Originally Posted by
rkumetz
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.
Reply With Quote