Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 35 of 121

Thread: Preliminary Injunction Filed

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    461

    Default Preliminary Injunction Filed

    The Pacific Legal Foundation, representing fellow falconers along with the AFC, filed a preliminary injunction today. If it goes through, it will prohibit warrant-less searches unless or until a court rules on the suit.

    https://pacificlegal.org/motion-reve...wyWwWkSIIHwPMg

    Also, a great article by Peter Stavrianoudakis in the Sacramento Bee:

    https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/artic...5dJkGpxbMHPnrk

    Personally, I think this is great for falconers nationwide, and hunters in general. It has the potential to set precedent which would benefit all of us. Woot!

    Bridget
    Bridget

    "We have met the enemy and he is us."
    Pogo Possum

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Thanks for posting, Bridget!
    Jason Hausman - AFC Moderator
    Tundra Peregrine Falcon, Red-Tailed Hawk & German Shorthaired Pointer

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    4,298

    Default

    I notice you started a new thread instead of continuing the one that has background information on the PLF and their litigation.

    The only thing that litigation does for Peter Stavrianoudakis is to throw him under the bus and make he and his wife look like paranoid nuts who
    are worried about black SUV's and helicopters showing up at his house which I suspect is far from the truth.

    PLF doesn't have the best interest of the plaintiffs, falconry or hunters. They are a bunch of lawyers who need cases to let
    them argue constitutional law to put on their CV's on their way to the corner office. Their position on sage grouse in another
    case is diametrically opposing the best interests of falconers. I hope they stop doing us favors soon.
    Ron N1WT Vermont

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    461

    Default

    Hi Ron:

    I think anyone who is interested in the PLF can find all sorts of info with a simple search, or they can follow the link I provided, wherein the PLF makes their mission abundantly clear. They are a libertarian-oriented, Constitutional civil rights firm. Exactly what we need. No need to wade through pages of posts, which is why I started a new thread. "Black SUVS and helicopters" is cute partisan phraseology, but it's not what anyone is alleging. Wanting to protect one's 1st and 4th Amendment rights should not relegate one to the status of paranoid whack-job; those who believe it does have other agendas, and maybe they should get intellectually honest.
    PLF, much like other civil rights outfits, maintains both the interests of their clients along with an overarching mission. The fact that they have this mission statement does not preclude them from providing excellent representation.
    Bridget

    "We have met the enemy and he is us."
    Pogo Possum

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    4,298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
    Hi Ron:

    I think anyone who is interested in the PLF can find all sorts of info with a simple search, or they can follow the link I provided, wherein the PLF makes their mission abundantly clear. They are a libertarian-oriented, Constitutional civil rights firm. Exactly what we need. No need to wade through pages of posts, which is why I started a new thread. "Black SUVS and helicopters" is cute partisan phraseology, but it's not what anyone is alleging. Wanting to protect one's 1st and 4th Amendment rights should not relegate one to the status of paranoid whack-job; those who believe it does have other agendas, and maybe they should get intellectually honest.
    PLF, much like other civil rights outfits, maintains both the interests of their clients along with an overarching mission. The fact that they have this mission statement does not preclude them from providing excellent representation.
    First, I resent the implication that if I don't disagree with you that I am a partisan hack. My political affiliation is common sense. I vote for the guy or gal who seems to have their
    act together and who is not interested in the partisan bickering that has paralyzed our political system.

    Who is WE? AFC or falconers in general. The problem here is that the former is acting on behalf of the latter and not all of us agree with the direction they are going.

    Post Operation Falconer there have not been very many instances of falconers 4th amendment rights being bruised never mind trampled. This seems to be a problem for the nanny state of California which believes they know better than you do what is good for you. I deal with their absurd labeling requirement for items which might contain potentially carcinogenic substances every day. It is a joke.

    The problem here is that PLF is litigating about constitutional rights violations which have not yet happened. Their tearjerker video shows Fred Seaman who could be considered to have had his rights
    violated but instead the plaintiffs are people who is worried about the same thing happening to them. I happen to think that Fred is an OK guy but he is also very opinionated (it takes one to know one LOL)
    and tends to operate with his own interpretation of what should be legal. I am not saying that I don't agree with at least some of what he believes but he may also not make the best test case for this litigation and I gather that PLF is smart enough to know that so they used Plan B.

    In addition, your assertions of 1st amendment issues is, in the words of Sherman Potter, horse pucky. Falconry is not a commercial pursuit and conservation law here in the US has long sought to
    eliminate the commercialization of wildlife starting with Teddy Roosevelt and possibly even before. A falconry permit does not in any way infer the right to make money by doing educational presentations, bird shows or by appearing on the Late Show as a cool animal trick. It gives you right to use a bird of prey to pursue wild quarry and if you wish to talk to the Boy Scouts (oops, sorry... SCOUTS) about falconry and not get anything out of it beyond the cost of gas you are good to go. It is clear from the original complaint that the plaintiffs are interested in renumeration. If you wish to be Bill Nye the Bird Guy you can get an educational permit and stay out of jail.

    PLF has no particular concern with what is good for falconers and using them for this litigation, regardless of the value of this particular litigation, lends credibility to PLF and their agenda.
    Falconers are for the most part conservation minded people and PLF could care less about conservation.

    I would also like to point out that I am sympathetic to a libertarian train of thought but keep in mind that libertarian doctrine taken to its most extreme level is called anarchy.

    Let's get this straight. AFC is not out to do what is best for falconers in general. They are out to advance an extreme libertarian agenda which many falconers may or may not
    agree with (and if the mess that they have in the UK is used as an example) may not be in the best interest of the future of falconry given the powerful animal rights and anti-hunting
    organizations that seek to have us all building ships in bottles instead of going hawking.
    Ron N1WT Vermont

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rkumetz View Post
    First, I resent the implication that if I don't disagree with you that I am a partisan hack. My political affiliation is common sense. I vote for the guy or gal who seems to have their
    act together and who is not interested in the partisan bickering that has paralyzed our political system.

