Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 35 of 64

Thread: But wait, there's more

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    461

    Default But wait, there's more

    https://pacificlegal.org/nafa-amicus...N2CdgzYZU1ui3s

    In the brief, NAFA "supports regulations designed to protect individual raptors possessed, at the expense of the sport and even falconers if necessary."

    The doc: https://pacificlegal.org/wp-content/...AFA-Amicus.pdf
    Bridget

    "We have met the enemy and he is us."
    Pogo Possum

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    461

    Default

    In short, if you think you can trash the Constitution in a vain attempt to protect falconry, you are wrong.
    Bridget

    "We have met the enemy and he is us."
    Pogo Possum

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
    In short, if you think you can trash the Constitution in a vain attempt to protect falconry, you are wrong.
    "But there is no cause for confusion.
    As the Plaintiffs explain in their response to NAFA filed today there is no need to sacrifice the Constitution in order to protect falconry birds. Securing a warrant before a search, or respecting falconers’ free speech rights, leaves plenty of room for the government to regulate falconry." 👍🏻
    Dan McCarron
    John 3: 16

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    4,298

    Default

    You do realize that the overly dramatic self-promoting press releases cross the boundary between inaccurate and simply laughable, right?

    If AFC believes in the cause AND really cares about falconry you should have gone at this without the PLF nuts. I realize you are well intentioned despite our distance on various issues but PLF has a vastly different agenda than either of us. PLF is a Trojan horse disguised as a bunch of constitution thumping do-gooders.
    Ron N1WT Vermont

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    527

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rkumetz View Post
    You do realize that the overly dramatic self-promoting press releases cross the boundary between inaccurate and simply laughable, right?

    If AFC believes in the cause AND really cares about falconry you should have gone at this without the PLF nuts. I realize you are well intentioned despite our distance on various issues but PLF has a vastly different agenda than either of us. PLF is a Trojan horse disguised as a bunch of constitution thumping do-gooders.
    They may not align with my personal political beliefs in a lot of areas, but it seems that they are pretty good at what they do and I'm glad to have them fighting on the behalf of falconers rights.

    "The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) was established in 1973-74 by a group of attorneys from California's Justice Department (then under the control of Attorney-General Ed Meese) to counter reform of the welfare system, and the liberal public interest legal groups that were pressing for better environmental and health regulations. Especially targeted were the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund.

    Governor Ronald Reagan of California appears to have provided the required financial links to Pittsburg billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife who funded the initial office in Sacramento, and his friend and counsellor, Ed Meese (III) became one of the founders and its chief supporter. Its expressed aim was to use its financial and litigation power to "impact the public policy agenda."

    An article in the Washington Post in May 1999 reveals that "Scaife's first grants in this area (conservative public interest law movement) were made in 1974 to the Pacific Legal Foundation. In its early years Scaife kept the PLF alive. Since the mid-'70s more than $20 million in Scaife money has gone to the conservative public interest law movement "on behalf of a market-oriented economics system, traditional property rights and limited government," in the words of an internal memo written by a Scaife aide in December 1980."

    The day-to-day operations of the Foundation were in the hands of Ronald A Zumbrun, who's law firm Zumbrun & Findley ran most of the cases. Before his elevation to CEO of the PLF, Zumbrun had been a lawyer with the California Department of Public Works, the California Department of Social Welfare and the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

    By 1983 the organization was seen as a "growing force in public interest work" with an annual income of $2.5 million per year [3] and it had already begun to spawn other regional legal centers of a similar kind using Scaife funding. Not all of these, however, focussed on the aggressive use of litigation as did the PLF. According to a Philip Morris document urging the company to develop stronger links with the foundation: "It has participated in hundreds of cases at all court levels, winning the vast majority of those reaching final decision - including several before the U.S. Supreme Court."
    Eric Edwards

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    SE OR USA
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Great Summation Eric!
    Ronald S. Kearney
    "The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see." -Ayn Rand

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    SE OR USA
    Posts
    39

    Default

    PLF's agenda is to defend constitutional rights in many venues. The AFC has the same agenda within a very small venue. PLF/AFC is a match made in heaven!

