NAFA, the NRA and the USSA

[wyodjm]

It’s probably an understatement when I say I’m a bit burned out on falconry politics. With the exception of dropping out of NAFA for a couple of years, I rejoined and have been a member for over 30 years. I am a current member of both NAFA and the AFC. I’m also a member of the NRA and the USSA. I firmly believe in seeing falconry survive as a legitimate and legal field sport in the future.

For some time now I’ve wondered if it would be a good investment if NAFA became affiliate members of both the NRA and the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance. I’ve often wondered why NAFA never became more aligned and affiliated with the larger, national hunting advocacy groups. I’d be interested in hearing if people think if it would be a good time to perhaps think about it now.

Could NAFA benefit if it became an affiliate member of both the NRA and U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance? What would be the drawbacks if NAFA did become an affiliate member these larger and more powerful organizations? How much national political influence do you think NAFA will have in the next 10 years if it does stand alone?

What are your thoughts?

[FredFogg]

Personally, I would like to see NAFA become affiliated with the USSA but not NRA. I know NRA probably carries a bigger stick (pun inteneded) but I like to think of falconry as a sport but not a sport that is related to firearms. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against gun sports, I gun hunted my entire life until I discovered falconry, it gives me the type of hunting that I have always been looking for. But I think we need to keep the image of falconry as an outdoor sport and not use the NRA as a voice just because they are the largest organization out there. Just my humble opinion!

[wyodjm]

Personally, I would like to see NAFA become affiliated with the USSA but not NRA. I know NRA probably carries a bigger stick (pun inteneded) but I like to think of falconry as a sport but not a sport that is related to firearms. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against gun sports, I gun hunted my entire life until I discovered falconry, it gives me the type of hunting that I have always been looking for. But I think we need to keep the image of falconry as an outdoor sport and not use the NRA as a voice just because they are the largest organization out there. Just my humble opinion!

I understand. But the NRA just may also be the largest hunting advocacy organization in the world.

[GregMik]

My pennies have become scarce...I have not paid dues in NAFA, MFA or NRA. But I have paid for USSA.

Greg

[sharptail]

Even though it is smaller, I think that Gun Owners of America, is a better choice than the NRA. The NRA has gone weak Kneed and soft on protecting rights, and folks are beginning to realize it and bail out.

[Hawkmom]

If you look at older (70's and early 80's) Hawk Chalks, you will see in the inside cover a statement like this: Afflliate of the National Rifle Association and the National Wildlife Federation. I don't know if NAFA still is afflliated with them. But the USSA is also good. I am also a member of the Florida Wildlife Federation, which SUPPORTED the take of peregrines in Florida. Audubon of Florida opposed a take. So my money went to those who support falconry.

Here is an article about the FWF: http://www.oxfordamerican.org/articl...s-greens-guns/

[Elinor]

Which is larger, the hunting groups or the wildlife groups.

[GregMik]

Which is larger, the hunting groups or the wildlife groups.

Wildlife groups by far....

Greg

[wyodjm]

Wildlife groups by far....

Greg

Just the same, I for one would want to be alligned with the hunting groups. Falconry is a hunting sport. At least game hawking is.

[GregMik]

Just the same, I for one would want to be alligned with the hunting groups. Falconry is a hunting sport. At least game hawking is.

Agreed!

Greg

[michaelberan]

Which is larger, the hunting groups or the wildlife groups.

Wildlife groups can be controversial (as it relates to Falconry) because they don't support hunting or outdoor sports.

[goshawkr]

Wildlife groups can be controversial (as it relates to Falconry) because they don't support hunting or outdoor sports.

Thats true, and each wildlife group should be looked at individually.

There are many conservation/wildlife groups that are very supportive of hunting. Some are very obvious because they are largely founded, funded and run by hunters like Quail Forever and the Ruffed Grouse Society. Others are not so obvious (sadly, I dont have any examples because I havnt researched this recently) because they are not hunting focused, but are still very supportive of sustanable take.

You also cant trust them to not change their proverbial stripes. Ducks Unlimited, for example, does some fine work in wildlife conservation. On the whole, they are an excellent group. But as the dollars they raised started to shift from being almost exclusively hunters to also including a lot of money from those who are not consumptive users, their support for hunting weakened. 11 years ago when washington was fighting a ban on trapping we contacted them for permission to use some of their data about the benifits to ground nesting birds from the trapping of ground predators. DU refused to let us use the data because they didnt want to offend their contributors who were against trapping and hunting.

Even some groups who used to be rabidly oppposed to hunting, like the Audobon Society (as a nation wide group, some local chapters may vary in their stance) are very supportive of sustainable hunting.

[wyodjm]

Thats true, and each wildlife group should be looked at individually.

There are many conservation/wildlife groups that are very supportive of hunting. Some are very obvious because they are largely founded, funded and run by hunters like Quail Forever and the Ruffed Grouse Society. Others are not so obvious (sadly, I dont have any examples because I havnt researched this recently) because they are not hunting focused, but are still very supportive of sustanable take.

You also cant trust them to not change their proverbial stripes. Ducks Unlimited, for example, does some fine work in wildlife conservation. On the whole, they are an excellent group. But as the dollars they raised started to shift from being almost exclusively hunters to also including a lot of money from those who are not consumptive users, their support for hunting weakened. 11 years ago when washington was fighting a ban on trapping we contacted them for permission to use some of their data about the benifits to ground nesting birds from the trapping of ground predators. DU refused to let us use the data because they didnt want to offend their contributors who were against trapping and hunting.

Even some groups who used to be rabidly oppposed to hunting, like the Audobon Society (as a nation wide group, some local chapters may vary in their stance) are very supportive of sustainable hunting.

Good post Geoff.

[wyodjm]

If you look at older (70's and early 80's) Hawk Chalks, you will see in the inside cover a statement like this: Afflliate of the National Rifle Association and the National Wildlife Federation

Thanks Kitty. Very Good. I just saw that. I never realized that NAFA was an associate member organization of the NRA. I knew about the NWF though.

I'm not sure NAFA still is. I still think it would be a good idea. The USSA also.

Thank you again Kitty. I'm glad you caught that.

Best,