    Who is WE? AFC or falconers in general. The problem here is that the former is acting on behalf of the latter and not all of us agree with the direction they are going.

    Post Operation Falconer there have not been very many instances of falconers 4th amendment rights being bruised never mind trampled. This seems to be a problem for the nanny state of California which believes they know better than you do what is good for you. I deal with their absurd labeling requirement for items which might contain potentially carcinogenic substances every day. It is a joke.

    The problem here is that PLF is litigating about constitutional rights violations which have not yet happened. Their tearjerker video shows Fred Seaman who could be considered to have had his rights
    violated but instead the plaintiffs are people who is worried about the same thing happening to them. I happen to think that Fred is an OK guy but he is also very opinionated (it takes one to know one LOL)
    and tends to operate with his own interpretation of what should be legal. I am not saying that I don't agree with at least some of what he believes but he may also not make the best test case for this litigation and I gather that PLF is smart enough to know that so they used Plan B.

    In addition, your assertions of 1st amendment issues is, in the words of Sherman Potter, horse pucky. Falconry is not a commercial pursuit and conservation law here in the US has long sought to
    eliminate the commercialization of wildlife starting with Teddy Roosevelt and possibly even before. A falconry permit does not in any way infer the right to make money by doing educational presentations, bird shows or by appearing on the Late Show as a cool animal trick. It gives you right to use a bird of prey to pursue wild quarry and if you wish to talk to the Boy Scouts (oops, sorry... SCOUTS) about falconry and not get anything out of it beyond the cost of gas you are good to go. It is clear from the original complaint that the plaintiffs are interested in renumeration. If you wish to be Bill Nye the Bird Guy you can get an educational permit and stay out of jail.

    PLF has no particular concern with what is good for falconers and using them for this litigation, regardless of the value of this particular litigation, lends credibility to PLF and their agenda.
    Falconers are for the most part conservation minded people and PLF could care less about conservation.

    I would also like to point out that I am sympathetic to a libertarian train of thought but keep in mind that libertarian doctrine taken to its most extreme level is called anarchy.

    Let's get this straight. AFC is not out to do what is best for falconers in general. They are out to advance an extreme libertarian agenda which many falconers may or may not
    agree with (and if the mess that they have in the UK is used as an example) may not be in the best interest of the future of falconry given the powerful animal rights and anti-hunting
    organizations that seek to have us all building ships in bottles instead of going hawking.
    Ray Gilbertson-Montana

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    MARYLAND
    Posts
    2,513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falcon56 View Post
    i will second that Ray.........
    Bill
    I have been known to approach the east...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rkumetz View Post
    First, I resent the implication that if I don't disagree with you that I am a partisan hack. My political affiliation is common sense. I vote for the guy or gal who seems to have their
    act together and who is not interested in the partisan bickering that has paralyzed our political system.

    Who is WE? AFC or falconers in general. The problem here is that the former is acting on behalf of the latter and not all of us agree with the direction they are going.

    Post Operation Falconer there have not been very many instances of falconers 4th amendment rights being bruised never mind trampled. This seems to be a problem for the nanny state of California which believes they know better than you do what is good for you. I deal with their absurd labeling requirement for items which might contain potentially carcinogenic substances every day. It is a joke.

    The problem here is that PLF is litigating about constitutional rights violations which have not yet happened. Their tearjerker video shows Fred Seaman who could be considered to have had his rights
    violated but instead the plaintiffs are people who is worried about the same thing happening to them. I happen to think that Fred is an OK guy but he is also very opinionated (it takes one to know one LOL)
    and tends to operate with his own interpretation of what should be legal. I am not saying that I don't agree with at least some of what he believes but he may also not make the best test case for this litigation and I gather that PLF is smart enough to know that so they used Plan B.

    In addition, your assertions of 1st amendment issues is, in the words of Sherman Potter, horse pucky. Falconry is not a commercial pursuit and conservation law here in the US has long sought to
    eliminate the commercialization of wildlife starting with Teddy Roosevelt and possibly even before. A falconry permit does not in any way infer the right to make money by doing educational presentations, bird shows or by appearing on the Late Show as a cool animal trick. It gives you right to use a bird of prey to pursue wild quarry and if you wish to talk to the Boy Scouts (oops, sorry... SCOUTS) about falconry and not get anything out of it beyond the cost of gas you are good to go. It is clear from the original complaint that the plaintiffs are interested in renumeration. If you wish to be Bill Nye the Bird Guy you can get an educational permit and stay out of jail.

    PLF has no particular concern with what is good for falconers and using them for this litigation, regardless of the value of this particular litigation, lends credibility to PLF and their agenda.
    Falconers are for the most part conservation minded people and PLF could care less about conservation.

    I would also like to point out that I am sympathetic to a libertarian train of thought but keep in mind that libertarian doctrine taken to its most extreme level is called anarchy.

    Let's get this straight. AFC is not out to do what is best for falconers in general. They are out to advance an extreme libertarian agenda which many falconers may or may not
    agree with (and if the mess that they have in the UK is used as an example) may not be in the best interest of the future of falconry given the powerful animal rights and anti-hunting
    organizations that seek to have us all building ships in bottles instead of going hawking.
    Well put, Ron.

    Bill Boni

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Hunterdon County, New Jersey
    Posts
    1,111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrBill View Post
    Well put, Ron.

