NAFA Members?

[muwala]

I read all the stuff in here in regards to the Webster/Beebe thing. Don't know whats going on, the link wouldn't let me connect, but I sure got a lot of negitive vibes to say the least. Is there anybody out there that wants to defend NAFA. I was thinking about joining but now not so sure. Don't like alot of political BS, just care about falconry and making it/keeping it going for those of us that have the addiction. Richard

[Lowachi]

I read all the stuff in here in regards to the Webster/Beebe thing. Don't know whats going on, the link wouldn't let me connect, but I sure got a lot of negitive vibes to say the least. Is there anybody out there that wants to defend NAFA. I was thinking about joining but now not so sure. Don't like alot of political BS, just care about falconry and making it/keeping it going for those of us that have the addiction. Richard

Defend NAFA for what? I'm unclear of your question(s). What link are you referring to?

[frootdog]

NAFA should not need defending. It is THE organization responsible for making sure your sport stays legal and good. No one will agree with every decision it makes, but because you may not like the president do you move out of the country? Join NAFA.

[MarkT]

I agree the Beebe Webster thing was a giant cluster f... but beyond that I see NAFA's main goal as promoting and keeping falconry as legal field sport. That is in itself enough for me to support the organization with my membership.

If you don't agree with the politics of the organization then you always have the option of working your way through the ranks and try to change them.

[sharptail]

I agree, you should become a member of NAFA and the AFC! Put the links up, lets have a look, a little lively debate never hurt anyone!

[frootdog]

He is talking about this thread. It has been beaten to death, but have at it. Another thread soon to be closed.

http://www.nafex.net/showthread.php?t=5121&highlight=beebe+webster+nafa

[muwala]

Hey everyone, the post I was talking about was from June 09. It is still on this site and I still can't into it. I'm sorry for opening up old wounds, i was just curious what was/is going on. Still don't have a clue but maybe I should let dead dogs lie. Sorry

[sharptail]

He is talking about this thread. Just curious how you know which thread?

[Saluqi]

If this the link that you're referring too:

http://mgouldlaw.com/NAFABeebeWebsterPetition/tabid/117/Default.aspx

The reason you can't access it is because the page is no longer there, this is NOT a NAFA or NAFEX link, it links to Matt Gould's law practice webpage.

Edit: Apparently mgouldlaw.com is no longer a viable web page...

[Saluqi]

Just curious how you know which thread?

Because it's archived under the NAFA forum, originally it was in the general falconry forum but a few months ago I moved it over to the NAFA forum because there are posts in that thread that are worth saving, there are a lot of others not worth saving as well....

[outhawkn]

I read all the stuff in here in regards to the Webster/Beebe thing. Don't know whats going on, the link wouldn't let me connect, but I sure got a lot of negitive vibes to say the least. Is there anybody out there that wants to defend NAFA. I was thinking about joining but now not so sure. Don't like alot of political BS, just care about falconry and making it/keeping it going for those of us that have the addiction. Richard

I have not always been a NAFA defender and I still dont like some things they have done, but you can thank NAFA for your falconry permit. IMO

[frootdog]

Just curious how you know which thread?

Quick search on here for Beebe and Webster. Thread started with link that no longer works. It didn't take a CSI to figure it out Jeff.

[sharptail]

Because it's archived under the NAFA forum, originally it was in the general falconry forum but a few months ago I moved it over to the NAFA forum because there are posts in that thread that are worth saving, there are a lot of others not worth saving as well....Oh how comforting to know that the editor is a NAFA director that apprenticed under a USFWS agent and is employed by an owner that is pro NAFA beyond reason. It make me wonder why I waste my time expressing my view to have folk like you edit it. Reminiscent of having racoons get into my pigeon coop while gone this summer and laying to waste hundreds of dollars of newly purchased hot pigeon stock. Thanks for SERVING Paul. lol

[Saluqi]

Oh how comforting to know that the editor is a NAFA director that apprenticed under a USFWS agent and is employed by an owner that is pro NAFA beyond reason. It make me wonder why I waste my time expressing my view to have folk like you edit it. Reminiscent of having racoons get into my pigeon coop while gone this summer and laying to waste hundreds of dollars of newly purchased hot pigeon stock. Thanks for SERVING Paul. lol

Jeff, your post really upsets me. I could have just as easily deleted this (Beebe - Webster) thread, but I chose to save it in a location where people could more easily find it. I'm unclear why you feel the need to throw innuendo around with respect to my sponsor - a person, by the way, who is not on NAFX to defend themselves, or what the point of saying that Chris is pro NAFA is, but clearly you're unhappy with NAFEX. I suggest that you don't return here.

