Quote Originally Posted by Tanner View Post
I vehemently oppose the commercial use of wild-taken raptors. That agenda is a serious threat to the future of wild take in this country.

I dont care if people want to use captive bred raptors for monetary gain- have at it.
B .S.

It is commonly stated that commercialization is a threat to wildlife, but those arguments are quite hollow and collapse with any critical examination of them. There is absolutely nothing that makes non-commercial use more sacred than commercial use. And the wild populations have no concern over whether they are harvested for commercial reasons, purely recreational reasons, or any other reason.

Wildlife management is really quite simple - the deficits to the population (natural mortality, hunting pressure, habitat impacts, etc.) have to be lower than the ability of the population to replenish itself. If that stupid simple formula is followed, it does not make any difference what the motivations are behind the human induced impacts. The passenger pigeon was not exterminated due to commercial hunting, it was exterminated because that commercial hunting was not managed in a sustainable way. There are plenty of other examples of commercial harvest devastating wildlife populations, including the ones that inspired the MBTA to begin with. There are also several examples of unsustainable recreational harvest devastating wildlife populations.

So tell, me, just how exactly is the commercial use of a wild taken raptor the death knell of falconry as we all enjoy it?

BTW - commercial use of wild taken raptors has been alive and well in the US since the mid 80s when the sale of captive bred progeny was formerly allowed.

However, hawk walks, abatement, showbusiness, and pet keeping are not falconry. Those activities should have their own set of regulations. Labeling those activities as “falconry” jeopardizes the legitimacy of falconry.
Rest assured, someone else doing other activities with a falconry bird is not going to water down your legitimacy as a falconer anywhere else but inside your own mind. All of us are pet keepers a good share of the time, so be careful about throwing that particular stone around. And the core contention is what you are able to do with a private owned raptor held under a falconry permit in addition to hunting with it.

If this legal action is about stopping warantless searches- stick to that topic and fix it. The status of birds as private private property and commercial use of raptors is a separate question and should not be rolled into this legal action.
The topic at the core of the suit is about a federal agency illegally trouncing constitutional rights. Thats one issue, even though there are two specific rights that the AFC believes have been stomped upon. Simple enough.

I dont appreciate the way the AFC regularly presumes to know what is best for all of falconry and speaks up loudly on “our behalf”. I find their approach abrasive, poorly concieved and counter productive.
And just why do you think it is appropriate to bash the AFC in their own house? This is the AFC sub forum, and at best this is very bad manners. Disagree with them, fine. But AFC bashing in the AFC forum is extremely poor taste.