Preliminary Injunction Filed

[goshawkr]

No, the USFWS turned all of the inspections over to the state, no where do they expressly retain the ability to perform their own inspections. This was one of the big changes that came about in these new regulations, all law enforcement was turned over to the states. That said, individual states could add more restrictive language and grant federal law enforcement the ability to perform inspections.

From 50 CFR 21.29

(ii) You must submit to your State, tribal, or territorial agency that regulates falconry a signed and dated statement showing that you agree that the falconry facilities and raptors may be inspected without advance notice by State, tribal (if applicable), or territorial authorities at any reasonable time of day, but you must be present. If your facilities are not on property that you own, you must submit a signed and dated statement showing that the property owner agrees that the falconry facilities and raptors may be inspected by State, tribal (if applicable), or territorial authorities at any reasonable time of day in the presence of the property owner; except that the authorities may not enter the facilities or disturb the raptors unless you are present.


(9) Inspections. Falconry equipment and records may be inspected in the presence of the permittee during business hours on any day of the week by State, tribal, or territorial officials."

No where in that language does it say that US FWS cannot perform these inspections.

And in the register comments when those regulations were first published, the US FWS explicitly stated that they were not relinquishing their authority to do those inspections entirely. No surprise - when have you ever seen a government agency surrender power and authority?

[Saluqi]

No where in that language does it say that US FWS cannot perform these inspections.

And in the register comments when those regulations were first published, the US FWS explicitly stated that they were not relinquishing their authority to do those inspections entirely. No surprise - when have you ever seen a government agency surrender power and authority?

No Geoff, you said that the " the US FWS expressly retained the ability to perform their own enforcement activities, including inspections," which is wrong. Here's the register comments that you referenced, seems to me the feds relinquished their authority to perform inspections.

• ‘‘Does the FWS retain the authority
to suspend or revoke falconry permits
under 50 CFR. If not, this should be
stated. Exactly what authority does the
Service (LE) retain under the proposed
regulations, i.e. with no Federal permit.
This should be clarified and stated in
the regulations.’’

Response. We do not believe that the
regulation change affects law
enforcement substantially, or that there
are additional regulatory or permitting
burdens placed on the States, tribes, or
territories. With one exception, Service
enforcement of the provisions of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald
and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle
Act, 16 U.S.C. 668-668d) are not affected
by the regulations change. The
exception is that, because the Service
will no longer issue falconry permits,
Service law enforcement officers will
not have the authority to conduct
inspections of falconers’ records and
facilities, unless the Service officers also
are delegated State law enforcement
authority. The Service will not have
authority to suspend or revoke permits
issued by the States, tribes, or
territories, but compliance with all
provisions of these regulations remains
under the purview of the Service, and
falconry permittees are subject to
Federal prosecution for failure to
comply with the regulations.

[goshawkr]

Thanks for the correction Paul.

I recalled a different comment, but did not take the time to confirm it

[haggardgyr]

Some frequently asked questions and answers.

Great read!


https://pacificlegal.org/wp-content/...ners_faq-1.pdf

[rkumetz]

Some frequently asked questions and answers.

Great read!


https://pacificlegal.org/wp-content/...ners_faq-1.pdf

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.

[rkumetz]

So is there any news on this landmark litigation?

[frigginchi]

Suing the government is never an expedient thing.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/...Wildlife_et_al

So is there any news on this landmark litigation?

[rkumetz]

[QUOTE=frigginchi;401692]Suing the government is never an expedient thing.


Frivolously suing the government even less so. What a waste of my tax dollars. The part about searches is debatable. The part about 1st amendment rights is a cover for commercialization of a falconry permit. A spade is a spade.

Thanks for the link. I am guessing that PLF and AFC don't plan to update anyone unless the update lets them thump their chests.

[Saluqi]

Here's the latest:

"Judge O’Neill found that licensed falconers have a First Amendment right to express themselves with their raptors that is subject to the strictest constitutional scrutiny."

Whatever that means, I guess "express themselves with their raptors" means charge money to do ads and show people their birds?

https://pacificlegal.org/falconers-w...Vtq09kubR6tLuw

[rkumetz]

Here's the latest:

"Judge O’Neill found that licensed falconers have a First Amendment right to express themselves with their raptors that is subject to the strictest constitutional scrutiny."

