently?

Why does this matter? I fly barbaries and exotic hybrids, what do I do with a bird that doesn't have a federal closed ring? I know the new regs have a clause that the falconer when in another state is subject to his home state falconry regs but the local state hunting regs.

I don't think anyone else really wants this and wouldn't propose it in anyway. Like I said, I don't like gray areas.

[Zarafia]

I'm not sure that you answered my question, Fred.
We are well and thoroughly regulated by state and federal regs as it is. I am aware that you do "bird control", which is a specific, beneficial service.
Again, why would you want additional permits and licensing for exotic raptors?
If no "grey" area was involved, would you want additional permits for exotic raptors?

[Zarafia]

So may I take it that you don't wish additional regs and laws to be applied to non-native raptors?

[jfseaman]

So may I take it that you don't wish additional regs and laws to be applied to non-native raptors?

Now you have it.

[jfseaman]

... Again, why would you want additional permits and licensing for exotic raptors?
If no "grey" area was involved, would you want additional permits for exotic raptors?

Don't want additional permits for exotics, we are over regulated as it is.

My spell checker doesn't know 'grey' and changed it to 'gray', long work days right now 14hrs+ common so I missed it.

[Zarafia]

All good then IMHO.
Don't stress about my personal spelling of "grey".
I use it mostly for parrots, it must have just slipped by me.
I am pleased to see that you will not encourage LE to make extra paperwork over exotic raptors.

[NCFalconer]

Fred,

I'd be interested in hearing your views on non-resident take in all states (even AK).


I've seen a statement from Ron in a thread from last year http://www.nafex.net/showthread.php?t=5310


Thanks,

[jfseaman]

Simple: all states should allow wild take regardless of residency.

Anything else is playing politics with public resource access.

An administration fee for non-residence should be allowed, within reason.

[sevristh]

An administration fee for non-residence should be allowed, within reason.

What do you think is 'within reason'? Personally, I think some of the fees (and I have paid them, and trapped nothing) are way outta whack. Especially for the man hours involved (one person types out a form and mails it, I would think, at most). Just this past season, I went between SD, which charged something like $250, down to OK where all I had to do was buy a $60 hunting license. These prices are ballpark but should be pretty close.

p.s. I might add I believe I could have done the license cheaper, but I wanted to hunt jacks as well while I was there. Seems to me I upped it a bit for that.

[jfseaman]

What do you think is 'within reason'? Personally, I think some of the fees (and I have paid them, and trapped nothing) are way outta whack. Especially for the man hours involved (one person types out a form and mails it, I would think, at most). Just this past season, I went between SD, which charged something like $250, down to OK where all I had to do was buy a $60 hunting license. These prices are ballpark but should be pretty close.

p.s. I might add I believe I could have done the license cheaper, but I wanted to hunt jacks as well while I was there. Seems to me I upped it a bit for that.
Well, the 'out of state' falconry license is going away. So that won't be an issue much longer.

The out of state hunting license is far beyond the reach of influence by falconers. Some states charge huge amounts thinking that all out of state hunters are coming there for big game.

That leaves only the out of state wild take capture fee. The state with the best structure seems to be Kansas. Send them an e-mail and your non-resident permit will arrive in the mail. Second best seems to be Oregon at $10 but recent events have put a shadow on wild take there.

IMO the best structure is there is none. With the reciprocal agreement on licensing why should there be a fee on non-resident wild take? Some states will maintain the fee to support their banding requirements some won't, those that have a capture fee because they require banding, non-resident should be the same a resident. I don't have a problem with a state charging and administrative fee equal to 1 hour burdened cost for the office staff issuing the paper work. Say $50 or so.

If the wild take process is going to be observed by a state officer/biologist due to species sensitivity, as in peregrines or golden eagles then the same fee charged to residents should be charged to non-residents as it is mearly a state cost recovery fee.

In a nut shell, we have no impact so we should have no high fees. Administrative cost recovery is the only justification and even that needs to be limited otherwise the state is selling wildlife for a profit. I know it goes on every day for dear/elk and other big game but raptors are not big game.

[sevristh]

Well put and I agree. Thank you for the response Fred.

[NCFalconer]

Thanks, Fred. I agree wholeheartedly.

[Eagle Owl]

Well, the 'out of state' falconry license is going away. So that won't be an issue much longer.



Fred, this is not correct at all. Colorado has a non-resident falconry license and it has been written into the new regs as well. It is a cost of 55.25 for this license. Even if you permanently move to Colorado, you can't become a resident for at least 6 months. I have had a nonresident falconry permit the year I have been here because I kept my Texas resident permits.

G. Nonresidents residing temporarily in Colorado may qualify for the falconry license appropriate for their experience as determined by the Division. Applicants must submit documentation demonstrating their prior experience. Applicants must comply with the exam requirement in Part B of this subsection. Applicants who are legally in possession of a raptor may retain that raptor while applying for a nonresident license. Prior to obtaining a license, nonresidents residing temporarily in Colorado must provide and thereafter maintain facilities and equipment acceptable to the Division at all times when any raptor is in the licensee's possession.

[jfseaman]

Fred, this is not correct at all. Colorado has a non-resident falconry license and it has been written into the new regs as well. It is a cost of 55.25 for this license. Even if you permanently move to Colorado, you can't become a resident for at least 6 months. I have had a nonresident falconry permit the year I have been here because I kept my Texas resident permits.

G. Nonresidents residing temporarily in Colorado may qualify for the falconry license appropriate for their experience as determined by the Division. Applicants must submit documentation demonstrating their prior experience. Applicants must comply with the exam requirement in Part B of this subsection. Applicants who are legally in possession of a raptor may retain that raptor while applying for a nonresident license. Prior to obtaining a license, nonresidents residing temporarily in Colorado must provide and thereafter maintain facilities and equipment acceptable to the Division at all times when any raptor is in the licensee's possession.

Yeah, I figured CO would do that. Sorry, I hadn't checked.

Did the state insist on this or did the club lobby to keep it in.

Very frustrating. I hope no other state picks up this unwarranted idea.

[Dirthawking]

Yeah, I figured CO would do that. Sorry, I hadn't checked.

Did the state insist on this or did the club lobby to keep it in.

Very frustrating. I hope no other state picks up this unwarranted idea.

Technically, neither lobbied to keep it. It is a state statue and not in the Division of Wildlife chapters/hunting regs that you have to be here 6 months to establish residency for hunting. It was put into place to stop big game hunters from getting around the out of state tags.

I am not saying I am for this, just why it is there.

[sevristh]

.....i used to love Colorado until I got into falconry.... frus)

[robruger1]

Try to get things straight there Fred. There is no "shadow" in Oregon on wild take unless your taking a peregrine and it is 15$. If you want something besides a peregrine there is NO problem at all, just come on over and catch a bird. One more reason I'll not be voting for Fred, talkin out the pooper.........

[bobpayne]

Simple: all states should allow wild take regardless of residency.

Anything else is playing politics with public resource access.

An administration fee for non-residence should be allowed, within reason.

Fred, you are for a non res take, while Mr Clarke, by his answer to the question is against one at least in Alaska.

All seems clear, you get my vote, good luck.

[Dirthawking]

.....i used to love Colorado until I got into falconry.... frus)

Yeah Yeah Yeah, I know Dave. toungeout
one more reason we are moving back to Texas!
:D

[jfseaman]

Try to get things straight there Fred. There is no "shadow" in Oregon on wild take unless your taking a peregrine and it is 15$. If you want something besides a peregrine there is NO problem at all, just come on over and catch a bird. One more reason I'll not be voting for Fred, talkin out the pooper.........If you want to turn this into dirty politics enjoy yourself.;)

I've got it right enough, of course I was talking about the peregrine fiasco and I am very appreciative of the low non-resident fee, regardless of $10 or $15.