    Bill Boni
    Ditto - Ditto & Double Ditto!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rkumetz View Post
    First, I resent the implication that if I don't disagree with you that I am a partisan hack. My political affiliation is common sense. I vote for the guy or gal who seems to have their
    act together and who is not interested in the partisan bickering that has paralyzed our political system.

    Who is WE? AFC or falconers in general. The problem here is that the former is acting on behalf of the latter and not all of us agree with the direction they are going.

    Post Operation Falconer there have not been very many instances of falconers 4th amendment rights being bruised never mind trampled. This seems to be a problem for the nanny state of California which believes they know better than you do what is good for you. I deal with their absurd labeling requirement for items which might contain potentially carcinogenic substances every day. It is a joke.

    The problem here is that PLF is litigating about constitutional rights violations which have not yet happened. Their tearjerker video shows Fred Seaman who could be considered to have had his rights
    violated but instead the plaintiffs are people who is worried about the same thing happening to them. I happen to think that Fred is an OK guy but he is also very opinionated (it takes one to know one LOL)
    and tends to operate with his own interpretation of what should be legal. I am not saying that I don't agree with at least some of what he believes but he may also not make the best test case for this litigation and I gather that PLF is smart enough to know that so they used Plan B.

    In addition, your assertions of 1st amendment issues is, in the words of Sherman Potter, horse pucky. Falconry is not a commercial pursuit and conservation law here in the US has long sought to
    eliminate the commercialization of wildlife starting with Teddy Roosevelt and possibly even before. A falconry permit does not in any way infer the right to make money by doing educational presentations, bird shows or by appearing on the Late Show as a cool animal trick. It gives you right to use a bird of prey to pursue wild quarry and if you wish to talk to the Boy Scouts (oops, sorry... SCOUTS) about falconry and not get anything out of it beyond the cost of gas you are good to go. It is clear from the original complaint that the plaintiffs are interested in renumeration. If you wish to be Bill Nye the Bird Guy you can get an educational permit and stay out of jail.

    PLF has no particular concern with what is good for falconers and using them for this litigation, regardless of the value of this particular litigation, lends credibility to PLF and their agenda.
    Falconers are for the most part conservation minded people and PLF could care less about conservation.

    I would also like to point out that I am sympathetic to a libertarian train of thought but keep in mind that libertarian doctrine taken to its most extreme level is called anarchy.

    Let's get this straight. AFC is not out to do what is best for falconers in general. They are out to advance an extreme libertarian agenda which many falconers may or may not
    agree with (and if the mess that they have in the UK is used as an example) may not be in the best interest of the future of falconry given the powerful animal rights and anti-hunting
    organizations that seek to have us all building ships in bottles instead of going hawking.

    I fifth that
    Ditto again
    John
    Bend, OR

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Seattle, Wa
    Posts
    5,452

    Default

    Post Operation Falconer there have not been very many instances of falconers 4th amendment rights being bruised never mind trampled. This seems to be a problem for the nanny state of California which believes they know better than you do what is good for you. I deal with their absurd labeling requirement for items which might contain potentially carcinogenic substances every day. It is a joke.
    You have not been paying attention. But even if that were not the case, the mere potentiel for the jack booted goon squads to show up should be enough to raise alarm. Here are some brief summaries of examples from the last 20 years:


    • Region 1 of the US FWS lobbied hard for funding to create facilities to hold raptors seized by enforcement. The paint was not even dry on the building when they went out "hunting" for violations, using the administrative inspections, until they had all 9 chambers filled. The only case from this action I know in detail involved the seizure of a goshawk which died shortly afterwards in state custody. The falconer was cited, but charges were dropped because they were invalid. All 9 of the birds that were seized were over very tiny trivial violations or even imagined violations.
    • Several inspections occurred here in Washington about 9 years ago. A particularly nefarious aspect of those inspections is that all known friends of the falconer being inspected were also inspected. In one of those cases, Federal DEA agents showed up the next day based on what the US FWS agent saw during their inspection, and they were popped for their medical marijuana.
    • When the federal rules were revised, the US FWS region overseeing Calfiornia set out to inspect every single permittee. Some of these individual cases led to serious problems - eggs getting broken while looking for band numbers, etc.
    • A friend of mine - who asked me yesterday to keep the details vague - was inspected several times over the course of a few weeks until the agent finally found something that he could be cited over. The citation had no legal validity outside of the imagination of the enforcement officer and in the imagination of the US FWS bureaucrat who was using the inspection as a way to punish someone for doing something that was perfectly legal, but she did not personally approve of. This friend is well known by name to everyone reading this, and well respected and always above board in behavior. The fallout of this was a major restriction being added into the revised federal rules a few years later.


    I am completely and utterly baffled that such a high percentage of falconers is actually supportive, and some even proud, of the fact that the US FWS and State Game agencies can inspect them at any time. This does not make you the special anointed elite, it makes you the [potential] victim of a federal agency. Whether that agency abuses its power currently is immaterial. The federal government can generally be divided into two sections: those departments that have recently been caught abusing their power, and those that have not been caught yet.

    Just what is it that we gain by these inspections? Not a damn thing.

    Sure, they usually pretty innoculous when they happen. But the stark reality is this: the agent inspecting you is there for one reason - to look for any rule violations and charge you for them. As bad as this is, its made even worse because the rules are so complex that it is not at all unusual for legal action to be taken because the authorities do not understand those rules themselves (I cited two examples of this above). Not to mention how common it is for falconers to naively violate some portion of these ridiculously complex rules because they did not understand them.

    And before I wander off and babble about something else... I have seen a text sent to one falconer by another stating that it was his "right" to have an inspection triggered because he did not approve of what the other falconer was doing. Thankfully, this was an idle threat, and it happened in Washington where it would go absolutely no where, but if those two falconers were in one of the states that view falconers as crooks that have not yet been rounded up it could have gone very differently if it were more than an idle threat.