    Ron Kearney
    Ronald S. Kearney
    "The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see." -Ayn Rand

  8. #8
    dboyrollz76 Guest

    Default

    Someone please, what’s PLF hidden agenda? I’ve been thinking about this. What do they really get other than the AFC’s money. Doing away with inspections and training for every small business and corporate power out there? They sure aren’t doing it for glory. Because they would have picked a bigger fight. Than screwing around with something that could be solved over dinner.
    Seriously though, what do they stand to gain? Please!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    527

    Default

    [QUOTE=dboyrollz76;398791Because they would have picked a bigger fight. Than screwing around with something that could be solved over dinner.
    Seriously though, what do they stand to gain? Please![/QUOTE]

    Not sure who you have dinner with but please bring it up in between courses.
    Eric Edwards

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dboyrollz76 View Post
    Someone please, what’s PLF hidden agenda? I’ve been thinking about this. What do they really get other than the AFC’s money. Doing away with inspections and training for every small business and corporate power out there? They sure aren’t doing it for glory. Because they would have picked a bigger fight. Than screwing around with something that could be solved over dinner.
    Seriously though, what do they stand to gain? Please!

    Actually, they don't get any AFC money. They operate pro-bono. They are a libertarian-oriented property rights org. If you think this could have been 'solved this over dinner', than maybe you should wonder why it wasn't done 30 years ago, or just how old your dinner might be.
    I have had the privilege of dealing with the PLF attorneys at some length now. Are they falconers? Nope. But are they focused on individual property rights? Ya dang right they are! Yeah...their 'hidden agenda' is individual liberty. Imagine that! We are fortunate that they took up the cause. Thanks, PLF!
    Bridget

    "We have met the enemy and he is us."
    Pogo Possum

  11. #11
    dboyrollz76 Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
    Actually, they don't get any AFC money. They operate pro-bono. They are a libertarian-oriented property rights org. If you think this could have been 'solved this over dinner', than maybe you should wonder why it wasn't done 30 years ago, or just how old your dinner might be.
    I have had the privilege of dealing with the PLF attorneys at some length now. Are they falconers? Nope. But are they focused on individual property rights? Ya dang right they are! Yeah...their 'hidden agenda' is individual liberty. Imagine that! We are fortunate that they took up the cause. Thanks, PLF!
    I got a few ideas about why it hasn’t been addressed and taken care of before now.
    1. It already was.
    2. No body cared really till they got pissed off.
    3. Who ever was doing the talking, wasn’t holding their mouth right!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    SE OR USA
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Derek,

    What do you mean by writing "Doing away with inspections and training for every small business and corporate power out there"?

    If you had seriously considered Nafa's Amicus Curiae and the PLF's response to it, you would understand that the AFC or the PLF does not oppose inspections or advocate for the end of training for businesses large or small. Where did you pick that up from?
    Ronald S. Kearney
    "The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see." -Ayn Rand

  13. #13
    dboyrollz76 Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by haggardgyr View Post
    Derek,

    What do you mean by writing "Doing away with inspections and training for every small business and corporate power out there"?

    If you had seriously considered Nafa's Amicus Curiae and the PLF's response to it, you would understand that the AFC or the PLF does not oppose inspections or advocate for the end of training for businesses large or small. Where did you pick that up from?
    You know the whole quality control bit, like say the food inspectors when you own a restaurant. The terms of your license allows for untimely inspections. Could this be used as a avenue to say, Get a warrant. So it gives you time to pick the roaches out of the soup. OSHA inspectors, that businesses have to let in to inspect at any time. To make sure your employees were trained right and proper safety gear and follow procedures. That kinda of stuff, stipulations are all around us in permit systems. Give a inch take a mile. This just isn’t about a unwarranted search or unscheduled inspection.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    SE OR USA
    Posts
    39

    Default

    The support of the PLF is exactly what the falconry community has needed for decades!