[mainefalconer]

NAFA should not need defending. It is THE organization responsible for making sure your sport stays legal and good. No one will agree with every decision it makes, but because you may not like the president do you move out of the country? Join NAFA.

Krys nailed it with this....

I understand not liking the political BS (as you put it) but it's a necessary evil in an organization that's as large and involved/active as NAFA. I say join!

[sharptail]

there are a lot of others not worth saving as well....My complaint is about this portion. Whom gets to decide what gets deleted, and what influences that individual. Obviouly a lot hinges on what information is allowed out to those making decisions, such as in NAFA elections, and who joins the club.

I find it interesting that you refer to posting your sponsor's chosen career as a cheep shot. What is there to defend about that fact? It is true that I don't think that the bad things that the USFWS and DOI have done to falconers, out weight the good that they have done as a whole. I have to wonder if they are even worth having around at all?

[Pedioecetes]

In the old comic strip called "Lil Abner", one of the main characters said "I've seen the enemy...and it us!". As a NAFA member since 1968 I have learned two things. Without a professional representative body of dedicated volunteers whose goal has been to keep falconry alive and legal, it would be long gone. Too many falconers forget the 1971 meeting in Portland, Oregon where the feds of both Canada and the US wanted control of falconry. In the US they got it and in Canada they didn't. If the feds in Canada had gotten control, falconry would have disappeared here. The US feds have tried to do that. Many falconers have also forgotten Operation Falcon from 1984. Without NAFA, falconry as a legal activity would be gone in the US. Dedicated, focused people willing to accept criticism from their peers, as well as from the outside, never backed down. They were NAFA.

The other thing I've learned is that within the ranks of independent, hard headed falconers, (and I think we all fall into this category-well maybe not some of the women), the main stumbling block to unity is personality conflicts. Falconry has a ridiculous amount of privileges based on the total size of participants. They are not rights, they are privileges won by the dedication of people willing to battle for them.

Maybe, at this time of Christmas, falconers need to think about loving their neighbours (other falconers), forgiving their enemies (other falconers) and joining together as one brotherhood of kindred souls to all support an organization that is recognized and respected all over the falconry world. No one that is willing to spend the amount of money that falconry requires can justify saying they can't afford NAFA, even with the long overdue increase in dues. Swallow some pride with your turkey and come together under one roof.

[sharptail]

a person, by the way, who is not on NAFX to defend themselves, Forgive me Paul...I guess were both a little upset.

The way that people don't fill in there profiles, it is difficult to determine just who is on nafex, and I had no idea your sponsor is not a member, until you said so.

[Lowachi]

Maybe, at this time of Christmas, falconers need to think about loving their neighbours (other falconers), forgiving their enemies (other falconers) and joining together as one brotherhood of kindred souls to all support an organization that is recognized and respected all over the falconry world. No one that is willing to spend the amount of money that falconry requires can justify saying they can't afford NAFA, even with the long overdue increase in dues. Swallow some pride with your turkey and come together under one roof.

clappand Merry Christmas to you, Bob!

and before someone else starts swinging again, it was Pogo:D. But the point is still the point!thumbsupp

[Saluqi]

Because it's archived under the NAFA forum, originally it was in the general falconry forum but a few months ago I moved it over to the NAFA forum because there are posts in that thread that are worth saving, there are a lot of others not worth saving as well....


My complaint is about this portion. Whom gets to decide what gets deleted, and what influences that individual. Obviouly a lot hinges on what information is allowed out to those making decisions, such as in NAFA elections, and who joins the club.

Alright Jeff, I'll try to address your concerns. First of all, if you read what I wrote I said there were " posts in that thread that are worth saving, there are a lot of others not worth saving as well..." I should have said "in my opinion", I can't speak for the NAFEX collective opinion. I never said that I deleted these other posts which I didn't think were worth saving, and if you go and check that thread you will see that no posts were deleted. If your concern was specifically with regard to that thread you can rest assured that none of the moderators went and selectively deleted posts to paint some rosy picture of whatever you perceive to be our special interest. Now, that's not say that we don't delete threads and edit threads. Lately there have been references in some threads to people doing things that were on the fringe, these posts were edited and the authors notified, this was done to protect all parties involved. To be honest, I edit threads all the time, usually to paste in the correct photo link.