A friend trapped a coops last year and he said the fee was $10, last time I checked the AFC site the fee was $10. Perhaps all these are out if date but is it really that important that I quote the fee schedule correctly as the state can change the fees at any time. I'm just glad that Oregon's non-resident wild take capture fee is reasonable.

Saying that there is no "shadow" and then saying "unless" is just double speak. Not something I'm much into.

[robruger1]

There is NO shadow.You are simply not allowed into peregrine eyries anymore. That is not a shadow that is a change in policy. Hows that, no double speak there. NOTHING else has changed as far as wild take is concerned. So what is this "shadow" you're speaking of? You were trying to sound all knowledgeable and have proved you don't know anything.

To all;
Welcome to Oregon, we have low 15$ trapping fees and no problem with out of state take. Feel free to come trapping, there is plenty here to go around and don't worry, there is no "shadow".

[sevristh]

Rob,
Fred seems right, you did contradict your own statement after you said there is no problem, UNLESS you want a peregrine. That being said, why not enlighten those of us that don't know as to what exactly happened? I don't think your personal attack was warranted just because you disagree with wording.

[jfseaman]

There is NO shadow.You are simply not allowed into peregrine eyries anymore. That is not a shadow that is a change in policy. Hows that, no double speak there. NOTHING else has changed as far as wild take is concerned. So what is this "shadow" you're speaking of? You were trying to sound all knowledgeable and have proved you don't know anything.

To all;
Welcome to Oregon, we have low 15$ trapping fees and no problem with out of state take. Feel free to come trapping, there is plenty here to go around and don't worry, there is no "shadow".
Wow, I guess you sure showed me.confusedd

Rob,

If this is personal perhaps we should take it to PMs. If it is political, well more power to ya. Remember I like Ron. He's been to my house, he's had a look at my breeding project and the facilities I keep my birds in, seemed to like them. We get along great, he helped figure out what kind of duck my tiercel barbary caught last year at NAFA.

If Ron fully supported non-resident wild take in all continental US states, unequivocal support for property rights and protection against illegal search then we wouldn't be having this discussion as I'd be voting for Ron myself.

Back to the non-resident fee for a moment.

Seems we are both wrong, according to http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/license_permits_apps/docs/2009_Oregon_Non_Resident_%20Raptor_Capture_Applica tion.pdf its $17 for 2009. Perhaps a little more for 2010, it appears the state is behind on publishing the application on the internet. It is possible that the state reduced the fee to $15 for 2010, if so great!

As far as "simply not allowed into peregrine eyries anymore" vs. "shadow", I think we should go to arbitration with an English Major to see if we actually mean the same thing. I think we mean the same thing.

I'm very fond of Oregon. I used to drive many Fridays after work from Stockton, CA up to Bend to go fishing. I hope someday the "simply not allowed into peregrine eyries anymore" "shadow" on wild take gets resolved. It seems to me that the perpetrators should be the ones to get punished not the entire US falconry community.

All the best
Fred

[Saluqi]

If Ron fully supported non-resident wild take in all continental US states, unequivocal support for property rights and protection against illegal search then we wouldn't be having this discussion as I'd be voting for Ron myself.


Hi Fred,

What are unequivocal property rights? Can you please define that as it relates to falconry.

What do you mean by "protection against illegal search" with respect to what Ron believes?

Thanks.

[bluejack]

For what it's worth,
I have know Fred for 3 years. I have found him to be honest, hard working and very capable. Fred is a straight shooter who will tell you what he truely thinks. Fred is also very capable of taking direction. In short his commitment is bigger then his ego, and his ego is no pushover.

[jfseaman]

Hi Fred,

What are unequivocal property rights? Can you please define that as it relates to falconry.

What do you mean by "protection against illegal search" with respect to what Ron believes?

Thanks.
Hi Paul,

Nothing directed at Ron, those three just come out together all the time. Didn't mean to imply that Ron didn't support property rights and protection against illegal search.

Property rights, same as my car, home or other personal property. Can only be confiscated with due process.

Protection against illegal search, simple. No midnight "inspections", if LE has a concern present the evidence to a judge and have a search warrant issued, then they can show up any time. Otherwise regular and customary inspections scheduled in advance by appointment as dictated by each states implementation of the regulations.

[Saluqi]

Hi Paul,

Nothing directed at Ron, those three just come out together all the time. Didn't mean to imply that Ron didn't support property rights and protection against illegal search.

Property rights, same as my car, home or other personal property. Can only be confiscated with due process.

Protection against illegal search, simple. No midnight "inspections", if LE has a concern present the evidence to a judge and have a search warrant issued, then they can show up any time. Otherwise regular and customary inspections scheduled in advance by appointment as dictated by each states implementation of the regulations.

Are you saying that there shouldn't be any federal or state regulations for falconry? Kind of like the UK?

[jfseaman]

Are you saying that there shouldn't be any federal or state regulations for falconry? Kind of like the UK?
No.

Deregulation in the UK was a disaster.

But, we own our birds and we should not be placed in a situation such that that as a condition of license we release our rights to protection from illegal search and seizure. If LE had never used these clauses as a method of coercion, again we wouldn't be talking about it but they did.

Falconry is not a crime, nothing related to falconry is a crime. If criminal acts are suspected, LE need to go through the same process they would for any other suspect activities.

[Saluqi]

No.

Deregulation in the UK was a disaster.

But, we own our birds and we should not be placed in a situation such that that as a condition of license we release our rights to protection from illegal search and seizure. If LE had never used these clauses as a method of coercion, again we wouldn't be talking about it but they did.

Falconry is not a crime, nothing related to falconry is a crime. If criminal acts are suspected, LE need to go through the same process they would for any other suspect activities.

Exactly. I think (hope) that a lot of these issues may fall by the way side with LE being the states responsibility once your state is under the new regs. I think falconers need to be aware of their rights and exercise them.

[Ron Clarke]

Fred,

I'd be interested in hearing your views on non-resident take in all states (even AK).


I've seen a statement from Ron in a thread from last year http://www.nafex.net/showthread.php?t=5310


Thanks,

Hi All,

Just back from recent travels -- road-buzzed after running the Seattle-to-Skagway leg in 32 hours -- and ready to wade in to the discussions again.

The thread to which Daren refers above was a discussion following a NAFEX post by Richard Hoyer. I was not at that time a NAFEX participant. Richard had sent me a private e-mail query asking why Alaska had not implemented a non-resident take. I laid out a few of the "30,000 foot view" reasons. Richard asked if he could post my reply on NAFEX, and I gave him my permission to do so.

I was not involved in the subsequent conversation until well after all sorts of conclusions, proper and im-, were drawn about what I had and had not said, and what I did and did not believe (e.g., a number of people surmised that Richard had asked me my personal views and then took me to task for not expressing my personal views) (another e.g.: I was criticized for using a long-standing convention in Alaska employed by newspapers, government, and nearly everyone and referring to non-Alaskans as people "Outside," which reveals a lack of understanding of all things Alaskan. That's not a criticism, just an observation of how common it is for most people to be fairly thoroughly unfamiliar with Alaska.)

I finally joined NAFEX and dove into the discussion, but the misinterpretations were already well-established -- and now they live on, as so much does once relegated to the Internet.

Let me direct you to another thread in which I was actually directly engaged: http://www.nafex.net/showthread.php?t=5453

That conversation gets pretty far afield, but might save rehashing a bunch of the same stuff for 2010.

All that said, I remain happy to update that information (I've since learned a few things and have amended my views accordingly) and answer any and all questions.

But first, I think it's time for a nap!