    I used to think that what we needed was some old retired falconer, past his actual years in the practice, that was willing to put himself on the line to defend simple constitutional rights.

    Thanks to the PLF, such sacrifices from the falconry community are no longer needed!

    Ron Kearney
    Ronald S. Kearney
    "The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see." -Ayn Rand

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    527

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by haggardgyr View Post
    The support of the PLF is exactly what the falconry community has needed for decades!

    I used to think that what we needed was some old retired falconer, past his actual years in the practice, that was willing to put himself on the line to defend simple constitutional rights.

    Thanks to the PLF, such sacrifices from the falconry community are no longer needed!

    Ron Kearney
    z
    I couldn't agree more.
    Eric Edwards

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
    https://pacificlegal.org/nafa-amicus...N2CdgzYZU1ui3s

    In the brief, NAFA "supports regulations designed to protect individual raptors possessed, at the expense of the sport and even falconers if necessary."

    The doc: https://pacificlegal.org/wp-content/...AFA-Amicus.pdf
    NO that was not in the brief. It was quoted from an exhibit that is a supporting reference and was misquoted by your attorney as a NAFA statement or position. IT was from A 1996 paper by Carnie and Rogers presented at a wildlife conference that articulated an "order of priorities". Birds, falconry and falconers in that order. I would encourage readers of this and related threads to read all the legal documents carefully and thoughtfully. Most of these issues revolve around conversations, social media posts, and marketing materials that are divorced from factual arguments. It concerns me that political beliefs of the petitioners are driving this more than a genuine concern for falconry, and in doing so, they are aligning with the devil. In a recent post by PLF, the lead attorney calls NAFA "a special interest group purporting to speak on behalf on falconers". Well NAFA has the largest membership rolls of any falconry member organization and AFC has what a hundred? THe fact remains that NAFA was a co-author of the falconry regs and the stipulations those authors developed had a lot of context and historical significance that folks need to appreciate. Much of this context is in the Carnie and Rogers paper posted as an exhibit in this case. Furthermore this effort to develop acceptable falconry regs in collaboration with the USFWS was the catalyst behind legalized falconry in the US. THese are straight up facts. Read the materials then decide.
    John
    Bend, OR

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    GYE
    Posts
    4,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Montucky View Post
    NO that was not in the brief. It was quoted from an exhibit that is a supporting reference and was misquoted by your attorney as a NAFA statement or position. IT was from A 1996 paper by Carnie and Rogers presented at a wildlife conference that articulated an "order of priorities". Birds, falconry and falconers in that order. I would encourage readers of this and related threads to read all the legal documents carefully and thoughtfully. Most of these issues revolve around conversations, social media posts, and marketing materials that are divorced from factual arguments. It concerns me that political beliefs of the petitioners are driving this more than a genuine concern for falconry, and in doing so, they are aligning with the devil. In a recent post by PLF, the lead attorney calls NAFA "a special interest group purporting to speak on behalf on falconers". Well NAFA has the largest membership rolls of any falconry member organization and AFC has what a hundred? THe fact remains that NAFA was a co-author of the falconry regs and the stipulations those authors developed had a lot of context and historical significance that folks need to appreciate. Much of this context is in the Carnie and Rogers paper posted as an exhibit in this case. Furthermore this effort to develop acceptable falconry regs in collaboration with the USFWS was the catalyst behind legalized falconry in the US. THese are straight up facts. Read the materials then decide.
    Thank you for bringing this up John! Something to the effect of standing on the shoulders of giants comes to mind. Kind of unreal to watch all these discussions unfold the way they do. Willful ignorance is real.
    -Jeff
    "You live more for five minutes going fast on a bike like that, than other people do in all of their life." --Marco Simoncelli

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JRedig View Post
    Thank you for bringing this up John! Something to the effect of standing on the shoulders of giants comes to mind. Kind of unreal to watch all these discussions unfold the way they do. Willful ignorance is real.
    Interesting! I read the same thing that you highlighted in bold and can appreciate it. However, the first thing that came to my mind is people are not infallible and that on this issue NAFA may have fumbled the ball at that time in history (I'm not blaming anyone). Or they were forced too compromise on issues this being on of them. I don't know as I wasn't there.

