Amazing, What A Small Club Can Do!

[falcon56]

Ron,
I very much appreciate your take on this matter, as I won't take the time to read anything related to what the AFC or WTC or whatever they call themselves at the moment, offer for perusal. I have, from the moment I found out the organization went behind the backs of Montana falconers years ago, and threatened to sue the MFWP to allow NR take, not had much of an opinion of them. Ironically, they also took credit for Mont. instituting NR take after we(MFA)finally agreed to pursue this and took it to fruition, thanks mostly to the hard work of Ralph Rogers. I definitely share your reluctance to just accept what they offer up.
Ray

[goshawkr]

Ron,
I very much appreciate your take on this matter, as I won't take the time to read anything related to what the AFC or WTC or whatever they call themselves at the moment, offer for perusal. I have, from the moment I found out the organization went behind the backs of Montana falconers years ago, and threatened to sue the MFWP to allow NR take, not had much of an opinion of them. Ironically, they also took credit for Mont. instituting NR take after we(MFA)finally agreed to pursue this and took it to fruition, thanks mostly to the hard work of Ralph Rogers. I definitely share your reluctance to just accept what they offer up.
Ray

Ray,

You just made me laugh so hard hot coffee came out my nose, and I do not appreciate that.

NRT happened in Montana not due to Ralph Rogers hard work, but in spite of it. He was primarily responsible for stonewalling it right up until the point he realized he could not trap a passage peregrine until Montana allowed it.

Why are you posting in the AFC sub forum to bash them? Thats a pretty low brow move.....

[falcon56]

Geoff,
I've previously commented on the misinformation regarding Ralphs role in NR take in Montana, and apparently I once again have to clear things up. For years Ralph championed a NR take in Montana only to be soundly rebuffed by the majority of the Montana club members, myself included. We wanted no part of something that potentially could impede the wild take that we had at our disposal, which was no limits on any thing other than of course Peregrines, which had no wild take at that time. Until we were assured that a NR take would not affect the established take regulations already in place for residents, we did not support non residents coming here to trap. Ralph ALWAYS was in support of NR take, but because the majority of the club was not, he presented to those that asked that Montana was against it. Again, RALPH WAS ALWAYS IN SUPPORT FROM THE BEGINNING, in fact he initially proposed a NR take in the late 80's. As far as my impression of the AFC, what they did in Montana was wrong, and last I heard, my opinion is just as valid as anyone else.

[rkumetz]

You just made me laugh so hard hot coffee came out my nose, and I do not appreciate that.

Caffeinated neti pot. Interesting....

[rkumetz]

The more I learn about this litigation the more it annoys me. I am beginning to think that AFC, in its zealous attempts to be as confrontational as possible with a minimal budget and a handful of members, has jumped in bed with an organization which appears to be trolling around for cases that it can bring to federal court claiming constitutional grounds. My bet would be that it is a good way for lawyers who want to make a name for themselves can put some important sounding litigation on their CV's in hopes of landing a big dollar position at a beltway law firm. It is clear that the guy who wrote this article (who is presumably involved with the case) doesn't understand falconry, educational permits, abatement permits or any of the activities involved.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/11/...t-free-speech/

[Montucky]

The more I learn about this litigation the more it annoys me. I am beginning to think that AFC, in its zealous attempts to be as confrontational as possible with a minimal budget and a handful of members, has jumped in bed with an organization which appears to be trolling around for cases that it can bring to federal court claiming constitutional grounds. My bet would be that it is a good way for lawyers who want to make a name for themselves can put some important sounding litigation on their CV's in hopes of landing a big dollar position at a beltway law firm. It is clear that the guy who wrote this article (who is presumably involved with the case) doesn't understand falconry, educational permits, abatement permits or any of the activities involved.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/11/...t-free-speech/

You are on the right track Ron...unfortunately the agenda of PLF is a bit more nefarious than that. They take natural cases pro bono where and when they feel the case will have a precedent setting consequence to weakening natural resource laws. They certainly are not interested in supporting their staff time and court costs to benefit a a couple thousand falconers. Their origins are in the "Wise Use" movement that sprung out of a backlash to environmental laws that had WIDE bi-partisan support including the Nixon Administration and Ford Administration that shepherded the ESA, NEPA, FLMA, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and others (not Kennedy or Carter).

Of course this era was also part of the legacy of the Peregrine Fund who played a big part in convincing the Nixon Administration's EPA to ban DDT, add raptors to the MBTA, and pass the ESA. Reagan's Secretary of the interior James Watt's was one of the leaders of this notorious backlash...along with industry groups like the PLF. There are sound reasons why any falconer interested in our legacy should look at the PLF with caution. They are an industry front group and this is a plain fact. One of their very first actions was to oppose the banning of DDT - thus why they should be seen by falconers with great suspicion. While I dont want to get into politics...its probably needed in this case. It is the right of industry to defend their interests...but folks need to know who their sleeping with

Switzer, J. V., & Vaughn, J. (1997). Green backlash: The history and politics of the environmental opposition in the US. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

[wyodjm]

You are on the right track Ron...unfortunately the agenda of PLF is a bit more nefarious than that. They take natural cases pro bono where and when they feel the case will have a precedent setting consequence to weakening natural resource laws. They certainly are not interested in supporting their staff time and court costs to benefit a a couple thousand falconers. Their origins are in the "Wise Use" movement that sprung out of a backlash to environmental laws that had WIDE bi-partisan support including the Nixon Administration and Ford Administration that shepherded the ESA, NEPA, FLMA, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and others (not Kennedy or Carter).