[Ron Clarke]

Fred, you are for a non res take, while Mr Clarke, by his answer to the question is against one at least in Alaska.

All seems clear, you get my vote, good luck.

Hi Bob,

You're wrong about my position, but that's OK. I support non-resident take and maintain local falconers are necessarily the ones who should drive decisions to change local falconry regulations. Locals always understand the local situation best. NAFA can and should provide assistance as appropriate, i.e., when requested by local falconry organizations.

The bottom line when it comes to non-resident take in Alaska is it doesn't matter what either Fred or I think. What matters is the Alaska Board of Game and/or the Alaska State Legislature must act to provide for such a take. Unless and until someone steps up to invest the substantial amount of time, energy, and money required to move a bill through the legislature and/or push a proposal through the Board, nothing will change. You can vote for anyone you like based on what they say they support, but if no one is able to do the heavy political lifting, the Alaska situation will not change. The Board takes up falconry regs in Alaska every four years, and we have a couple of years yet to wait for the next opportunity, so whomever wins this election will be largely irrelevant to the immediate situation in Alaska.

Given that, what else do you want from a Director At Large?

[jfseaman]

Hi Bob,

You're wrong about my position, but that's OK. I support non-resident take and maintain local falconers are necessarily the ones who should drive decisions to change local falconry regulations. Locals always understand the local situation best. NAFA can and should provide assistance as appropriate, i.e., when requested by local falconry organizations.

The bottom line when it comes to non-resident take in Alaska is it doesn't matter what either Fred or I think. What matters is the Alaska Board of Game and/or the Alaska State Legislature must act to provide for such a take. Unless and until someone steps up to invest the substantial amount of time, energy, and money required to move a bill through the legislature and/or push a proposal through the Board, nothing will change. You can vote for anyone you like based on what they say they support, but if no one is able to do the heavy political lifting, the Alaska situation will not change. The Board takes up falconry regs in Alaska every four years, and we have a couple of years yet to wait for the next opportunity, so whomever wins this election will be largely irrelevant to the immediate situation in Alaska.

Given that, what else do you want from a Director At Large?

It's my thread so I feel it is my choice whether to dismiss this issue here and I'm not ready to let this issue rest as it is an indicator of how much DAL will go to bat for falconry regardless of the current status quo.

I have to work today and won't be online until late tonight or tomorrow but I'm interested in whether anyone else spots the logic hole in the above argument.

[sevristh]

My first thought while reading Ron's reply was that he mentions nothing will change, and it doesn't matter who the DAL is unless they are someone willing to do the political heavy work.............isn't this what NAFA as a whole should be working toward?? Why would one individual need to step up when we have an entire organization?

[Saluqi]

It's my thread so I feel it is my choice whether to dismiss this issue here and I'm not ready to let this issue rest as it is an indicator of how much DAL will go to bat for falconry regardless of the current status quo.

I have to work today and won't be online until late tonight or tomorrow but I'm interested in whether anyone else spots the logic hole in the above argument.

Fred,

You have a very combative style. How will your personal style work in a board type situation?

Aside from that, how much have you been involved in CA falconry? Are you active in the CHC, or the other CA club? Have you contributed to moving the new regs through the system? Or with any other falconry related issues in CA?

[Saluqi]

My first thought while reading Ron's reply was that he mentions nothing will change, and it doesn't matter who the DAL is unless they are someone willing to do the political heavy work.............isn't this what NAFA as a whole should be working toward?? Why would one individual need to step up when we have an entire organization?

Hey Dave, are you a NAFA member? Not to be an A-hole here, but unless you're a member I'm not sure you should be part of the conversation.

[outhawkn]

Fred,

You have a very combative style. How will your personal style work in a board type situation?



Not trying to start anything here, but surely YOU see the humor in your statement Paul.toungeout:D

[jfseaman]

Technically, neither lobbied to keep it. It is a state statue and not in the Division of Wildlife chapters/hunting regs that you have to be here 6 months to establish residency for hunting. It was put into place to stop big game hunters from getting around the out of state tags.

I am not saying I am for this, just why it is there.

Thanks Mario, I missed this post.

Is your non-resident falconry license your hunting license or do you have to have a separate hunting license?

Did Colorado remove the import/export provisions?

Did Colorado move to allow non-resident wild take?

[Eagle Owl]

Thanks Mario, I missed this post.

Is your non-resident falconry license your hunting license or do you have to have a separate hunting license?

Did Colorado remove the import/export provisions?

Did Colorado move to allow non-resident wild take?

As of now, nonresidents could either purchase a nonresident falconry permit or a nonresident small game license. In the new regs, if you are temporarily residing in Colorado, you must obtain a nonresident falconry permit and must also take the falconry exam before a permit will be issued and have facilities inspected. And if you are permanently moving to the state and apply for a resident falconry permit, you must also pass the exam before a permit will be issued. They really screwed that one up.

Import permits and health certificates are still needed. This is a state statute, so it can't be changed through the falconry regulations. And wild raptors can't be exported except by permanent relocation of the permitted falconer.
New regs here: http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/E382D4EF-243B-48A7-BA57-740D4939E552/0/Ch6FalconryrewriteAsApprovedMarch2010.pdf

Colorado has added nonresident take. It was added after the above regs were finalized. There will be 20 permits available for a $150 fee (fee to be reviewed periodically and adjusted to be comparable to other states). Those permits are only available falconers whose states have reciprocal take. Raptors must be banded before leaving the state. Regs here:http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/2BD7A967-3486-4F72-87FB-E966AAD407FC/0/Ch6Nonresidenttakejanuary.pdf

[jfseaman]

Fred,

You have a very combative style. How will your personal style work in a board type situation?

Aside from that, how much have you been involved in CA falconry? Are you active in the CHC, or the other CA club? Have you contributed to moving the new regs through the system? Or with any other falconry related issues in CA?
Paul,

I don't consider any of that combative. :D Perhaps it's just an internet interpenetration challenge. If I can handle myself properly in a board of directors meetings for a corporation with a market value of $1,000,000,000+ then I can probably conduct myself properly in a volunteer organization board meeting. :eek:

As far as my participation in California Hawking Club, sure. As soon as I returned from England, I joined as a life time member. I missed one field meet because I had to go back to England to get my birds. Once that was done I started getting involved the same as I did with NAFA, offering to help when ever and where ever. Pestering board and committee members, relieving the weathering yard master, etc. When one of our coordinators for a field meet for fun event was a no-show, I stepped in and ran the event including a fairly large donation to the prize fund (oops, that ego thing that bluejack mentioned may have slipped out). I guess I did OK because I've been asked to run/MC the CHC sky trials for the next field meet, whether I stay in that position, well it's a long time until the meet (6 months). I am a non-board member participant on the regulations committee, perhaps this is just a way to keep any eye on me ;), I created and run the California Hawking Club e-mail system that notified and mobilized California falconers of the Greg Thomas events, I created the award certificate honoring one of the CHC's biggest life time contributors for decades of service. I've used my time and money to ferry club equipment around in preparation for the field meets.

For the "other" California club, I assisted in two field meets, the first scouting the campgrounds and hunting oppertunities in the area. The second as sky trials photographer and I ran the AV equipment for our evening presentation. Created an AV slide show with music for the idle time during our banquette. Some of my pictures have been used in their journal.

All the same sort of stuff I have tried to plunge into at NAFA. I've missed only one NAFA meet since joining, traveling from England for the first one I attended. I missed Utah because I had to work, we had around 15 habitats to finish at the zoo, I had a new peregrine that was just getting going, a redtail to hunt and I can't remember if I got my rehab/rescue FHH before or after I got back.

Is that enough or do you want more details?