    I could be wrong but I'm wondering if the blow back on this issue from some of the falconry community has more to do with the fear of retaliation in other ways with the USFWS than anything else and that reality is masked by better sounding arguments? If that is the case, it will be a monumental task to unite the two groups of falconers in deciding the course of action (and get's tiresome to read). One group not being afraid to be more forceful and the other preferring a slower political wine and dine solution. Obviously, both groups are passionate about falconry and believe that they feel they know the best course of action.

    Maybe it's the old good cop bad cop routine going on here. Good cop being NAFA bad cop being AFC.
    Isaac

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Montucky View Post
    NO that was not in the brief. It was quoted from an exhibit that is a supporting reference and was misquoted by your attorney as a NAFA statement or position. IT was from A 1996 paper by Carnie and Rogers presented at a wildlife conference that articulated an "order of priorities". Birds, falconry and falconers in that order. I would encourage readers of this and related threads to read all the legal documents carefully and thoughtfully. Most of these issues revolve around conversations, social media posts, and marketing materials that are divorced from factual arguments. It concerns me that political beliefs of the petitioners are driving this more than a genuine concern for falconry, and in doing so, they are aligning with the devil. In a recent post by PLF, the lead attorney calls NAFA "a special interest group purporting to speak on behalf on falconers". Well NAFA has the largest membership rolls of any falconry member organization and AFC has what a hundred? THe fact remains that NAFA was a co-author of the falconry regs and the stipulations those authors developed had a lot of context and historical significance that folks need to appreciate. Much of this context is in the Carnie and Rogers paper posted as an exhibit in this case. Furthermore this effort to develop acceptable falconry regs in collaboration with the USFWS was the catalyst behind legalized falconry in the US. THese are straight up facts. Read the materials then decide.
    Quote Originally Posted by JRedig View Post
    Thank you for bringing this up John! Something to the effect of standing on the shoulders of giants comes to mind. Kind of unreal to watch all these discussions unfold the way they do. Willful ignorance is real.
    Giving credit where credit is due, Yes, Nafa was there when the original falconry regs were being drawn up in the 1970's. But that's like saying the Miami Dolphins won the Superbowl in 1973! Our social, economic and political landscape is totally different today! And yes, Nafa is the largest falconry organization. But how many of the U.S. licensed falconers actually belong to Nafa? Perhaps 1/3, if that! So, in essence, Nafa doesn’t represent the majority of U.S. falconers either! So please stop implying that they do!

    Look, I wish falconers were more united. I think all of us do. But the fact is, Nafa is a special interest group! So is the AFC. But I’ve had the feeling for several years now that many Nafa members act like it was some sort of religious cult! It’s just a club that is supposed to represent falconers and the interest of falconers.

    I first joined Nafa in 1975! I’ve made an observation over the years. There has always been the overlying shadow of a modern day caste system existing within Nafa and it seems it has been very heavily guarded at times! That was one of the main reasons the original WRTC (now AFC) was started and by one of Nafa’s original founding fathers! How paradoxical is that? People should quit acting as if Nafa is a cult and that anyone who disagrees or publicly criticizes Nafa is committing falconry sacrilege! And please quit trying to discredit, demonize and marginalize the AFC for attempting to improve falconry in the U.S.
    Last edited by wyodjm; 04-03-2019 at 11:48 AM.
    Dan McCarron
    John 3: 16

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wyodjm View Post
    Giving credit where credit is due, Yes, Nafa was there when the original falconry regs were being drawn up in the 1970's. But that's like saying the Miami Dolphins won the Superbowl in 1973! Our social, economic and political landscape is totally different today! And yes, Nafa is the largest falconry organization. But how many of the U.S. licensed falconers actually belong to Nafa? Perhaps 1/3, if that! So, in essence, Nafa doesn’t represent the majority of U.S. falconers either! So please stop implying that they do!