Of course this era was also part of the legacy of the Peregrine Fund who played a big part in convincing the Nixon Administration's EPA to ban DDT, add raptors to the MBTA, and pass the ESA. Reagan's Secretary of the interior James Watt's was one of the leaders of this notorious backlash...along with industry groups like the PLF. There are sound reasons why any falconer interested in our legacy should look at the PLF with caution. They are an industry front group and this is a plain fact. One of their very first actions was to oppose the banning of DDT - thus why they should be seen by falconers with great suspicion. While I dont want to get into politics...its probably needed in this case. It is the right of industry to defend their interests...but folks need to know who their sleeping with

Switzer, J. V., & Vaughn, J. (1997). Green backlash: The history and politics of the environmental opposition in the US. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

I'm more interested in government accountability. Contrary to what progressive liberals may think, government officials work for the American public.

I would love to see the USFWS held accountable for some of the arbitrary and capricious policy decisions they've made regarding the take of eagles for falconry purposes. This includes regulating the take of eagles out of existence for all intents and purposes. Why am I so focused on eagles? I'm a falconer and a productive and contributing member of society! I also spent many years getting take opened up just to see it closed. Not by rule or regulation, but through policy?

John, you're a falconer and a member of the NAFA Conservation Committee! You mentioned earlier that you didn't want to get into politics, but it was probably needed in the PLF case! That's fine. I've always known who I've been sleeping with. Who are you sleeping with?

Don't get too much heartburn over this. These issues have become so convoluted, it's extremely difficult to navigate through them. Perhaps that was by design. It's too bad falconers aren't more united on these issues!

Best,

[rkumetz]

I'm more interested in government accountability. Contrary to what progressive liberals may think, government officials work for the American public.

I agree with that 100% but I am not sure that they are going about this in a meaningful way.

Since Fred Seaman has a staring role in their video there was a fairly clear that there was an abuse of power why is HE not a plaintiff in this litigation
rather than people who are just paranoid about having armed agents invading their houses? Isn't it easier to make the case that power WAS abused
than that it MIGHT be abused?

Why is he noticeably absent?

[JRedig]

I’m curious, will the real/true story of what and how fred’s Inspection went down ever be mentioned? Does the plf know about his Facebook post inviting other falconers over for a picnic specifically to harass the officers coming to inspect him? It’s funny how this whole lawsuit is based on the premise of basically harrassment, but the other side of the story which is known by many is completely missing from the dialog. Or do I have my information wrong? It al seems so convenient....

[rkumetz]

I’m curious, will the real/true story of what and how fred’s Inspection went down ever be mentioned? Does the plf know about his Facebook post inviting other falconers over for a picnic specifically to harass the officers coming to inspect him? It’s funny how this whole lawsuit is based on the premise of basically harrassment, but the other side of the story which is known by many is completely missing from the dialog. Or do I have my information wrong? It al seems so convenient....

[goshawkr]

[frigginchi]

Sometimes when a case is not fully adjudicated filing another case directly related may be considered not a good legal move. Only Fred knows the full details you can ask him, or if you really want to know you can always do a FOIA request. I'll provide the link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/General-...cords-Requests

[rkumetz]

Sometimes when a case is not fully adjudicated filing another case directly related may be considered not a good legal move. Only Fred knows the full details you can ask him, or if you really want to know you can always do a FOIA request. I'll provide the link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/General-...cords-Requests

The more generic form of his question was asked earlier but has never been answered: Why has AFC & PLF decided to go forward with plaintiffs who are simply paranoid about having their rights trampled rather than falconers who have actually had that happen? Since there have been statements to the effect that there is no shortage of falconers who have been the victims of officially sponsored home invasions it would seem that would be illustrating ACTUAL abuses of power rather than hypothetical abuses. The implication of avoiding the question entirely is that the PLF claims that this is a big problem are as inflated as many of their other claims. That may or may not be true but generally speaking when someone posts a "hey look what we are doin' for YOU" item but then
avoids questions things are not quite as seen on TV. Certainly you can see why some of us are somewhat skeptical of their claims.

[rkumetz]

I’m curious, will the real/true story of what and how fred’s Inspection went down ever be mentioned? Does the plf know about his Facebook post inviting other falconers over for a picnic specifically to harass the officers coming to inspect him? It’s funny how this whole lawsuit is based on the premise of basically harrassment, but the other side of the story which is known by many is completely missing from the dialog. Or do I have my information wrong? It al seems so convenient....

I don't remember the whole tear jerker video but my recollection is that one of the big points of drama was that they scheduled an appt to do the inspection and then showed up early.
To be honest, if I was an LEO and found out that the person I was supposed to inspect had decided to make a post on Facebook encouraging people to come and be an annoyance
I would show up a day early too. The sheriff's dept in my county only rarely issues an actual ticket for traffic stops but if the driver is hanging out the window screaming "WTF did you pull me
over for asshole?" (yes, it has happened) they can be assured that they will become a part of a small group of people who have had the honor of receiving one.