    In addition, your assertions of 1st amendment issues is, in the words of Sherman Potter, horse pucky. Falconry is not a commercial pursuit and conservation law here in the US has long sought to
    eliminate the commercialization of wildlife starting with Teddy Roosevelt and possibly even before. A falconry permit does not in any way infer the right to make money by doing educational presentations, bird shows or by appearing on the Late Show as a cool animal trick.
    A falconry permit conveys the right to own a bird of prey. The prohibitions on free speech using a privately owned animal that is held in captivity which are in the current regulations have no relevance whatsoever to protecting wildlife.

    The MBTA has, at its core, protections against commercial exploitation of our native bird life. Indeed, it came into being precisely because of that. At the time it was put in place, it was very fashionable for women to decorate their hats with a dead bird, and many species were facing extinction due to unregulated and unsustainable commercial hunting of birds for that trade.

    It really does not matter if falconry is a commercial pursuit or if it is not. And in fact, your statement that it is not applies to you but does not necessarily apply more generally. Currently, in the Arabian world, its quite common for falconers to be commercially hired hands. And in fact, MBTA permits are issued to corporations all the time, so its quite possible for a corporation to obtain a falconry permit. That by its very definition would be commercial falconry.

    I can really dive deep on examples of this lunacy - but here is a simple one to understand. The Afleck duck is a MBTA protected bird, used commercially (the live one that is occasionally used, not the CGI one). This is not in any way a conservation issue. It has no relevance, positive or negative, on the wild duck populations. Just like it wouldnt if some Hollywood producer wanted to pay me a zillion dollars to fly a redtail over a lake while his camera was rolling. Or if the rock star that filmed my goshawk flying so he could use images in one of his music videos had bought me lunch in gratitude instead of me just doing it as a favor. Or if I had been compensated for my time and effort during one of the many times that I have let artists use my bird as a model for their work.

    Referring to your jab at the "Bill Nye the Bird Guy" - there are several examples of falconers using their birds semi or fully commercially that did great things for conservation because of it. Morley Nelson is probably the very best example, but there are others that you have heard of and seen on your very own boob tube. But that is actually completely irrelevant. The real point is that it is an abuse of power to limit your free speech with your privately owned and held wild raptor. And its even more of an abuse of power with your private held and owned captive bred raptor.

    PLF has no particular concern with what is good for falconers and using them for this litigation, regardless of the value of this particular litigation, lends credibility to PLF and their agenda.
    Falconers are for the most part conservation minded people and PLF could care less about conservation.
    You keep bringing that up - but I am absolutely baffled at why this is relevant. Is it somehow more sacred if the lawyers are falconers? Does that make the case more pure?

    The PLF core agenda overlaps our collective interests in this manner. They are just the hired gun (yes, the currency is prestige and bragging rights, but so what.....) The core concern of the PLF, in this case, is that the US governement is not respecting constitutional rights and is overstepping its authority. Just as simple, and as relevant, as that.

    Let's get this straight. AFC is not out to do what is best for falconers in general.
    According to whom? Who is the appointed potentate that decides which actions are best for falconers in general?? It is pretty obvious that the AFC is doing this precisely because they believe it is best for falconers in general, and I am certain that they are correct - in this particular case.

    As I said before, I am not an AFC member, and I am not speaking for them. I have been very critical of some of their actions and of some of their leaders. But there has never been any doubt in my mind that they are doing what they believe is best for other falconers. As a dear friend of mine used to be very fond of saying "No one gets out of the bed in morning and says 'how can I f@#$^% things up today?'" Some do a remarkable job of appearing to have planned that out on purpose, but that is rarely if the case.

    I could easily make that very same statement about NAFA over on the NAFA sub forum, but I would consider that to be very poor form.

    Quote Originally Posted by rkumetz View Post
    If you believe there should be no rules then you are.
    Actually, that is precisely the point.

    The US Fish and Wildlife Service and the state agencies are NOT following the rules. They are expressly forbidden to require administrative inspections in Migratory Bird permits. Congress put that language in the MBTA. That is apart from the 4th amendment protections being stomped on here. Well, actually, my state currently requires its agents to have a warrant before an inspection goes down, but that is a rare exception.

    But there are two constitutionally enshrined rights that the USFWS is pissing on, which is an even bigger issue.

    And that is without even bringing up other rights that are being trounced on here - like for example the common practice of the State and Federal agents to seize wild taken birds without any due process because they do not view them as private property (It is well established law going back to the 1600s in the US that natural resources, including wildlife, become private property when taken into private possession) This is very closely tied to the inspections because it is quite rare for a bird to be seized except for during an inspection. Its actually not unusual for a seizure to spontaneously occur during an inspection.

    To turn all this back around to you and all of the "dittos".... just what EXACTLY is gained by us by having the inspections in place? What do falconers gain by being legally prevented from getting hired to fly their bird in front of a camera, or have their hawk hooded in the back of a booth at a trade show, or even by a very strict interpretation use the image of their hawk or any other in the logo of their company? I know dozens and dozens of falconers that could be in serious jeopardy over that last one.

    One last thought: Martin Niemöller words always seem to apply when this is brought up.

