Quote Originally Posted by rkumetz View Post
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.