NAFA elections, and who joins the club? What are you talking about?



I find it interesting that you refer to posting your sponsor's chosen career as a cheep shot. What is there to defend about that fact? It is true that I don't think that the bad things that the USFWS and DOI have done to falconers, out weight the good that they have done as a whole. I have to wonder if they are even worth having around at all?

How does my sponsor having been employed by the USFWS have anything to do with what's posted on NAFEX or my actions? When I met him he had been retired for 2 or 3 years already, and I didn't know him from a hole in the wall, all I knew was that he lived close and was willing to sponsor me, end of story. I'm sorry if you think there's some grand conspiracy afoot, cause it just ain't so.



Oh how comforting to know that the editor is a NAFA director that apprenticed under a USFWS agent and is employed by an owner that is pro NAFA beyond reason. It make me wonder why I waste my time expressing my view to have folk like you edit it. Reminiscent of having racoons get into my pigeon coop while gone this summer and laying to waste hundreds of dollars of newly purchased hot pigeon stock. Thanks for SERVING Paul. lol

Re-read your original post and imagine being on the receiving end of it, the whole thing, in my opinion, was a cheap shot. If you need some pigeons I can probably spare a couple...

[sharptail]

I'm sorry if you think there's some grand conspiracy afoot, cause it just ain't so.
Re-read your original post and imagine being on the receiving end of it, the whole thing, in my opinion, was a cheap shot. ...No grand conspiracy...just simple day in, day out influence.

I really am sorry that I came across that way! This wasn't looking for some way to insult you. It was an honest reaction to what I read.

Thanks for the offer on pigeons, but I bought more.

[muwala]

i wish I'd never started this thread, Sorry. Richard

[Saluqi]

i wish I'd never started this thread, Sorry. Richard

It's good to ask questions, there will always be differences of opinion when it comes to who & how best represent and protect our sport. Don't worry about Jeff and me, we've mixed it up in the past, we'll do it again in the future, and if we didn't do it from time to time we'd get bored, so thanks for giving us an early Christmas present!

[Dirthawking]

Richard, don't be sorry, you started the thread with a good question, looking for good information. The thread turned downhill. To answer your question (Kinda of). The "issue" was a petition started by a certain NAFA member to get the two gentleman in question a status with the club. The petition was basically ignored by the board.

That is the short story anyway.

[outhawkn]

It's good to ask questions, there will always be differences of opinion when it comes to who & how best represent and protect our sport. Don't worry about Jeff and me, we've mixed it up in the past, we'll do it again in the future, and if we didn't do it from time to time we'd get bored, so thanks for giving us an early Christmas present!

clapp:D

[Lowachi]

i wish I'd never started this thread, Sorry. Richard

No worries. Like a friend of mine once said, "E-mail, is not a proper means of communication." Things get carried away sometimes, before the clear intent is realized.

As for NAFA, there are politics in every viable club. You can't escape it. My advise is to join....yesterday. If you are not pleased with some of the direction, by all means vote to change it-I'm sure you will not be alone (hense Bob R's "...it is us!" comment. Or join and simply enjoy the rewards of those that work/have worked to keep falconry legal and practicable in the U.S.. The dues are a small price to pay for that.

Notice I did not mention a third option, the don't join option, because I, personally, don't believe in that option.

So, there's another opinion, which is what the original quandry was about.

I do believe in a little good cheer tho. Merry Christmas and here's to next year being better than this onebeeer on some counts, anyway.
OK, I'm done now.

[sharptail]

It's good to ask questions, there will always be differences of opinion when it comes to who & how best represent and protect our sport. Don't worry about Jeff and me, we've mixed it up in the past, we'll do it again in the future, and if we didn't do it from time to time we'd get bored, so thanks for giving us an early Christmas present!Agreed!

[JRedig]

No worries. Like a friend of mine once said, "E-mail, is not a proper means of communication." Things get carried away sometimes, before the clear intent is realized.

That goes for any form of electronic communication, not just email! If it can't be done in two exchanges or less, the phone should be used. You just hope the other person will answer...if not, well then it's probably not worth it anyways.