    First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a socialist.
    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a trade unionist.
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
    Geoff Hirschi - "It is better to have lightning in the fist than thunder in the mouth"
    Custom made Tail Saver Perches - http://www.myrthwood.com/TieEmHigh/

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    SE Coastal Georgia
    Posts
    444

    Default

    Geoff I agree with your lengthy post - line by line. And to be clear, I have no horrified fear of the potential outcomes that might occur if falconry were largely deregulated - frankly, I think it should be. I see no reason that ownership of captive raised raptor’s should be treated differently than any other captive bred animal (including eagles). Obviously, WC animals require some protection as a shared natural resource - but falconry regs are overkill. I am older than most - I grew up in a time when youngsters routinely kept wild babies of all species during the course of their childhood - with little government interference and no real bad outcomes. I remain befuddled by rules in my state that allow killing such animals - but not keeping them. I don’t need to be over-regulated and pass through series of government-created hoops to feel safe - or to feel elite. I just want to do as I please; harming no one. That is how I grew up - but then, I grew up in a different America.
    Mike

    SE Coastal Georgia

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Louisa, Va USA
    Posts
    428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rkumetz View Post
    First, I resent the implication that if I don't disagree with you that I am a partisan hack. My political affiliation is common sense. I vote for the guy or gal who seems to have their
    act together and who is not interested in the partisan bickering that has paralyzed our political system.

    Who is WE? AFC or falconers in general. The problem here is that the former is acting on behalf of the latter and not all of us agree with the direction they are going.

    Post Operation Falconer there have not been very many instances of falconers 4th amendment rights being bruised never mind trampled. This seems to be a problem for the nanny state of California which believes they know better than you do what is good for you. I deal with their absurd labeling requirement for items which might contain potentially carcinogenic substances every day. It is a joke.

    The problem here is that PLF is litigating about constitutional rights violations which have not yet happened. Their tearjerker video shows Fred Seaman who could be considered to have had his rights
    violated but instead the plaintiffs are people who is worried about the same thing happening to them. I happen to think that Fred is an OK guy but he is also very opinionated (it takes one to know one LOL)
    and tends to operate with his own interpretation of what should be legal. I am not saying that I don't agree with at least some of what he believes but he may also not make the best test case for this litigation and I gather that PLF is smart enough to know that so they used Plan B.

    In addition, your assertions of 1st amendment issues is, in the words of Sherman Potter, horse pucky. Falconry is not a commercial pursuit and conservation law here in the US has long sought to
    eliminate the commercialization of wildlife starting with Teddy Roosevelt and possibly even before. A falconry permit does not in any way infer the right to make money by doing educational presentations, bird shows or by appearing on the Late Show as a cool animal trick. It gives you right to use a bird of prey to pursue wild quarry and if you wish to talk to the Boy Scouts (oops, sorry... SCOUTS) about falconry and not get anything out of it beyond the cost of gas you are good to go. It is clear from the original complaint that the plaintiffs are interested in renumeration. If you wish to be Bill Nye the Bird Guy you can get an educational permit and stay out of jail.

    PLF has no particular concern with what is good for falconers and using them for this litigation, regardless of the value of this particular litigation, lends credibility to PLF and their agenda.
    Falconers are for the most part conservation minded people and PLF could care less about conservation.

    I would also like to point out that I am sympathetic to a libertarian train of thought but keep in mind that libertarian doctrine taken to its most extreme level is called anarchy.

    Let's get this straight. AFC is not out to do what is best for falconers in general. They are out to advance an extreme libertarian agenda which many falconers may or may not
    agree with (and if the mess that they have in the UK is used as an example) may not be in the best interest of the future of falconry given the powerful animal rights and anti-hunting
    organizations that seek to have us all building ships in bottles instead of going hawking.
    I couldn't bare to read this thread until now, when I did for some reason. Thanks so much, you've done a small bit to restore my hope for the world.
    Edmund Henderson
    Good falconry is always a thin line between two mistakes.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    4,298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
    Wanting to protect one's 1st and 4th Amendment rights should not relegate one to the status of paranoid whack-job; those who believe it does have other agendas, and maybe they should get intellectually honest.
    Just to clarify, I was not in anyway suggesting that I believe the Stavrianoudakis' to be "paranoid whack-job's" (your words) but the PLF link that you supplied does a pretty good job of painting them that way in an effort to get blood boiling in the camp of the ultra-libertarian crowd. Most middle of the road folks reading that would get that impression. When was it that someone married to a falconer was pinned to the ground and handcuffed again? I seem to have missed that part. When you are painted in the media by someone allegedly trying to "help" as worrying about hypothetical situations which have not occurred then you appear to be paranoid. And if that situation HAS occurred then the person who was handcuffed should have been the plaintiff. I would even go for the woman who reportedly had to urinate in her pants (presumably because they were worried about her flushing birds or 3-186 forms I guess) since that is a reasonable assertion that officers overstepped reasonable bounds.

    I would also like to point out that in most states game wardens, CO's or whatever they are called are armed all the time. In my state they also respond to incidents when the state police are busy. They
    are law enforcement officers and for a good portion of the year the people they are checking up on (let's call them hunters) are ARMED themselves so it is not unreasonable to assume that they be allowed to carry sidearms. Now if they busted down the door with a battering ram wearing helmets and carrying automatic weapons we can talk about a show of force.

    PLF is doing a pretty good job of spinning this like we are living in a totalitarian prison state. I am guessing that even in California the situation is not quite that grim.
    Ron N1WT Vermont

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,230

    Default

    I never knew I was in the ultra libertarian crowd till reading this thread.
    Isaac

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    4,298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BestBeagler View Post
    I never knew I was in the ultra libertarian crowd till reading this thread.
    If you believe there should be no rules then you are.

    I think the big divide is really whether or not having a group like PLF which does not really care about the future of falconry file go to court about violations of constitutional rights that have not yet occurred and people who believe they should be able to monetize their falconry license should be able to do so.

    If jackbooted storm troopers actually did break down someone's door, shove their wife to the floor and handcuff her and then proceed to take apart the whole house I would be the first guy to support going to court to prevent that from ever happening again. Even if it happened in CA and I generally just assume that what happens in CA doesn't really reflect the rest of the country. On the other hand, in the absence of such a serious abuse of power I believe that a approach that doesn't involve the courts and which is not as public is a better approach.