[jfseaman]

As of now, nonresidents could either purchase a nonresident falconry permit or a nonresident small game license. In the new regs, if you are temporarily residing in Colorado, you must obtain a nonresident falconry permit and must also take the falconry exam before a permit will be issued and have facilities inspected. And if you are permanently moving to the state and apply for a resident falconry permit, you must also pass the exam before a permit will be issued. They really screwed that one up.

Import permits and health certificates are still needed. This is a state statute, so it can't be changed through the falconry regulations. And wild raptors can't be exported except by permanent relocation of the permitted falconer.
New regs here: http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/E382D4EF-243B-48A7-BA57-740D4939E552/0/Ch6FalconryrewriteAsApprovedMarch2010.pdf

Colorado has added nonresident take. It was added after the above regs were finalized. There will be 20 permits available for a $150 fee (fee to be reviewed periodically and adjusted to be comparable to other states). Those permits are only available falconers whose states have reciprocal take. Raptors must be banded before leaving the state. Regs here:http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/2BD7A967-3486-4F72-87FB-E966AAD407FC/0/Ch6Nonresidenttakejanuary.pdf
Thanks Brandi.

What about visitors, hawking trip style? What would I have to do under the new regs?

[Saluqi]

Thank Fred. This thread didn't really seem to ask any questions about you, and what you do and believe in, I thought I'd ask.

Does California have non-resident take. If so, what are the regulations regarding it, and if not why? Thanks.

[Eagle Owl]

Thanks Brandi.

What about visitors, hawking trip style? What would I have to do under the new regs?

You will need an import permit (which you apply for online and get an e-mail back within a week usually), health certificate and you can purchase either a nonresident permit or a small game license. Since you won't be residing temporarily you would not be required to take the exam or have facilities. If you purchase the small game license instead of the nonresident permit, you would also need hunter education if born after January 1, 1949

[sevristh]

Hey Dave, are you a NAFA member? Not to be an A-hole here, but unless you're a member I'm not sure you should be part of the conversation.

Right on Paul, I'm not as I think you probably knew. I was, but quickly lost faith. Now, I respect you for the help you gave me while I was raising my goshawk, but I too see it as a joke for you to call Fred out as being combative. And while we are on the subject of being combative.....attitudes like what you posted above are THE REASON I left NAFA in a hurry. Because of the back room buddy bullshit. That's fine though, you just strengthened my resolve on why it's hopeless. Because most people are so short sighted, that it's impossible for them to conceive that perhaps someone might take an interest in a DAL election thinking that things might change and it might be time to offer support again. I actually said as much to one of the candidates in a PM. But again, have it your way, I'll stay out. Way to be an impartial mod! thumbsupp

[Saluqi]

My first thought while reading Ron's reply was that he mentions nothing will change, and it doesn't matter who the DAL is unless they are someone willing to do the political heavy work.............isn't this what NAFA as a whole should be working toward?? Why would one individual need to step up when we have an entire organization?


Right on Paul, I'm not as I think you probably knew. I was, but quickly lost faith. Now, I respect you for the help you gave me while I was raising my goshawk, but I too see it as a joke for you to call Fred out as being combative. And while we are on the subject of being combative.....attitudes like what you posted above are THE REASON I left NAFA in a hurry. Because of the back room buddy bullshit. That's fine though, you just strengthened my resolve on why it's hopeless. Because most people are so short sighted, that it's impossible for them to conceive that perhaps someone might take an interest in a DAL election thinking that things might change and it might be time to offer support again. I actually said as much to one of the candidates in a PM. But again, have it your way, I'll stay out. Way to be an impartial mod! thumbsupp

Well Dave, your first post was about Ron, not about Fred, whose thread this happens to be. If you have issues with Ron then post to his thread, http://www.nafex.net/showthread.php?t=8191, or not since you can't vote anyway.

Secondly, you think NAFA should take up state issues like non-resident take - that is not how NAFA operates, never has, never will. If a state club, or falconers in a state need assistance with state issues, then they can solicit NAFA for help. The last thing I want is NAFA or any other organization coming into my state and dealing with our Game & Fish department.

I am confrontational, when I think I smell BS I'll call you out, I have no problem with that, but I won't bait you into pointless discussion, and if we disagree that's fine, I hold no grudges. Fred has a history on this forum and I wanted to know his opinion of himself.

Back room buddy BS? Funny, because I saw your post, talking about Ron's points of view, as you buddying up to Fred.

I'm trying to decide who to vote for for DAL, the way that I'm gathering information is by asking questions of that candidate, this is Fred's thread, so I'm asking Fred questions. Ron's qualifications and points of view were pretty well defined in his last run against Greg Thomas, as I have been re-reading those threads I have been making a list of questions to ask Ron.

Being impartial is not in my job description.

[Chris L.]

Being impartial is not in my job description.

I cant agree more! He called it like it is.

I am not impressed with how Ron's name has been slung around in this thread. Do not bring up other candidates name's in this political venue. It is wrong and I will not tolerate it. If someone wants to talk about another DAL candidate please PM them or post it in their thread.

All talk of other Candidates, beside the one the thread is about, will be deleted.

[outhawkn]

Well, I'm definitely not the 'old guard'.

I am a do-er. I get things done. Can't be a success in business if your not.

I am so passionate about falconry that I restructured my entire life around it.

I can't say I'll do 'this' or I'll do 'that', but I can say I'll do my best to return our organization to "THE NAFA' not just 'a NAFA'.

Thanks for thread, Fred. Its been interesting and informative. It even had more interest than I thought it would get ( sort of like voting time, when nobody shows up to vote). I like what you've said, so you have my vote...........clapp:D

[robruger1]

To be honest I don't necessarily disagree with Fred's politics, at least what he says are his politics. I have a personal issue with him and many of his comments have REALLY rubbed me the wrong way, like the shadow comment, but that is my issue. I won't post on this thread any longer or try to change anyone's mind about Fred.

I feel I may have taken this thread in a direction not intended and I apologize and will remove myself from the thread from now on. I told you guys I'm kind of a hothead in my first post on this thread and proved it. It is my issue that I have to work on......

[outhawkn]

I feel I may have taken this thread in a direction not intended

Not at all. You may have a personal issue with him, but I learned a great deal about Fred from watching him respond under fire........clapp

[bobpayne]

I cant agree more! He called it like it is.

I am not impressed with how Ron's name has been slung around in this thread. Do not bring up other candidates name's in this political venue. It is wrong and I will not tolerate it. If someone wants to talk about another DAL candidate please PM them or post it in their thread.

All talk of other Candidates, beside the one the thread is about, will be deleted.

I am sorry if I said something wrong, I guess I didn't know if it was Fred's thread running for DAL, I couldn't use the other guy running's name in the thread? frus) I stand corrected, I will be more careful, in the future.

[bama000]

I'm like the rest of the newbies here. We get the bug, get into the swing of things and begin our education so we, too can become licensed falconers. Like those before me, I find my way here to the forum. The FIRST things we are told are "Go get a signature on your posts so we know who you are." The next words of wisdom I remember were to join NAFA and my local club. We have no local club.

Since a director is a representative of NAFA and falconer's interests, explain to me and the other pre-apprentices and apprentices why we should join. What is NAFA going to give me as a viable return for my membership dues. If I do join, why should I vote for you over the other candidate(s)? Do I even get a cool decal for the back of my car? Will NAFA go to bat in our state legislature to convince those bozo's to go ahead and adopt the new regs?

[Eagle Owl]

I'm like the rest of the newbies here. We get the bug, get into the swing of things and begin our education so we, too can become licensed falconers. Like those before me, I find my way here to the forum. The FIRST things we are told are "Go get a signature on your posts so we know who you are." The next words of wisdom I remember were to join NAFA and my local club. We have no local club.

