John:
I would seem you have been exposed to the arguments that were publically championed by Dick Musser in 2008 (perhaps as early as 2007), then adopted and passed on by other falconers. If one examines the realities of his positions, they simply don't stand up.
It would seem that yourself and others are not aware that commerce in wildlife has been ongoing for hundreds of years in the U.S. Because indisputable evidence was revealed that some wildlife resources were diminishing due to over harvesting (market hunting), state wildlife agencies were created with the goal of managing such wildlife resources to prevent such harvesting (demand) exceeding annual supply for such renewable resources.
As for the history of commercialization of wildlife, think of the commercial fish and shell fish industries, trapping and fur farming, parrots and other species of birds sold as pets, private game farms (ducks, pheasants, etc.), wild and captive breed amphibians and reptiles that you can view in almost any pet shop, fish farming, alligator ranching, and the list goes on and on. Explain to me just how the recognition of falconry birds as private property could possibly lead to the wholesale commercialization of wildlife when such commercialization has already been in existence for hundreds of years in the United States?
In addition, for some time now, laws have allowed the captive breeding and sale of captive bred raptors. So the argument that Dick (and perhaps others) put forth that recognizing falconry birds as private property would lead to the wholesale commercialization of all wildlife is about as irrational as one can get given the above facts.
If what I mention here and my two preceding posts raise questions, you can contact me privately at charinabottae@earthlink.net Seems to me you did that once before and may be moving to the greater Portland area as some point. Hope the above provides you with a somewhat different and new perspective.
Richard F. Hoyer