    I have some serious reservations about why the people who are reported to have had their rights trampled on are not the plaintiffs in this case. That raises some
    serious red flags for me. Something is not kosher. PLF has some sort of smoke and mirrors show going.

    If you look at everything that PLF does you can see exactly how much they love to beat their chest and get as much publicity as possible.
    They took this case because it was yet another constitutional case for them to argue and it is likely they did so for free.

    I think that falconry is getting everything that AFC paid for and more.
    Ron N1WT Vermont

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Buckeye, Arizona
    Posts
    1,404

    Default

    NAFA Counsel and assistants, plus the TAC committee have spent the last couple weeks reading and analyzing the material in this suit, both the plaintiffs brief and the laws it will address. NAFA is at this time in the process of drafting an opinion statement.

    Though not legally trained I am personally able at reading dense documents. I believe that if I were to put in 100 hours of diligent study (possibly with a bit of expert guidance) I would have a basic understanding of the filed complaint, the laws it will work under, and the foreseeable results and consequences, leaving only the inevitable unforeseen consequences to fear.

    Until such time as I do put in the needed study I will refrain from presenting an opinion.

    Due and Considered Regards,
    Thomas of the Desert
    Tom Munson, Buckeye, AZ
    619-379-2656, tom@munson.us

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,870

    Default

    The longer I practice falconry and attempt to stay informed with the various issues that affect the sport, the more I'm convinced that falconers are their own worst enemy.

    People often half joke about it, but I have no doubt!
    Dan McCarron
    John 3: 16

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    kamas, utah
    Posts
    148

    Default

    [QUOTE=wyodjm;397684]The longer I practice falconry and attempt to stay informed with the various issues that affect the sport, the more I'm convinced that falconers are their own worst enemy.

    Amen!
    Jon

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    4,298

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Seattle, Wa
    Posts
    5,452

    Default

    If someone had posted these comments in response to something a NAFA official had posted in the NAFA subforum, the response would be (justifiable) outrage.

    That is of course not to say that constructive discussion is not warranted - or even welcome - but the main thrust of the response here went well beyond that. Not counting those remarkable astute "Ditto" comments of course.
    Last edited by goshawkr; 01-29-2019 at 07:20 PM.
    Geoff Hirschi - "It is better to have lightning in the fist than thunder in the mouth"
    Custom made Tail Saver Perches - http://www.myrthwood.com/TieEmHigh/

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    4,298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by goshawkr View Post
    If someone had posted these comments in response to something a NAFA official had posted in the NAFA subforum, the response would be (justifiable) outrage.

    That is of course not to say that constructive discussion is not warranted - or even welcom - but the main thrust of the response here went well beyond that. Not counting those remarkable astute "Ditto" comments of course.
    Geoff,
    I don't think anything I said was disrespectful or out of line. You and I have spoken about many of these issues and while we disagree on some we agree on others. Abuse of power IS abuse of power and that is not tolerable. What gets in my craw about this PLF litigation is that the facts seem to indicate something other than the sensational complaint and all of the flashy stuff on their web page indicate.
    It sort of reminds me of the stuff you see on Fox news or PBS that is designed to get their particular audience all riled up on the far right and far left respectively. You and I know that there are three sides to every story, the two arguments that the disagreeing parties put forth and the truth.

    Let's be honest, I have posed some of these questions such as why are the parties who could arguably have had their rights violated not the plaintiffs? Why are they claiming that their 1st amendment rights are violated by not being able to charge for a presentation when they can get an educational permit which allows them to do so? Stuff like that. I have seen no attempt to set the record straight.
    When you ask questions and people clam up then in my book they are hiding something and I think you can agree that it sounds suspicious.

    I will definitely agree on one thing: Constructive discussion IS warranted but all I see is sensational press releases and a complaint that raises some questionable claims.

    Your thoughts?
    Ron N1WT Vermont

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by goshawkr View Post
    If someone had posted these comments in response to something a NAFA official had posted in the NAFA subforum, the response would be (justifiable) outrage.

    That is of course not to say that constructive discussion is not warranted - or even welcome - but the main thrust of the response here went well beyond that. Not counting those remarkable astute "Ditto" comments of course.
    Geoff, I'm not a supporter of the AFC, and I get the impression you're not a NAFA supporter. We each, as well as everyone has the prerogative to choose that which they choose to support or not(DUH), but, and this goes a bit off subject here, you would have to agree that the falconry you have been, and currently practice could not be what it is without the work NAFA has done for all of us over the years.
    Ray Gilbertson-Montana

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    4,298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falcon56 View Post
    Geoff, I'm not a supporter of the AFC, and I get the impression you're not a NAFA supporter. We each, as well as everyone has the prerogative to choose that which they choose to support or not(DUH), but, and this goes a bit off subject here, you would have to agree that the falconry you have been, and currently practice could not be what it is without the work NAFA has done for all of us over the years.
    Ray,
    I know that Geoff is not a NAFA flag waver but I did not interpret his comment as being entirely anti-NAFA either. I think that this discussion has been pretty civil in both this thread and the previous PLF thread or at least by internet forum standards and I hope it stays that way.

    I have tried to keep to the facts and I have posed some legitimate questions to which I have not seen answers which simply lends credence to my argument that
    everything in this case is not just as the flashy press releases on the PLF and AFC web pages would like us to believe.