Since a director is a representative of NAFA and falconer's interests, explain to me and the other pre-apprentices and apprentices why we should join. What is NAFA going to give me as a viable return for my membership dues. If I do join, why should I vote for you over the other candidate(s)? Do I even get a cool decal for the back of my car? Will NAFA go to bat in our state legislature to convince those bozo's to go ahead and adopt the new regs?

First of all, you can't vote in this election since ballots have already been mailed.

If you want to know why you should join NAFA, then read through the threads in the NAFA section and you will find numerous reasons why you should support NAFA. Here are a few to get you started.

http://www.nafex.net/showthread.php?t=7263

http://www.nafex.net/showthread.php?t=8067

http://www.nafex.net/showthread.php?t=8040

[jfseaman]

Thank Fred. This thread didn't really seem to ask any questions about you, and what you do and believe in, I thought I'd ask.

Does California have non-resident take. If so, what are the regulations regarding it, and if not why? Thanks.
Yes, California has non-resident take. I can't find the latest fee as it can change but the CHC web site has it quoted at $182. More than some, less than others, too much to cover administrative costs.

At the moment the CHC priorities have the new regulations before anything else but these kinds of issues are on the boards agenda.

[jfseaman]

Oh, now you messed up too Michael. You're not in NAFA, so you're supposed to shut up and not say anything according to the mods.
That whole thing about not being a NAFA member so not participating in this thread is just a way to shout down opposition IMO (oh, am I being to aggressive?)

I welcome all questions whether from NAFA members or not. How else can non-participants become enlightened and become participants?

[Saluqi]

That whole thing about not being a NAFA member so not participating in this thread is just a way to shout down opposition IMO (oh, am I being to aggressive?)

I welcome all questions whether from NAFA members or not. How else can non-participants become enlightened and become participants?

Fred,

If Dave had asked a question of you it would have been fine, but reading back through the thread all of his posts have been to pat you on the back. The last straw was when he took it upon himself to interpret the meaning of Ron's post, and since he can't vote in the election it was inappropriate.

Yes, I think you are aggressive, no matter that you sit on the board of a company worth a billion plus dollars ($1,000,000,000+) I still question your ability to work productively on a volunteer board.

[goshawks00]

Paul... I happen to agree with most of what you said...

Fred, whether you are being aggressive or not isn't the question , as always you do have the right to opinion, just as I stated mine... Let me also say I am dead set against NAFA kissing ass to get members back or new members... Do we need them yes, should we be held hostage to them ...no.
I have a right to this discussion, I am a NAFA member ...those that aren't shut up... I wish this whole thread was where it belongs on a members only section... If that's old school so be it.. If that's old regime then yes I guess I am... , but then again at least I am a paying member not some sponge, dirtying the water with every issue that is NAFA ONLY related. There are plenty of names that go with being that also.

If they want to be relevent than antey up and join if not shut up this isn't about you, and your opinion, it's about NAFA and NAFA members... Why is it you think we owe those that don't join... any info/services/ or labor... Please tell me you're not one of those that believe that we should bow down and help those that don't labor but want to have an input into what those that do get....

[goshawks00]

Now then to the rest of you sorry for the rant... I am just plain sick of the NAFA bashers and those that cotton to them no matter who they are...

[outhawkn]

Now then to the rest of you sorry for the rant... I am just plain sick of the NAFA bashers and those that cotton to them no matter who they are...

Barry...do you feel better now.toungeouttoungeout:D

[goshawks00]

I'm better now , guess I was late for my meds ... chill pills is in full effect now...

No I don't expect you to be a member if it doesn't fit what you think is right..., I also don't expect you to stick your nose where it doesn't belong...seems fair to me , but then again I'm old school:D

Sorry if I over extrapolated, but you know what they say about the shoe fitting and all photoo

[Saluqi]

I find it amusing that you and Barry think that someone should support an organization whether they agree with the politics of it or not (the whole 'change it from the inside' school of thought). I'm not that way. I will follow the action, watch from the sidelines, and determine when/if NAFA becomes an organization that I want to support. At that time, I will do so. Until that time, nothing you or Barry says will in any way censor my opinions.

Dave,

These are personal politics, or NAFEX politics that you are talking about, it was my response to you and your reaction and that has nothing to do with NAFA politics. I agree that NAFA has acted secretive in the past, especially during the 2008 time frame. It is for that reason that I am running for director, and probably the same reason that Ron & Fred are running. Contrary to your beliefs, we think it's possible to change NAFA from within. NAFA's primary function is to fight for falconers and falconry, to keep its members informed, and for the members to inform NAFA of potential threats, both direct and indirect, such that NAFA can act. Act by mobilizing resources, NAFA's primary resource is falconers, not money - NAFA will never compete with huge industry lobbies in Washington, but an informed membership who can take action by writing letters, sending emails, and calling politicians is the best resource at our disposal. I guess if you don't agree with those politics then you and I have nothing to talk about.

[Chris L.]

Cleaned the thread up.

If anyone has a problem with the way the forum is run or the way one of the mods has stepped in to better this forum, then please do not come back to NAFEX. Period.

Dave, please do not post in this thread again unless it is constructive.

Fred I recommend you not throw gas on the fire either. This may be your thread only because I allow it. Respect the forum and those who enforce it.

[jfseaman]

Fred,

If Dave had asked a question of you it would have been fine, but reading back through the thread all of his posts have been to pat you on the back. The last straw was when he took it upon himself to interpret the meaning of Ron's post, and since he can't vote in the election it was inappropriate.

Yes, I think you are aggressive, no matter that you sit on the board of a company worth a billion plus dollars ($1,000,000,000+) I still question your ability to work productively on a volunteer board.
Hi Paul,

Can I borrow a towel, I need to wipe the mud off my face.;):eek:

I'm wondering if miss quoting me this way is because you didn't really read my post, intended to be a form of character assignation or if its an improper personal attack. brickk

For the record the miss quote is you saying "sit's on the board", when I said "handle myself properly in a board of directors meeting". Very different things.

I wish I could call your style in this thread aggressive but you've already painted me with that brush so I can't. IMO it would be more fare if I could as it seems to me as if you are trying to find something to discredit me as a candidate. I don't really understand why as I'm not running against you. If you think you couldn't work with me as a fellow board member then please say so and don't vote for me.

If you have more questions about how I have contributed or intend to contribute, please post them.

[Saluqi]

Sorry Fred, I misunderstood.

I'll shut up now.

[sharptail]

WELL!!! That rather put the kabosh on that candidates thread! Maybe he should just throw in the towel now. Gee...Let me guess who you guys will be voting for in the DAL election. Who, threw gas on the fire? It didn't look like Fred to me!

Fred, do you need someone to start you a new thread?

By the way Ron, you have answered both yes and no to a question about Alaska take, and then said something about a private answer...what is this all about? Sounds pretty fishy to me!

You also Ignored my prior question about bring back lost members, that would leave me to believe that you don't want them back...say it isn't soooo!

[jfseaman]

I figured with Paul's probing questions answered honestly, I satisfied everyone's curiosity about were I stand and whether I'll do any work.

I just got confirmation that I will be running the California Hawking Club Sky Trials in January. I guess if a person demonstrates repeatedly that she/he will get something done if given the task, others will have confidence in them.

Some of you have decided that you dislike my internet personality. My 'style', that's cool, of course if y'all would make suggestions I'd probably learn where I rub you the wrong way and maybe fix it.

What you need to ask is does this candidate support my falconry regardless of personal feelings and is the candidate willing to take blows for me.