Whatever that means, I guess "express themselves with their raptors" means charge money to do ads and show people their birds?

https://pacificlegal.org/falconers-w...Vtq09kubR6tLuw

Despite the PT Barnum-esque hoopla it the ruling means nothing other than the case can continue. I wonder if PLF has a sign in their office that says "This way to see the egress"?

[dboyrollz76]

Ambiguity, the poet of the of all that is wrote as law or regulation. I guess if I’m reading it correctly, that they actually had a warrant when they searched this fellas property. (Judge O’Neill declined to rule on the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims because they have not recently suffered warrantless searches.)

[rkumetz]

https://www.courthousenews.com/feder...Ym0G5tVBiGbdqs

[JRedig]

I'll bump this thread too, it seems ron's link covers the findings though.

[goshawkr]

"standing" is a horribly abused legal concept for throwing cases against the government out. I also think it was likely incorrectly argued.

The federal government has forced all 49 states that implemented falconry regulations to write state regulations to allow these warrantless searches. And some of those HAVE been excuted on. Some states have been more draconian with others on how they interpret inspections. California Fish and Wildlife for example publicly opined a few years ago that they had the legal authority to do an inspection whenever they wanted and they would act on that authority. My state has been relatively chill about it, and our falconry coordinator that recently retired was rumored to have taken the stand that in Washington inspections cannot happen without a warrant (I was not in on that conversation directly).

All the same, a graduated apprentice of mine was subjected to a drop in inspection here in Washington in late December [of 2021] without a warrant. This caused a lot of stir at the time with the local falconry community - especially since the falconry program coordinator with our wildlife department had been on the job for all of 2 months when this happened. However, as the facts came out everyone - including my former apprentice - agreed that the inspection was justified. Although there was still some friendly criticism for how it was executed. Turns out my apprentices neighbor had complained to fish and game that someone was keeping hawks caged up and was mistreating them. That complaint SHOULD have been followed up on - and when it was it was found to be baseless.

Still - it was a very nerve wracking experience for my former apprentice. And HE is an attorney...

[rkumetz]

"standing" is a horribly abused legal concept for throwing cases against the government out. I also think it was likely incorrectly argued.

The federal government has forced all 49 states that implemented falconry regulations to write state regulations to allow these warrantless searches. And some of those HAVE been excuted on. Some states have been more draconian with others on how they interpret inspections. California Fish and Wildlife for example publicly opined a few years ago that they had the legal authority to do an inspection whenever they wanted and they would act on that authority. My state has been relatively chill about it, and our falconry coordinator that recently retired was rumored to have taken the stand that in Washington inspections cannot happen without a warrant (I was not in on that conversation directly).

All the same, a graduated apprentice of mine was subjected to a drop in inspection here in Washington in late December [of 2021] without a warrant. This caused a lot of stir at the time with the local falconry community - especially since the falconry program coordinator with our wildlife department had been on the job for all of 2 months when this happened. However, as the facts came out everyone - including my former apprentice - agreed that the inspection was justified. Although there was still some friendly criticism for how it was executed. Turns out my apprentices neighbor had complained to fish and game that someone was keeping hawks caged up and was mistreating them. That complaint SHOULD have been followed up on - and when it was it was found to be baseless.

Still - it was a very nerve wracking experience for my former apprentice. And HE is an attorney...

We are fortunate in VT that our relationship with F&W is pretty good.
Our falconry coordinator is interested in what we do and our new commissioner thinks falconry is cool.

Cultivating a relationship with your local warden(s) is a great way to have someone dispelling rumors that
you are a shady hawk abuser when someone talks about inspecting you and if not they are likely to be
present so at least you have a face that you know present for the inspection. I try to remember to
invite our warden out hawking whenever we get a new one. Those of you in law enforcement will back
me up when I say that anyone who treats you in a friendly manner is a nice change when you are in
a job where people tend to dislike what you do for a living.

[rkumetz]

BTW I think the judge did exactly what the PLF attorneys were hoping for.

I maintain that they took the AFC case because their agenda is to take on any cases that they can which will allow
them to pad their CV's with litigation which might put them before the Supreme Court.

PLF has no interest in falconry (and most likely most of the other issues that they argue) whatsoever.

I hear that Soldier of Fortune Magazine has spun off a sister publication: "Attorney of Fortune"