    I, like Geoff and probably yourself, take my constitutional rights seriously so if you are either challenging them or claiming that you are defending them on my behalf then
    you had better have some legitimate facts and be above board or I am going to get my panties in a bunch like I did here. All I have asked for is the complete story and
    that is apparently not forthcoming. Just like the news networks that serve the outspoken left and right.
    Ron N1WT Vermont

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Seattle, Wa
    Posts
    5,452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falcon56 View Post
    Geoff, I'm not a supporter of the AFC, and I get the impression you're not a NAFA supporter. We each, as well as everyone has the prerogative to choose that which they choose to support or not(DUH), but, and this goes a bit off subject here, you would have to agree that the falconry you have been, and currently practice could not be what it is without the work NAFA has done for all of us over the years.
    As soon as Ralph Rogers left the leadership of NAFA I was able to hold my nose and rejoin. Call me grudgingly supportive. I have paid dues to NAFA ever since that happened, and even weighed in frequently on the "issues". And just to clearly put this all in context, I am not a member of the AFC either although I did pay dues one year. I should fix that though.

    And no, I would not have to agree with that statement. In fact, only the most partisan of partisan hacks would say that such a position is irrefutable. The level of falconry that I currently practice is in spite of the [incompetent] work that NAFA has done, not because of it. I would be happy to discuss that in a different context, in a different forum, or even better over a beverage while enjoying a fire, but I will not drift any further into the weeds on that point here. Oh, and before you think I am just a whiner, I am politically astute and know how to make things happen at both a State and a Federal level and have a few political wins to my credit here in my WA.

    Again, as I said in my first response, this is the AFC area, for them to talk about their agenda and yes, even at times brag on it. Not the right place for AFC bashing nor for NAFA flag waving and especially not for the "Is it NAFA or the AFC that is pond scum" debate.
    Geoff Hirschi - "It is better to have lightning in the fist than thunder in the mouth"
    Custom made Tail Saver Perches - http://www.myrthwood.com/TieEmHigh/

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    461

    Default

    Most falconers agree that giving up 4th and 1st Amendment rights to procure or maintain a falconry permit is unconstitutional. Politically, many of us agree on this. Still, there are a few people who have consistently, over the last 7 or 8 years, attempted to hijack threads on this AFC forum. It has
    become boring and predictable. It has become clear that their problem is personal, not political, hence all of the hedging. For myself, I'll let it be. As this case moves forward, I'll post updates, (as new threads, so that they don't get buried under piles of troll posts). This is, essentially, a legacy platform, but I'll update as things unfold, so that those who may be interested can keep up. So, anti-AFC folks, keep trolling. But you'll not be able to deny for long that this is a great thing.
    Bridget

    "We have met the enemy and he is us."
    Pogo Possum

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    4,298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
    Most falconers agree that giving up 4th and 1st Amendment rights to procure or maintain a falconry permit is unconstitutional. Politically, many of us agree on this. Still, there are a few people who have consistently, over the last 7 or 8 years, attempted to hijack threads on this AFC forum. It has
    become boring and predictable. It has become clear that their problem is personal, not political, hence all of the hedging. For myself, I'll let it be. As this case moves forward, I'll post updates, (as new threads, so that they don't get buried under piles of troll posts). This is, essentially, a legacy platform, but I'll update as things unfold, so that those who may be interested can keep up. So, anti-AFC folks, keep trolling. But you'll not be able to deny for long that this is a great thing.
    Ah. Back to that again. You are right, we should not have to give up ANY of our rights to practice falconry. I have never suggested otherwise.
    The question is, are we actually being asked to do so and is that what the PLF litigation is all about.

    Please understand that I truly believe that you have the best of intentions. I have no doubt about that but....

    You are pretty good at evasion. You you have made claims on behalf of AFC and I have asked respectful and relevant questions about the PLF litigation and its plaintiff's but all I have gotten in response is
    an very offensive suggestion that I (or anyone who has questions or may disagree) do not care about constitutional rights and an accusation of being a troll.

    I WAS an dues paying AFC member/supporter for a number of years. When AFC decided to put up those CNN or Fox News like clips of the Alaska debacle I decided that I was embarrassed to be
    affiliated with the organization and let my membership expire. While I agree with some to many of the ideas expressed by a good number of AFC members I do not endorse, condone or
    desire to support the tactics that AFC engages in. HOW you get what you want is often as important or more important than the desired result itself.

    The purpose of a FORUM is to entertain meaningful dialog and share ideas and opinions in a respectful way. If the purpose of the thread was to simply announce your opinion about the
    PLF litigation or the AFC's claims then perhaps putting it in the classifieds section where responses are not possible would have been a better idea. It is not really possible to hijack a
    thread in which there is no actual discussion going?

    As a matter of note, if you are truly interested in advancing the AFC cause then actually answering the questions that those who you accuse of being AFC detractors and trolls ask might
    convince others to send you a check and join up if they like your answers. To be honest, if I thought AFC could behave like intelligent respectful adults I would send a check myself.

    I think I may call Fred myself. I am sure he will tell me what he thinks.
    Ron N1WT Vermont

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    4,298

    Default

    Geoff,
    I am going to have to disagree about the inappropriate nature of being critical of AFC in this area. This is a public forum not their living room. If you post something on a public forum then it is fair for anyone to respond as long as they do it in a respectful way, don't get personal and act like adults. Hopefully AFC is not run by a
    bunch of millennials with swollen heads over their participation trophys who can understand that disagreeing with them is not a personal attack.

    With respect to your comments about regulating wildlife I agree with your premise which essentially that sustainable take need not differentiate between what is done with the animals harvested (falconry, bird shows, eat them, etc.) but you are ignoring the fact that ANY take is under attack by emotional nuts who think that all of nature is for us to see and not touch. Hey kid don't turn over that rock and pick up a salamander or we will arrest you.....

    Your interpretation of the constitution is not necessarily incorrect but then again since nobody cloned any of the guys who wrote it I can't be sure that it is
    correct either. All of this boils down to a debate in a courtroom where we could gain a little or lose everything. The court system is supposed to be impartial
    but it has never been and never will be free of the influence of politics. Do we really want to kick that bees' nest given that falconers represent an insignificant
    number of votes and will never be heard over the loud voices, lobbying power and media access that the animal rights groups have?