I'm a breeder and I fly mostly small birds. The only wild take I'm interested in is merlins and tiercel prairies. Why do I care about wild take in all continental states, simple; because it is your right.

Property rights same.
Illegal search aka 'Snap inspections' same.

We have about 4 years and 43 states go to for the new regulations every state falconry organization/club and NAFA need to have these issues as the highest priority. It's going to be a lot of work but even Alaska has to enact the new regulations. Non-resident take is addressed in the falconry regulations so Alaska falconers, the Department and Legislature must include provisions to allow or not non-resident wild take. No one is forcing it upon Alaska, it's how a Federalist Republic works ;).

I believe you should vote for the candidate that will be more interested in your falconry than his own personal positions. Preservation of falconry is a very serious business but lets all remember to go have fun.:D

All the best
Fred

[outhawkn]

I figured with Paul's probing questions answered honestly, I satisfied everyone's curiosity about were I stand and whether I'll do any work.



Some of you have decided that you dislike my internet personality. My 'style', that's cool, of course if y'all would make suggestions I'd probably learn where I rub you the wrong way and maybe fix it.



All the best
Fred

Fred,
I think mostly your style just disagreed with Paul more than with anyone else. I did learn a lot about you though....
And this is what Paul says about himself, so is it any wonder you and he clashed. Paul said,"As a moderator and in person, I can be a little harsh and sarcastic in my responses, and I know lots of people think I'm a pompous ass, but I treat everyone the same, I'd treat you the same in person as I do here on NAFEX. I don't care how I'm perceived because I'm passionate about this sport, and I work hard at the state level and I try to stay on top of the national issues. So if folks don't like me that's fine, as far as my moderating goes I try to be impartial and fair, but not everyone is going to see things the way I do. http://www.nafex.net/showthread.php?t=7822 Post #5

__________________
Paul
New Mexico, USA

[Ron Clarke]

WELL!!! That rather put the kabosh on that candidates thread! Maybe he should just throw in the towel now. Gee...Let me guess who you guys will be voting for in the DAL election. Who, threw gas on the fire? It didn't look like Fred to me!

Fred, do you need someone to start you a new thread?

By the way Ron, you have answered both yes and no to a question about Alaska take, and then said something about a private answer...what is this all about? Sounds pretty fishy to me!

You also Ignored my prior question about bring back lost members, that would leave me to believe that you don't want them back...say it isn't soooo!

Since this is Fred's thread, I'll see if I can copy your questions and respond to them on my thread. See you over there.

[JRedig]

In regards to out of state falconry permits/licenses, Iowa has this in place as well, just an FYI.

[jfseaman]

In regards to out of state falconry permits/licenses, Iowa has this in place as well, just an FYI.
Do you mean that Iowa has a non-resident falconry permit fee?

Will this be in the new state regulations?

[JRedig]

Do you mean that Iowa has a non-resident falconry permit fee?

Will this be in the new state regulations?

That is what I meant, I don't know about their new regulations. I can try and find out this weekend, i'll be down there getting my new bird! :)

[jfseaman]

That is what I meant, I don't know about their new regulations. I can try and find out this weekend, i'll be down there getting my new bird! :)
Old regs, we can't do anything about.

New regs, I hope the NAFA Technical Advisory Committee can help state clubs/organizations to have full reciprocal recognition of the falconry license with no additional fees charged for non-resident beyond what would be reasonable for non-resident hunting. Basically same as your driving license. Again, in my opinion Kansas seems to be a great model. Just purchase a non-resident hunting license and your good to go.

[FredFogg]

Again, in my opinion Kansas seems to be a great model. Just purchase a non-resident hunting license and your good to go.

Bingo! clappclappclapp

[Ron Clarke]

Old regs, we can't do anything about.

New regs, I hope the NAFA Technical Advisory Committee can help state clubs/organizations to have full reciprocal recognition of the falconry license with no additional fees charged for non-resident beyond what would be reasonable for non-resident hunting. Basically same as your driving license. Again, in my opinion Kansas seems to be a great model. Just purchase a non-resident hunting license and your good to go.

If the Kansas regs contain some sort of precise legal or regulatory language that best accomplishes this reciprocity/recognition between states, let's grab the appropriate phrases and share them with all the state clubs through the NAFA TAC. If anyone is aware of different or better language, let's get it all out on the table and figure out the strongest approach and share that. I'll go back to the clubs in the six states that have certified so far and see if they have any suggestions.

[Saluqi]

If the Kansas regs contain some sort of precise legal or regulatory language that best accomplishes this reciprocity/recognition between states, let's grab the appropriate phrases and share them with all the state clubs through the NAFA TAC. If anyone is aware of different or better language, let's get it all out on the table and figure out the strongest approach and share that. I'll go back to the clubs in the six states that have certified so far and see if they have any suggestions.

Straight from New Mexico's updated regs, with preliminary federal approval:

(5) The Department shall grant reciprocity and accept a permit issued to a non-resident falconer temporarily in New Mexico. The department shall accept a permit issued to a non-resident falconer permanently moving to New Mexico for the period required to establish residency and to meet all other requirements to qualify for a New Mexico resident falconer permit.

From another section of the regs:

(2) A nonresident U.S. falconer does not need an importation permit to bring a falconry raptor or raptors into New Mexico for hunting or attending a falconry meet.

[Eagle Owl]

One thing that needs to be remembered is that most of the fees associated with non-resident trapping are set by legislature, so it is not a simple change of the falconry regs, it has to be done at the law level. Texas has been working on getting the trapping fees changed for years, but it is MUCH harder to get that changed than a simple regulation.

[Saluqi]

Are we talking non-resident trapping fees, non-resident falconry permit fees, or both? I'm confused.

[Eagle Owl]

Are we talking non-resident trapping fees, non-resident falconry permit fees, or both? I'm confused.

Well, depending on the state, both. In Texas there is not a non-resident falconry permit, but there is a non-resident trapping fee and/or nonresident hunting fee. In Colorado, there is both, nonresident falconry permit and nonresident trapping fee.

But the large nonresident trapping fee in Texas is brought up over and over again, so I just wanted to make sure people understand that it is not always just a simple reg change, but a legislative change.

[jfseaman]

One thing that needs to be remembered is that most of the fees associated with non-resident trapping are set by legislature, so it is not a simple change of the falconry regs, it has to be done at the law level. Texas has been working on getting the trapping fees changed for years, but it is MUCH harder to get that changed than a simple regulation.
That's the important part, working to get it changed. That's all anyone could ask. The system isn't perfect, we'll just have to keep working on it.

[FredFogg]

Well, depending on the state, both. In Texas there is not a non-resident falconry permit, but there is a non-resident trapping fee and/or nonresident hunting fee. In Colorado, there is both, nonresident falconry permit and nonresident trapping fee.

This is another thing that every state needs to work on changing. If you have a drivers license in one state, are you required to get one for the state you are driving through, NO! So why should a falconer have to have a non-resident falconers permit, that is just plain stupid. I think each state should address these crazy issues when they go to the new regulations. Some states were in such a hurry to get converted, they didn't take the time to fight these other issues and after the fact, will only make it harder. I hope all the states working on their new regs thinks about these things and tries to get as little permitting and as much taken out as possible to make falconry as simple as possible for those in that state and those non-resident falconers coming to that state.

[outhawkn]

If the Kansas regs contain some sort of precise legal or regulatory language that best accomplishes this reciprocity/recognition between states, let's grab the appropriate phrases and share them with all the state clubs through the NAFA TAC. If anyone is aware of different or better language, let's get it all out on the table and figure out the strongest approach and share that. I'll go back to the clubs in the six states that have certified so far and see if they have any suggestions.

