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.
Originally Posted by
rkumetz
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.
Preliminary Injunction Filed
Reply With Quote