    In a perfect world you are absolutely correct. As long as we don't eat too many bald eagles it doesn't matter that we are eating them. Unfortunately
    this is far from a perfect world. Keep in mind that this is one of the few countries where wild take is legal. It has remained so because even Audubon is ok
    with "properly regulated falconry". I am having fun with my falconry. I have talked to you while you are driving along so I know you are not hold up in a bunker
    somewhere waiting for the black SUVs and helicopters so I also suspect you are having fun with yours as well. So what exactly is so bad with the situation?

    Again. Does the possible benefit to poking the bees' nest justify the potential that things won't go our way?
    Ron N1WT Vermont

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Seattle, Wa
    Posts
    5,452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rkumetz View Post
    Your interpretation of the constitution is not necessarily incorrect but then again since nobody cloned any of the guys who wrote it I can't be sure that it is
    correct either. All of this boils down to a debate in a courtroom where we could gain a little or lose everything. The court system is supposed to be impartial
    but it has never been and never will be free of the influence of politics. Do we really want to kick that bees' nest given that falconers represent an insignificant
    number of votes and will never be heard over the loud voices, lobbying power and media access that the animal rights groups have?
    There are scenarios where that is a valid concern, but this is not one of them. Courts are a pretty closed loop system. The AR nuts can write letters or even file friend of the court briefs, but that is about it. Let the bees buzz all they want!

    Going before the courts like this has a pretty simple spectrum of outcomes, provided it actually makes it far enough along to go to a judge before it is dropped. Those outcomes range from nothing changes and the regs as written stay put to the AFC gets the regulations they are challenging struck down. The mid points are that one rule stands and the other is struck down or that there is some compromise that the judge(s) impose on the FWS to make changes to the rules to make them constitutional.

    I have talked to you while you are driving along so I know you are not hold up in a bunker somewhere waiting for the black SUVs and helicopters so I also suspect you are having fun with yours as well. So what exactly is so bad with the situation?
    I guess that is an easy position to take, when all of these scenarios are purely theoretical.

    I have had two close friends stomped on by the US FWS jack boots. Bullet point 1 and 4 from the examples I gave in post 25 were cases that I watched, with a certain degree of horror and trepidation, quite closely in real time as they unfolded. The nightmare of these real and valid examples of inspections being used as an abuse of authority was something I experienced - thankfully for me in a second hand manner. The example in the second bullet point I gave was not someone I personally knew at the time, although I do know them now, and it occurred just 20 miles from where I sit as I type this.

    I do not need this to happen to me to want it corrected. Its enough that it happened to anyone. For that matter, its enough that it could happen.

    No, I do not hide in a blanket fort and wait for the black helicopters.
    Geoff Hirschi - "It is better to have lightning in the fist than thunder in the mouth"
    Custom made Tail Saver Perches - http://www.myrthwood.com/TieEmHigh/

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,366

    Default

    Geoff and Ron,
    I wasn't in away trying to rock the boat, I was just making a statement. Geoff, I do appreciate that you support NAFA, whether begrudgingly or not. I can't say I've agreed with everything that NAFA has done, but I doubt any NAFA member can categorically state that they have totally supported everything either.
    Ray
    Ray Gilbertson-Montana

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    461

    Default

    Ron Kumetz writes: "You you have made claims on behalf of AFC and I have asked respectful and relevant questions about the PLF litigation and its plaintiff's but all I have gotten in response is an very offensive suggestion that I (or anyone who has questions or may disagree) do not care about constitutional rights and an accusation of being a troll. "

    Ron I do not speak on behalf of the AFC. The 'respectful and relevant' questions to which you refer far predate any PLF litigation; anti-AFC posting on this forum has been an ongoing thing for many years. My POV is clear, as is yours. The only difference is that I don't troll forums. I will continue to post informational updates as they occur, and you're still as free as you've always been to make comments/ 'respectful and relevant' questions.
    Bridget

    "We have met the enemy and he is us."
    Pogo Possum

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    542

    Default

    Good or bad it's in the hands of the courts now.
    Chi M.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    4,298

    Default

    Geoff,
    Since the OP is not interested in answering any questions or discussing the issue I have started a new thread to avoid hijacking this one any further.
    As you are aware, I will be happy to have this spirited debate there though I suspect over a beer would be more enjoyable.

    http://www.nafex.net/showthread.php?...d=1#post397739
    Ron
    Ron N1WT Vermont

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rkumetz View Post
    Geoff,
    Since the OP is not interested in answering any questions or discussing the issue I have started a new thread to avoid hijacking this one any further.
    As you are aware, I will be happy to have this spirited debate there though I suspect over a beer would be more enjoyable.

    http://www.nafex.net/showthread.php?...d=1#post397739
    Ron
    That is the Ron I have come to know on this list. Never saw you 'triggered' like you were earlier in the discussion.
    John

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    4,298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdrmd View Post
    That is the Ron I have come to know on this list. Never saw you 'triggered' like you were earlier in the discussion.
    Thanks (I think)
    I think this is an important issue and I think that falconers need to discuss it whether in heated debate or over a beer and present a united front to the rest of the world.
    It doesn't matter what we say to each other when nobody else is paying attention but when we have rival organizations claiming to represent falconers that is a problem.

    Emotions have to be kept out of it. If someone disagrees with you (1st amendment right LOL) that doesn't mean they are calling you a moron or saying your opinion is irrelevant. As I understand it there was quite a bit of shouting at the meetings where they drafted the constitution in the first place so this has been going on for a while.
    Ron N1WT Vermont

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •