I clicked SAVE before mentioning this: I take offense at the notion that if I disagree with the AFC then I don't believe in the constitution. That is a load of crap and is the sort of self-righteous attitude that contributed to me withdrawing my support for AFC in the first place. As Roosevelt endorsed, speaking softly while carrying a big stick can be anOriginally Posted by Peregrinus
effective tool. Unfortunately AFC is impatient and not particularly good at diplomacy so they have moved to simply whacking people with the stick while yelling about their constitutional
rights being violated.
As previously mentioned by someone else, one of the things I found to be dangerous about AFC is that they do tend to pursue a fringe libertarian agenda. Totally unregulated falconry may or may not be in our best interest. In the UK where it is hardly regulated at all legitimate falconers have to contend with their image being tarnished and attacks by animal rights organizations based on the actions of people who take up falconry using Youtube as their sponsor. Indeed we should be careful what we wish for or we might get it.
In the case of my regs (which are not great but we do have a good relationship with the state for the most part) this is what it says about inspections:
(g) Inspection. Permit applicants shall allow a representative of the Department to inspect their facilities, equipment, and raptors for compliance with permit standards. Certification of compliance shall be made by the Department before a permit may be granted. Subsequent inspections may be made at reasonable hours of the day by a representative of the Department, as deemed necessary.
I don't view that as ominous and it does not reserve the right of the state to break down my door if I am not here. I realize that there have been issues (primarily in CA) and if AFC wants to address that to help CA falconers at the request of CA falconers than that is gracious of them. If, on the other hand, AFC has decided against the wishes of CA falconers to help without asking then shame on them. If we need help with our state regulatory agency or regulations from any outside organization we will ask. Kind of odd that the state which is arguably the most left leaning in the nation wants to send the fish cops to inspect your mews in the middle of the night.
With respect to the Ron Clarke issue I have two problems with the AFC. First, posting that snippet out of context is what the greedy mainstream media people do to get people's emotions running rampant knowing only part of the story. It is unfair, unprofessional and more importantly defending it by saying "they can go and watch the whole thing" is just plain
BS. Those who use that tactic know full well that 95% or more of the people will get a wedgie from their edited version and will never bother to listen to or watch the full version.
Ron Clarke SHOULD have recused himself from that discussion as a NAFA director but I also don't begrudge him an opinion as an Alaska falconer. I am not so sure that as outsiders we should be messing around with local politics. Falconry is regulated on the state level now and that has worked out well for some of us and not so well for others but just because Alaska has something we want doesn't mean we should go in like a bull in a china shop and start making demands which might impact resident falconers' relationship with their regulatory body and other stakeholder groups. If they have what you want perhaps moving there would be a good idea.
As for the abatement question, the abatement industry has prospered and grown with the current regulation. As an industry I would prefer to see those who depend on it as their livelihood to organize themselves to promote their own interests in the way that they see fit which will do them the most good and cause the least amount of strife between them
and the regulatory agencies.
Oh and by the way, I never go far from my pocket sized copy of the constitution and I hope you keep yours close too.
Reply With Quote