    Look, I wish falconers were more united. I think all of us do. But the fact is, Nafa is a special interest group! So is the AFC. But I’ve had the feeling for several years now that many Nafa members act like it was some sort of religious cult! It’s just a club that is supposed to represent falconers and the interest of falconers.

    I first joined Nafa in 1975! I’ve made an observation over the years. There has always been the overlying shadow of a modern day caste system existing within Nafa and it seems it has been very heavily guarded at times! That was one of the main reasons the original WRTC (now AFC) was started and by one of Nafa’s original founding fathers! How paradoxical is that? People should quit acting as if Nafa is a cult and that anyone who disagrees or publicly criticizes Nafa is committing falconry sacrilege! And please quit trying to discredit, demonize and marginalize the AFC for attempting to improve falconry in the U.S.
    Dan, with all due respect that is pure nonsense. NAFA is the largest falconry member organization in the world nevermind North America. This is a factual statement. NAFA doesnt claim to represent all North American falconers, but has the majority membership with no close second. AFC, as I understand it, has maybe around 100 active members. The fact that NAFA was the catalyst behind legalizing falconry is not like saying the Dolphins won the Superbowl in '73. Its recognizing the key role the organization has and is playing for falconry and falconers. Attempts at denying this is not sacrilege, its just plain factually wrong. Any objective observer would conclude that North American falconry has seen a remarkable trajectory of favorable law, regs and access to wild birds relative to almost any other country. NAFA played a key role in this, often behind the scenes and taking little credit as NAFA folks supported state clubs in their respective negotiations. My opinion is that the persistent and almost irrational critiques of NAFA are more about personal politics than falconry.
    John
    Bend, OR

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Montucky View Post
    Dan, with all due respect that is pure nonsense. NAFA is the largest falconry member organization in the world nevermind North America. This is a factual statement. NAFA doesnt claim to represent all North American falconers, but has the majority membership with no close second. AFC, as I understand it, has maybe around 100 active members. The fact that NAFA was the catalyst behind legalizing falconry is not like saying the Dolphins won the Superbowl in '73. Its recognizing the key role the organization has and is playing for falconry and falconers. Attempts at denying this is not sacrilege, its just plain factually wrong. Any objective observer would conclude that North American falconry has seen a remarkable trajectory of favorable law, regs and access to wild birds relative to almost any other country.
    Hi John. I appreciate your response. Actually I agreed with most of what you said. However, the point I was trying to make was that Nafa doesn't even come close to representing the majority of U.S. falconers. Perhaps 2/3 or more of U. S. licensed falconers aren't Nafa members! I agree that Nafa is the largest falconry organization.

    I don't have a problem with you John. We're just having a discussion. I respect you! Again, just to be clear, I said the majority, perhaps more than 2/3's of the U.S. falconry population aren't members of Nafa! That isn't nonsense!
    Dan McCarron
    John 3: 16

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Tijeras, NM
    Posts
    4,653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wyodjm View Post
    Hi John. I appreciate your response. Actually I agreed with most of what you said. However, the point I was trying to make was that Nafa doesn't even come close to representing the majority of U.S. falconers. Perhaps 2/3 or more of U. S. licensed falconers aren't Nafa members! I agree that Nafa is the largest falconry organization. That isn't nonsense! I don't have a problem with you John. We're just having a discussion. I respect you!