Off the subject a little but Arkansas voluntarily gave up there 3 year permit, because "whats so special about falconers"....Grrrr:D And this came form a falconer who is a nafa member and the falconry coordinator for the game and fish..

OK, I'll let it go now......toungeout

[FredFogg]

Off the subject a little but Arkansas voluntarily gave up there 3 year permit, because "whats so special about falconers"....Grrrr:D And this came form a falconer who is a nafa member and the falconry coordinator for the game and fish..

OK, I'll let it go now......toungeout

Gave up their 3 year permit for what? Lord, I hate when someone throws out a comment like this and doesn't explain! Come on, don't gripe about something and leave us wondering! crazyy

[Dirthawking]

This is another thing that every state needs to work on changing. If you have a drivers license in one state, are you required to get one for the state you are driving through, NO! So why should a falconer have to have a non-resident falconers permit, that is just plain stupid. I think each state should address these crazy issues when they go to the new regulations. Some states were in such a hurry to get converted, they didn't take the time to fight these other issues and after the fact, will only make it harder. I hope all the states working on their new regs thinks about these things and tries to get as little permitting and as much taken out as possible to make falconry as simple as possible for those in that state and those non-resident falconers coming to that state.

The non resident falconry permit is the hunting license, which every state requires people to get. It is only allowing you to hunt in Colorado. Any falconer wanting to HUNT in Colorado, that is not a resident, needs a hunting license (i.e. a non resident falconry license, or a small game hunting license, but they are basically the same thing here).

[FredFogg]

The non resident falconry permit is the hunting license, which every state requires people to get. It is only allowing you to hunt in Colorado. Any falconer wanting to HUNT in Colorado, that is not a resident, needs a hunting license (i.e. a non resident falconry license, or a small game hunting license, but they are basically the same thing here).

Brandi said and I quote "In Texas there is not a non-resident falconry permit, but there is a non-resident trapping fee and/or nonresident hunting fee. In Colorado, there is both, nonresident falconry permit and nonresident trapping fee." If it is a non-resident hunting license, call it that. With all the rules and regulations we have, calling it a non-resident falconry permit is only going to confuse folks. So no, it isn't the same thing!

[Eagle Owl]

Brandi said and I quote "In Texas there is not a non-resident falconry permit, but there is a non-resident trapping fee and/or nonresident hunting fee. In Colorado, there is both, nonresident falconry permit and nonresident trapping fee." If it is a non-resident hunting license, call it that. With all the rules and regulations we have, calling it a non-resident falconry permit is only going to confuse folks. So no, it isn't the same thing!

Fred, let me see if I can explain this. If you go hunt in Texas, you have to buy a nonresident hunting license. You can get like a 5 day license or a year license. If you go to trap in Texas, you have to buy a nonresident trapping permit.

If you go to Colorado to trap (when new regs take effect) you have to get a nonresident trapping permit. If you go to Colorado to hunt, you can either buy a nonresident falconry permit (which allows you to hunt small game without a hunting license) or you can buy a nonresident small game hunting license. Depending on how long you are in Colorado, depends on what you want to purchase. If you are only going to be here a few days, then you can buy a 1 day nonresident small game hunting license for like $11 a day. A year nonresident small game hunting license is about $56.

Since I was going to be here long term, I got a nonresident falconry permit ($55 yearly). If you temporarily relocate or permanently relocate to Colorado, you are required to get the nonresident falconry permit so they can inspect your facilities. They have the nonresident falconry permit because Colorado law states you are not a resident until you have lived here at least 6 months and you have to purchase a house or pay rent or have utilities in you name, etc to get resident status.

If you are going to come to Colorado to hunt often, but are not 'living' here, then it is best to get the small game hunting license so you are not 'regulated' by the CDOW. I know it seems confusing, but it really isn't.

[FredFogg]

Fred, let me see if I can explain this. If you go hunt in Texas, you have to buy a nonresident hunting license. You can get like a 5 day license or a year license. If you go to trap in Texas, you have to buy a nonresident trapping permit.

If you go to Colorado to trap (when new regs take effect) you have to get a nonresident trapping permit. If you go to Colorado to hunt, you can either buy a nonresident falconry permit (which allows you to hunt small game without a hunting license) or you can buy a nonresident small game hunting license. Depending on how long you are in Colorado, depends on what you want to purchase. If you are only going to be here a few days, then you can buy a 1 day nonresident small game hunting license for like $11 a day. A year nonresident small game hunting license is about $56.

Since I was going to be here long term, I got a nonresident falconry permit ($55 yearly). If you temporarily relocate or permanently relocate to Colorado, you are required to get the nonresident falconry permit so they can inspect your facilities. They have the nonresident falconry permit because Colorado law states you are not a resident until you have lived here at least 6 months and you have to purchase a house or pay rent or have utilities in you name, etc to get resident status.

If you are going to come to Colorado to hunt often, but are not 'living' here, then it is best to get the small game hunting license so you are not 'regulated' by the CDOW. I know it seems confusing, but it really isn't.

Lordy, Colorado is just about the stupidest state I have ever heard of. Why have both non-resident falconry permit and non-resident hunting license when they both allow you to do the same thing? Duh! I have already stated this before but Colorado is definately at the top of my never move there list because of their stupid falconry regulations. LOL

[Dirthawking]

Lordy, Colorado is just about the stupidest state I have ever heard of. Why have both non-resident falconry permit and non-resident hunting license when they both allow you to do the same thing? Duh! I have already stated this before but Colorado is definately at the top of my never move there list because of their stupid falconry regulations. LOL

No, one allows you to use a gun, one allows you to use a bird or a gun.

[FredFogg]

No, one allows you to use a gun, one allows you to use a bird or a gun.

Exactly! Why not just have one that allows you to use a bird or a gun! You can't use the bird if you don't have a valid falconry permit from somewhere anyway! Crazy man, crazy! LOL crazyy :D

[Eagle Owl]

Lordy, Colorado is just about the stupidest state I have ever heard of. Why have both non-resident falconry permit and non-resident hunting license when they both allow you to do the same thing? Duh! I have already stated this before but Colorado is definately at the top of my never move there list because of their stupid falconry regulations. LOL

Fred, it has nothing to do with the falconry regs. The state is the one that made the law that you can't be a resident for 6 months. What else are they supposed to do but have a nonresident falconry permit. I think it is good that you have the option of only having to purchase a hunting license if you will only be here a few days instead of having to pay almost double for a year permit.

[outhawkn]

Gave up their 3 year permit for what? Lord, I hate when someone throws out a comment like this and doesn't explain! Come on, don't gripe about something and leave us wondering! crazyy

They gave up their 3 year permit system that matched the Fed permit for a 1 year permit. Maybe its a small thing but why in the world would you give up privilages that so many falconers have worked so hard for. Of course at the time the president of their club also worked for the game and fish. The AGF falconry coordinator just one day announced that falconers shouldnt be special and asked the club to give up the permit and they said sure.........confusedd And she ( the coordinator) is also a falconer and nafa member so she is aware of the struggles to get these privilages.crazyy

Sorry to take this thread off topic, but giving up privilages/freedoms just bothers me.......

[FredFogg]

They gave up their 3 year permit system that matched the Fed permit for a 1 year permit. Maybe its a small thing but why in the world would you give up privilages that so many falconers have worked so hard for. Of course at the time the president of their club also worked for the game and fish. The AGF falconry coordinator just one day announced that falconers shouldnt be special and asked the club to give up the permit and they said sure.........confusedd And she ( the coordinator) is also a falconer and nafa member so she is aware of the struggles to get these privilages.crazyy

Sorry to take this thread off topic, but giving up privilages/freedoms just bothers me.......

