Originally Posted by haggardgyr
So I guess nobody from AFC or PLF is interested in explaining how not being able to use a bird held on falconry permit for a commercial venture
is a violation of your 1st amendment rights. You can talk all you want about falconry, your bird or anything else and you can put a picture that you did not
get paid for in a publication (print or electronic) for a non-commercial purpose. You simply can't make a profit on it. My guess is that this has something to do
with setting a precedent regarding commercial use in general which will then affect the abatement businesses run by you and others. Let's call a spade a spade, shall we?
The constitutional law professor that I spoke to about this litigation nearly blew his coffee out of his nose when I mentioned that part.
I realize that y'all think you are doing us a big favor but had you decided to pursue gross abuses of power on the part of the whackos
running the State of California and leave the rest of us as curious onlookers I would have felt a lot better about all the help I am getting.
Some of us are busy cultivating a working relationship with both our state agencies and USFWS.
Reply With Quote