    Again, just to be clear, I said the majority, perhaps more than 2/3's of the U.S. falconry population aren't members of Nafa!
    Hi Dan,

    I think NAFA's membership is at 1900 out of about 4300 licensed falconers in the US.
    Paul Domski
    New Mexico, USA

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    4,298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wyodjm View Post
    But how many of the U.S. licensed falconers actually belong to Nafa? Perhaps 1/3, if that! So, in essence, Nafa doesn’t represent the majority of U.S. falconers either! So please stop implying that they do!
    I get your point but let's assume that NAFA and AFC are the two largest falconry organizations in the US. NAFA still has a huge membership compared to the 100ish members that AFC has.
    If you want to look at pure numbers, there are probably also a number of state clubs that have more members than AFC as well.

    In all honesty, how many of AFC's members are as passionate about this agenda as the most involved members?
    How many of the AFC dues paying members are truly behind the quest to slay the dragon and how many continue to send in dues just to be part of another falconry organization?
    Ron N1WT Vermont

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rkumetz View Post
    I get your point but let's assume that NAFA and AFC are the two largest falconry organizations in the US. NAFA still has a huge membership compared to the 100ish members that AFC has.
    If you want to look at pure numbers, there are probably also a number of state clubs that have more members than AFC as well.

    In all honesty, how many of AFC's members are as passionate about this agenda as the most involved members?
    How many of the AFC dues paying members are truly behind the quest to slay the dragon and how many continue to send in dues just to be part of another falconry organization?
    Hi Ron:

    The AFC has always been a small, politically motivated club with decidedly libertarian tendencies. Anyone who joins knows this, especially after the Great Conflagration of 2007-8, (to which I had a front row seat). NAFA's numbers have been declining steadily for many years. Now, perhaps some of the decline is due to ideological disagreement, but I don't think that accounts for most of it. The truth is that online engagement has replaced, to a large degree, the social function of the club. I think we've seen this in state club enrollment as well.
    Bridget

    "We have met the enemy and he is us."
    Pogo Possum

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Montucky View Post
    NO that was not in the brief. It was quoted from an exhibit that is a supporting reference and was misquoted by your attorney as a NAFA statement or position. IT was from A 1996 paper by Carnie and Rogers presented at a wildlife conference that articulated an "order of priorities". Birds, falconry and falconers in that order. I would encourage readers of this and related threads to read all the legal documents carefully and thoughtfully...
    John-
    You appear to be saying that the PLF attorney's are being disingenuous by using that quote. I'm no legal expert, and I am not well-versed in reading legal documents, but from what I see, the quote *is* in the body of the brief itself, (page 11, lines 5-9, before the exhibits) and is cited accordingly. The quote, if read in the context of the paragraph in which it appears, bolsters the assertions of the previous sentences. Why would NAFA include the quote if it did not reflect or support their position? That's the whole point of the brief, is it not? To lay out assertions and provide quotes and documents to support those assertions?
    Bridget

    "We have met the enemy and he is us."
    Pogo Possum

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
    John-
    You appear to be saying that the PLF attorney's are being disingenuous by using that quote. I'm no legal expert, and I am not well-versed in reading legal documents, but from what I see, the quote *is* in the body of the brief itself, (page 11, lines 5-9, before the exhibits) and is cited accordingly. The quote, if read in the context of the paragraph in which it appears, bolsters the assertions of the previous sentences. Why would NAFA include the quote if it did not reflect or support their position? That's the whole point of the brief, is it not? To lay out assertions and provide quotes and documents to support those assertions?
    It was a quote and referred to in a reference with a exhibit. The point is that your attorney represented it in a disingenuous way as a NAFA position statement when it was really a quote from an outside document that was in fact paraphrasing NAFA's "order of priorities" which not as slanted as you are suggesting.
    John
    Bend, OR