[wyodjm]

How does my sponsor having been employed by the USFWS have anything to do with what's posted on NAFEX or my actions? When I met him he had been retired for 2 or 3 years already, and I didn't know him from a hole in the wall, all I knew was that he lived close and was willing to sponsor me, end of story.

Tom Smylie’s a good man in my book. I’ve known him, or at least known about him, since I was a kid. We spent almost an entire day, hawking together at a NAFA meet in Amarillo once. It was a few years back.

Say hi to Tom for me Paul. And give him my very best.

Dan

[NMHighPlains]

In the old comic strip called "Lil Abner", one of the main characters said "I've seen the enemy...and it us!".

Close- it was "Pogo":

http://herdingcats.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341ca4d953ef013481cb7b9e970c-800wi

But anyway....


Tom Smylie’s a good man in my book.

Ditto that. I've known Tom since 1984 or so. Amazingly, there ARE (or "were", at least) some good USFWS employees out there (my wife was one for 5 years) and Tom wasn't in Law Enforcement anyway which is where we normally have issues. I'd be delighted to call my Tom my sponsor. But then again, I'm very NAFA friendly.

[MrBill]

I think Tom Smylie is a pretty decent soul myself. He is a founding member of NAFA, and one of its first officers. I know him personally. We worked together on a NAFA meet back in 1994, I thought he had a lot on the ball--a very talented individual. Yes, he worked for the USF&WS for many years, and there were those who had run ins with him, and condemned him for doing his job. It's hard to serve two masters, and I think Tom did the best he could.

Bill Boni
Norman, OK

[MrBill]

Yes, Bryan, Tom wasn't in law enforcement, but, if he got wind of something, he would interecede for the benefit of falconry, and this is where a few folks painted an unfair picture of Tom.

Bill Boni
Norman, OK

[sharptail]

Rumor has it that the next guy up for conformation as Director of the USFWS, Mr Dan Ashe has shown his hand and is anti raptor use. He is not from Law Enforcement.

[RyanVZ]

Rumor has it that the next guy up for conformation as Director of the USFWS, Mr Dan Ashe has shown his hand and is anti raptor use.

All the more reason to join NAFA

[NMHighPlains]

.... he would interecede for the benefit of falconry, and this is where a few folks painted an unfair picture of Tom.

If he interceded for our benefit, then what's the problem?

There's gonna be friends and enemies at all levels, all the time, and Pogo's statement up above should be kept firmly in mind, IMHO.

[Dutch]

I find this thread bizarre. I guess this is what we get when we invite anyone with a falconry permit to share all of their opinions and paranoia’s. I’ve been an active falconer and a NAFA member as long as anyone who contributes to NAFEX. Tom Symlie has contributed greatly to NAFA and falconry in the US. No one who has some understanding as to how falconry got this far in the US, would think otherwise.


J. Stoddart

[PeteJ]

I find this thread bizarre. I guess this is what we get when we invite anyone with a falconry permit to share all of their opinions and paranoia’s. I’ve been an active falconer and a NAFA member as long as anyone who contributes to NAFEX. Tom Symlie has contributed greatly to NAFA and falconry in the US. No one who has some understanding as to how falconry got this far in the US, would think otherwise.


J. Stoddart
I with Dutch on this one. And besides....I wouldn't have exactly called Tom an 'agent'...I think he worked in the public relations division of the USFWS. So careful now or he might collate you!
While I agree it is important to know the history of falconry in the U.S., and yes it is quite colorful, we do need to remember that much of what was going on back in the day was in flux, things were changing so rapidly from vermin status for everything raptorial to complete protection...basically overnight. For many that were working with the system before protection this was a tremendous change and in all fairness was not completely understood on the legalities of things from place to place as it hadn't caught up everywhere just yet. I can remember pheasant hunting with my Dad well into the later 70s where shooting a hawk or owl that got up during one of their marches was considered completely acceptable even if it was illegal. It was just the way it had always been done back in the day. So, be sure to read into much of this hub bub with an eye toward understanding that that was then, and this is now. Hell, I've seen more than a few threads on here with posts that talk about illegal activity quite opening...too openly if you ask me...and mostly because the authors really don't know any better or just don't see it as a big deal.

[Saluqi]

And besides....I wouldn't have exactly called Tom an 'agent'...I think he worked in the public relations division of the USFWS. So careful now or he might collate you!


Funny that you mention that Pete, yesterday when I read it all that kept going through my mind was the theme to Secret Agent Man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K90joT4RSnA