Bill, I think you sometimes confuse privilages/freedoms with convenience! Having a 3 year permit is a convenience, not a freedom! We currently have a 1 year permit here in NC and some time ago it used to be 3 years, I don't know how or why it changed but I would love to have it back to 3 years. But that would be a convenience for me and my fellow state falconers, not a freedom or privilage.

[Eagle Owl]

Bill, I think you sometimes confuse privilages/freedoms with convenience! Having a 3 year permit is a convenience, not a freedom! We currently have a 1 year permit here in NC and some time ago it used to be 3 years, I don't know how or why it changed but I would love to have it back to 3 years. But that would be a convenience for me and my fellow state falconers, not a freedom or privilage.

Fred, in some cases it can be more of a financial burden. In Texas several years ago, they decided to make apprentice permits only a year. That meant paying the state their fee plus the $100 to the feds each year. And look at CA that pays that huge fee as well. And in my opinion it would be more of a convenience for the state to issue longer permits instead of having to renew all falconer's permits every year.

The main reason did a 2 step process of the fed regs was to get our from under the federal permit so falconers could be given a little relief money wise. We now have the option of paying for a year permit or a 5 year permit.

[outhawkn]

Bill, I think you sometimes confuse privilages/freedoms with convenience! Having a 3 year permit is a convenience, not a freedom! We currently have a 1 year permit here in NC and some time ago it used to be 3 years, I don't know how or why it changed but I would love to have it back to 3 years. But that would be a convenience for me and my fellow state falconers, not a freedom or privilage.

Hi Fred, I shouldnt have added freedom to that for sure. I meant I dont like when anyone gives of privilages or feedoms of any kind. At least without a good reason. Sorry, I wasnt very clear about that.stupd Although they gave up the freedom of choice on how old an apprentice must be. They decided a 12 year old cant do it. Funny thing is, my kids could......
And I know I shouldnt be concerned what a club does when I dont even live there...but I will some day.

[FredFogg]

Fred, in some cases it can be more of a financial burden. In Texas several years ago, they decided to make apprentice permits only a year. That meant paying the state their fee plus the $100 to the feds each year.

Brandi, I am a little confused. If the federal permit is for 3 years for $100, why would an apprentice have to pay $100 each year for a federal permit just because their state permit expires in each year. Here in NC, we have to renew our state permit every year, but our Federal permit is for 3 years. I only pay $100 every 3 years. My federal permit is up June 30, 2011, I was hoping we would have our state converted so I wouldn't have to pay the federal permit fee but I don't think that is going to happen. Either way, I renew my state permit each year and on the year that the federal permit expires, I have to renew both.

And I agree, I wish the feds and the states would give us the option of renewing each year or every 5 years. I would choose every 5 years.

[Eagle Owl]

Brandi, I am a little confused. If the federal permit is for 3 years for $100, why would an apprentice have to pay $100 each year for a federal permit just because their state permit expires in each year. Here in NC, we have to renew our state permit every year, but our Federal permit is for 3 years. I only pay $100 every 3 years. My federal permit is up June 30, 2011, I was hoping we would have our state converted so I wouldn't have to pay the federal permit fee but I don't think that is going to happen. Either way, I renew my state permit each year and on the year that the federal permit expires, I have to renew both.

And I agree, I wish the feds and the states would give us the option of renewing each year or every 5 years. I would choose every 5 years.

In our federal region they issued you a permit with the same renewal date as your state permit. So if the state only issued you a year permit, so did the feds. That is why THA fought so hard to to get that changed for apprentices because it was costing them more money and wasn't fair.

[FredFogg]

In our federal region they issued you a permit with the same renewal date as your state permit. So if the state only issued you a year permit, so did the feds. That is why THA fought so hard to to get that changed for apprentices because it was costing them more money and wasn't fair.

And the feds didn't reduce the 3 year fee of $100 to $33 for a year? Wow, I would have been really pissed if I were an apprentice. LOL crazyy Man, you all might have more game out that way, but you have some screwed up rules and regulations sometimes! :eek:

[Eagle Owl]

And the feds didn't reduce the 3 year fee of $100 to $33 for a year? Wow, I would have been really pissed if I were an apprentice. LOL crazyy Man, you all might have more game out that way, but you have some screwed up rules and regulations sometimes! :eek:

No, they did not reduce the fee. That was the problem. But Texas has not had to worry about it since January.:D

But this is thing I hate about the Feds. They are not consistent throughout the regions. That applies to falconry permits, rehab permits, education permits, etc. It makes no sense to have federal regulations yet different interpretations are allowed within the different regions.

[FredFogg]

No, they did not reduce the fee. That was the problem. But Texas has not had to worry about it since January.:D

But this is thing I hate about the Feds. They are not consistent throughout the regions. That applies to falconry permits, rehab permits, education permits, etc. It makes no sense to have federal regulations yet different interpretations are allowed within the different regions.

Yeah, I have to say I am really happy with our region and Michelle (our region person in Atlanta) has always answered my emails and questions and taken care of all my request quickly.

[Tom Smith]

While we are on the topic of the federal permit fee. Several Idaho people in my region (Portland OR) have in 2010 sent in their $100 for permit renewal and the state fee as was the process in the past. The state has renewed the state permit but no word from the Feds and no returned check. I have not contacted them to see what is up with that because if they do not not intend to cash my check I don't want to goad them into it, in the meantime the money to cover the check is safe in my bank account.

My State person has said she just follows instructions on falconry permits and it is required of her to send the Fed check on to the Feds what happens to it after that is anybody's guess, at the present time, for at least for several people I have talked to.

Does anybody know what is going on with that? Idaho has not recieved the new regs certification yet from the feds, a matter that we could have easily taken care of a couple of years ago.

[goshawks00]

[QUOTE=Tom Smith;139506]While we are on the topic of the federal permit fee. Several Idaho people in my region (Portland OR) have in 2010 sent in their $100 for permit renewal and the state fee as was the process in the past. The state has renewed the state permit but no word from the Feds and no returned check.

Tom I am having a similar issue paid the Feds my $100.00 falconry permit, got the new renewal, but the check has never been cashed. I also renewed my prop license and they cashed that check and I got my renewal from them..

Yep let sleeping dogs lay

Hmmmm... maybe it's our stimulus money from the big "O"toungeout

[sevristh]

I've seen similar accounts of people in California having this same issue. Mailed checks, but have not been cashed.

[Eagle Owl]

Here in Colorado all falconry permits expire December 31. We sent the check to the state and feds for Mario's permit, got his permit just fine. The state cashed the check in a couple of weeks, the check to the feds just cleared the bank last month. And we mailed the checks off in November. :eek:

I was REALLY hoping they had lost it or something. An extra $100 would be nice, especially right now!

[Tom Smith]

Here in Colorado all falconry permits expire December 31. We sent the check to the state and feds for Mario's permit, got his permit just fine. The state cashed the check in a couple of weeks, the check to the feds just cleared the bank last month. And we mailed the checks off in November. :eek:

I was REALLY hoping they had lost it or something. An extra $100 would be nice, especially right now!

It might be a regional thing. I have heard some comments that the Feds would not be processing falconry permits after the first of 2010 no matter if the state had adopted the new regs or not, till then the permit processing would under each state's prior or new procedure.

A friend recently said this about the check thing. >> "If you think about it, it makes sense. Why would the feds want to deal with operating under different rules for different states, the ones that are on board with the new regs and the ones that are behind, (like Idaho). They probably have told everyone to just do what the new regs say for all the states. (nameless) sent her renewal in November, and they never cashed her check either. . . . I think I will just let mine bounce if they try to cash it ; )" <<<

[sevristh]

I sent my checks from here in GA back in February or March and they both cleared expeditiously. frus)