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Montucky View Post
    NO that was not in the brief. It was quoted from an exhibit that is a supporting reference and was misquoted by your attorney as a NAFA statement or position. IT was from A 1996 paper by Carnie and Rogers presented at a wildlife conference that articulated an "order of priorities". Birds, falconry and falconers in that order. I would encourage readers of this and related threads to read all the legal documents carefully and thoughtfully. Most of these issues revolve around conversations, social media posts, and marketing materials that are divorced from factual arguments. It concerns me that political beliefs of the petitioners are driving this more than a genuine concern for falconry, and in doing so, they are aligning with the devil. In a recent post by PLF, the lead attorney calls NAFA "a special interest group purporting to speak on behalf on falconers". Well NAFA has the largest membership rolls of any falconry member organization and AFC has what a hundred? THe fact remains that NAFA was a co-author of the falconry regs and the stipulations those authors developed had a lot of context and historical significance that folks need to appreciate. Much of this context is in the Carnie and Rogers paper posted as an exhibit in this case. Furthermore this effort to develop acceptable falconry regs in collaboration with the USFWS was the catalyst behind legalized falconry in the US. THese are straight up facts. Read the materials then decide.
    Thanks for pointing this out, John.

    Bill Boni

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    542

    Default


    This is from NAFA's site.

    https://www.n-a-f-a.com/page/Ethics


    I.
    Private Ownership of Raptors
    NAFA is a strong supporter of private ownership rights of captive bred falconry raptors, within the overall meanings of this policy.From a practical perspective however, NAFA’s position is that the well-being of raptors is a higher priority than the rights of the falconer.Falconers do not intentionally place their own interests above the well-being of their birds.Therefore, NAFA supports the current legal frameworks which allow only duly licensed persons to possess raptors for any purpose.
    Chi M.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frigginchi View Post

    This is from NAFA's site.

    https://www.n-a-f-a.com/page/Ethics


    I.
    Private Ownership of Raptors
    NAFA is a strong supporter of private ownership rights of captive bred falconry raptors, within the overall meanings of this policy.From a practical perspective however, NAFA’s position is that the well-being of raptors is a higher priority than the rights of the falconer.Falconers do not intentionally place their own interests above the well-being of their birds.Therefore, NAFA supports the current legal frameworks which allow only duly licensed persons to possess raptors for any purpose.
    Herein lies the issue (anyone please correct me if I'm wrong), some of the falconry community believes we need to sacrifice our simple constitutional rights to ensure the well being of the birds we care for and others do not (read my previous post do they? or are the afraid from potential repercussions of pushing this issue?). I'm sure those in the camp that believe we don't need to give up a simple constitutional right would not be opposed to coming up with another avenue to ensure that the well being of raptors used in falconry is being considered.
    Isaac

  30. #30
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    527

    Default

    I don't question whether or not the current inspection rules were necessary or not to legalize falconry back in the 70's, I wasn't there and I may very well have agreed with them at the time.

    But, you can only hold onto history for so long. Falconers, and especially falconry organizations, should always strive to make things better for the sport, the birds and it's practitioners.
    Eric Edwards

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Tijeras, NM
    Posts
    4,653

    Default

    So what are the possible outcomes if the PLF wins in California and the courts rule these falconry inspections are illegal? I would hazard a guess that either falconry would become illegal in CA since the CA regs would no longer comply with the federal regs, or CA would make inspections mandatory and to offset the additional manpower cost of doing all of these inspections they would increase the falconry permit fee to something outrageous like $500 per year. Anyone have any ideas?
    Paul Domski
    New Mexico, USA

  32. #32
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    527

    Default

    You ensure the well being of falconry raptors the same way you ensure the wellbeing of dogs, cats, horses, parrots, etc.
    Eric Edwards

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    NM
    Posts
    1,774

    Default

    This lawsuit threatens the future of legal wild raptor take for falconry. Period. NAFA did a great job addressing that with the amicus curiae -the extent to which raptors held under a falconry permit may be used in commercial and other activities. The NAFA brief basically says that falconry is falconry, ultimately a hunting sport – not a smorgasbord of activities including using raptors in commercials and movies, doing hawk walks/bird shows/renaissance fairs for profit….and all the other horse shit you see passed off as “falconry” in Europe, for example.

    The AFC members on this forum claim infringement of free speech without stating truthfully that what that claim is really about is that Scott Timmons (and others) want to use raptors held on falconry permits to make money in the film/advertising industry and other commercial pursuits. Are you all going to own up to that? How does that constitute falconry?

    If people want to do that – have at it. But fight for your own set of regulations to govern those activities. Those activities are not falconry and are not under the purview of a falconry permit!

    AFC claims to be interested in preserving wild raptor take…that must be a joke considering the implications of this lawsuit. The fact is that AFC is bastardizing the definition of falconry (and therefore what activities are covered under a falconry permit).

    The proof is in the pudding:

    NAFA:
    “Falconry is the taking [of] wild quarry in its natural state with a trained raptor.” And “.....falconry does not include the keeping of birds of prey as pets or prestige items, for captive-breeding purposes, for rehabilitation or education purposes, for shows, renaissance fairs and the like, or for purely scientific purposes.”

    AFC:
    "Falconry is the art of housing, tending, training, flying, and hunting with birds of prey, such as falcons, hawks, and eagles."

    No person should have their property searched without a warrant – that is a totally separate issue. However, it is not an issue that is worth losing wild take over. And that is not an issue that requires a new definition of what falconry is.
    Tanner

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanner View Post
    This lawsuit threatens the future of legal wild raptor take for falconry. Period. NAFA did a great job addressing that with the amicus curiae -the extent to which raptors held under a falconry permit may be used in commercial and other activities. The NAFA brief basically says that falconry is falconry, ultimately a hunting sport – not a smorgasbord of activities including using raptors in commercials and movies, doing hawk walks/bird shows/renaissance fairs for profit….and all the other horse shit you see passed off as “falconry” in Europe, for example.

    The AFC members on this forum claim infringement of free speech without stating truthfully that what that claim is really about is that Scott Timmons (and others) want to use raptors held on falconry permits to make money in the film/advertising industry and other commercial pursuits. Are you all going to own up to that? How does that constitute falconry?

    If people want to do that – have at it. But fight for your own set of regulations to govern those activities. Those activities are not falconry and are not under the purview of a falconry permit!

    AFC claims to be interested in preserving wild raptor take…that must be a joke considering the implications of this lawsuit. The fact is that AFC is bastardizing the definition of falconry (and therefore what activities are covered under a falconry permit).

    The proof is in the pudding:

    NAFA:
    “Falconry is the taking [of] wild quarry in its natural state with a trained raptor.” And “.....falconry does not include the keeping of birds of prey as pets or prestige items, for captive-breeding purposes, for rehabilitation or education purposes, for shows, renaissance fairs and the like, or for purely scientific purposes.”

    AFC:
    "Falconry is the art of housing, tending, training, flying, and hunting with birds of prey, such as falcons, hawks, and eagles."

    No person should have their property searched without a warrant – that is a totally separate issue. However, it is not an issue that is worth losing wild take over. And that is not an issue that requires a new definition of what falconry is.
    thanks Tanner. This is an important issue and I appreciate this perspective. The fact is this is a divide between the true interests of falconry, and those with other financial and political agendas. The politics behind the PLF and the AFC has its roots in the Wise Use Movement and other related anti-environmental movements that seek to challenge agency oversight over natural resources, and strengthen private control. That is why the PLF is doing this for free, and I personally dont appreciate the involvement of this ideological group and their meddling in falconry's future. Falconers have varying personal political beliefs, and some are just not going to see the light on this issue. The only thing we can hope is most of the readers here absorb the arguments and facts, research the PLF and their antagonistic relationship with wildlife conservation, and come to their own conclusion about what is best for falconry.
    John
    Bend, OR

  35. #35
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    527

    Default

    Great news, none of our opinions really matter, the decision will be in the hands of the judge. We can debate this all day for entertainment but it won't be decided by popular opinion. I anxiously await the outcome.
    Eric Edwards

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •