But wait, there's more

[wyodjm]

Hi Paul. I had major formatting issues with my last post! My sentences were not in order!! I fixed them!

Anyway, that number of actual dues paying Nafa members seems very high to me! Thanks Paul.

[ericedw]

Paul, if you are trying to say that the difference between a right and a privilege is that privlages can be take away if you break the rules then there are no "rights" in this country. Anything can be taken away from you if you break the law (or rules), your license, your kids, your house, your freedom and even your life in some states.
I have the right to practice falconry just like anything else I want to do, no one is sitting on a throne giving out privileges to those they choose.

[wyodjm]

Were talking to the sovereign citizen crowd here Paul https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7IdvKI3wX8

Hi John. Why did you have to be insulting? We're just falconers!

[Peregrinus]

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?

[rkumetz]

Paul, if you are trying to say that the difference between a right and a privilege is that privlages can be take away if you break the rules then there are no "rights" in this country. Anything can be taken away from you if you break the law (or rules), your license, your kids, your house, your freedom and even your life in some states.
I have the right to practice falconry just like anything else I want to do, no one is sitting on a thrown giving out privileges to those they choose.

Hi Eric,
I sometimes envy the level at which you practice falconry so I say the following with the utmost respect. What you are describing goes beyond constitutional rights and borders upon anarchy.
Fortunately or unfortunately (and I agree that often the latter is the case) the majority get to dictate what is and is not acceptable. They make the rules.

Our court system no longer relies on a strict interpretation of the constitution and the perception of the intentions of the founding fathers. Activist judges interpret what is best for all of us.
Just look at the patriot act and the current direction that the debate about 2nd amendment rights is taken and it is obvious that the majority of our fellow Americans ARE in fact willing to give up
freedom for what they perceive as security. In most cases that security is simply not having to be involved with anything themselves. The more of a nanny the state is the better for them.
Congress is no longer interested in the constitution or in the compromise that is supposed to keep our government reasonably well oiled so when they have a chance they appoint judges that
are so far to the left or to the right that they are lucky the word isn't flat or they would fall off.

As a very small minority of the population which is at odds with much larger animal rights groups full of nuts and those who believe that fieldsports range from antiquated and unnecessary to unethical or immoral we need to keep sight of the fact that litigation in a federal court may improve our lot or it may attract attention that will end up screwing us in the long haul. I will concede that CA and some other states have abused their power but those issues could have been addressed without involving USFWS which has largely stepped out of the falconry biz.

Here is my summarized beef with this whole AFC action: AFC has embarked on a mission to have PLF take legal action in a federal court on behalf of falconers. All falconers are along for the ride now
whether they signed up or not. Our falconry may be affected so we are party to this litigation. I have asked some legitimate questions about the litigation that has been undertaken on my behalf and
I have been accused of not caring about my constitutional rights, inferred to be ignorant, and accused of hijacking threads and being a troll. What I have NOT received is any sort of answers to my
my question as a plaintiff in this action who was not given any choice as to whether or not I participated.

[Saluqi]

Paul, if you are trying to say that the difference between a right and a privilege is that privlages can be take away if you break the rules then there are no "rights" in this country. Anything can be taken away from you if you break the law (or rules), your license, your kids, your house, your freedom and even your life in some states.
I have the right to practice falconry just like anything else I want to do, no one is sitting on a throne giving out privileges to those they choose.

That's correct, falconry is a privilege because to do it legally you need to have a permit, just like driving.

Wikipedia:

A privilege is a certain entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. ... By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth.

[Peregrinus]

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.

[Montucky]

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.

[Peregrinus]

That's correct, falconry is a privilege because to do it legally you need to have a permit, just like driving.

Wikipedia:

A privilege is a certain entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. ... By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth.

Privilege comes from the Latin privus lege, or, private law. We don't have a system of private law in the U.S. A revolution was fought over it; the distinction is not small. Just because rights are legally restricted, (i.e. free speech is a right but you can't yell 'fire' etc.) does not make it less of a right. Just because you have to prove that you're not a danger to others on the road doesn't make driving a privilege. You have the right to own property, but that doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it. When we get into the mindset that the government can and should bestow privilege, in we're in big trouble.

[ericedw]

Here is my summarized beef with this whole AFC action: AFC has embarked on a mission to have PLF take legal action in a federal court on behalf of falconers. All falconers are along for the ride now
whether they signed up or not. Our falconry may be affected so we are party to this litigation. I have asked some legitimate questions about the litigation that has been undertaken on my behalf and
I have been accused of not caring about my constitutional rights, inferred to be ignorant, and accused of hijacking threads and being a troll. What I have NOT received is any sort of answers to my
my question as a plaintiff in this action who was not given any choice as to whether or not I participated.

No organization or individual can ever represent the beliefs and will of every licensed falconer in the country. It has never worked that way, if we're going to act only when we all give unanimous consent then nothing would ever get done. And yes, some actions will effect everyone one way or the other. But, it's any one of our right to stand up and defend ourselves and our rights. I wish them luck and hope there is a positive outcome for all falconers.

[haggardgyr]

Privilege comes from the Latin privus lege, or, private law. We don't have a system of private law in the U.S. A revolution was fought over it; the distinction is not small. Just because rights are legally restricted, (i.e. free speech is a right but you can't yell 'fire' etc.) does not make it less of a right. Just because you have to prove that you're not a danger to others on the road doesn't make driving a privilege. You have the right to own property, but that doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it. When we get into the mindset that the government can and should bestow privilege, in we're in big trouble.

Man's rights come from God, Nature, or Nature's God....take your pick. Government does not create rights, nor can it take them away. A moral government is one that recognizes and insures a defense of rights.

Ron Kearney

[Saluqi]

Privilege comes from the Latin privus lege, or, private law. We don't have a system of private law in the U.S. A revolution was fought over it; the distinction is not small. Just because rights are legally restricted, (i.e. free speech is a right but you can't yell 'fire' etc.) does not make it less of a right. Just because you have to prove that you're not a danger to others on the road doesn't make driving a privilege. You have the right to own property, but that doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it. When we get into the mindset that the government can and should bestow privilege, in we're in big trouble.

Exactly, and this cuts directly to the heart of the matter, the AFC sees falconry as a God given right, and the US government sees it as a privilege which can only be legally practiced by those who hold a permit. The AFC seeks to abolish all falconry regulation with the exception of those that say you can not harm anyone in the practice of falconry. The effect such deregulation would be the immediate loss of wild take in the United States of America.

I stand by what I have said in the past many times. If an individual wants to practice falconry without any regulations, then have at it. File 3-186a forms and say that your birds have died, and do not renew your state permit. Go about your falconry business free of regulation, trap whatever birds you want to fly, breed them, sell them to like minded folks, hunt whenever and whatever species you chose, and keep your fat mouths shut. It's very simple, and very libertarian.

[rkumetz]

Man's rights come from God, Nature, or Nature's God....take your pick. Government does not create rights, nor can it take them away. A moral government is one that recognizes and insures a defense of rights.
Ron Kearney

So now that you are here on NAFEX to do your own bidding, exactly how do the falconry regulations interfere with my 1st amendment rights? If I want to go to a boy scout troop and talk about falconry with a bird on my fist I am able to do so and not only that, they can reimburse me for my gas. Getting paid to do presentations is not even remotely within the scope of a falconry permit. More importantly if you wish to use birds for presentations and get paid you can simply get an educational permit for about $100 per year. The same price you paid for the special purpose abatement permit that you use to get paid to use your birds to do abatement. It is called the cost of doing business. If you are not going to make at least $100 doing those commercial activities then you might want to simply ask for gas money anyway.

I am really tired of hearing the "you can't tell me what to do" crowd telling me that I am ignoring my rights being trampled so I am either irresponsible or ignorant.
There are never any details forthcoming.

Like for example, why has AFC / PLF chosen to go to federal court with plaintiffs who just imagine that their rights might be violated when the video poster boy was allegedly invaded by armed storm troopers
and another falconer wet herself because she was not allowed to leave the room to prevent her from flushing her 3-186's. Or might it be that those people are either not interested in participating
or oooh wait... maybe they are not as innocent as the PLF would have you believe? Maybe the judge would have actually issued a warrant anyway?

Let's ditch the smoke and mirrors show. We are not as ignorant or apathetic about our rights as these promotional threads would lead people to believe.

[dboyrollz76]

So now that you are here on NAFEX to do your own bidding, exactly how do the falconry regulations interfere with my 1st amendment rights? If I want to go to a boy scout troop and talk about falconry with a bird on my fist I am able to do so and not only that, they can reimburse me for my gas. Getting paid to do presentations is not even remotely within the scope of a falconry permit. More importantly if you wish to use birds for presentations and get paid you can simply get an educational permit for about $100 per year. The same price you paid for the special purpose abatement permit that you use to get paid to use your birds to do abatement. It is called the cost of doing business. If you are not going to make at least $100 doing those commercial activities then you might want to simply ask for gas money anyway.

I am really tired of hearing the "you can't tell me what to do" crowd telling me that I am ignoring my rights being trampled so I am either irresponsible or ignorant.
There are never any details forthcoming.

Like for example, why has AFC / PLF chosen to go to federal court with plaintiffs who just imagine that their rights might be violated when the video poster boy was allegedly invaded by armed storm troopers
and another falconer wet herself because she was not allowed to leave the room to prevent her from flushing her 3-186's. Or might it be that those people are either not interested in participating
or oooh wait... maybe they are not as innocent as the PLF would have you believe? Maybe the judge would have actually issued a warrant anyway?

Let's ditch the smoke and mirrors show. We are not as ignorant or apathetic about our rights as these promotional threads would lead people to believe.

[ericedw]

If I want to go to a boy scout troop and talk about falconry with a bird on my fist I am able to do so and not only that, they can reimburse me for my gas.

I'm not arguing whether it violates my 1st amendment rights or not, I'm not a lawyer or more importantly a judge, but in FL this isn't true. Part of the issue here is we all operate under slightly different rules in our particular state. In FL I am not allowed to take my bird to a school, boy scout troop or anywhere without a separate "Wildlife Exhibition" permit. Whether I'm getting paid or doing it for free. I have to buy a $50 permit. I don't know CA laws either. I know the federal rules allow it but that doesn't matter if the state doesn't.

[dboyrollz76]

Man's rights come from God, Nature, or Nature's God....take your pick. Government does not create rights, nor can it take them away. A moral government is one that recognizes and insures a defense of rights.

Ron Kearney

This is funny, But due to the terms of nafex I can’t address it from a religious point. But I can say we are capable of knowledge and love to make educated decisions, to be a lawful and just people. To obey the laws of the land. If you obey the laws of the land, then you should have no worries or fears of what may come crashing through the door.

[frigginchi]

Assuming those that are doing the crashing have your same beliefs. lol

This is funny, But due to the terms of nafex I can’t address it from a religious point. But I can say we are capable of knowledge and love to make educated decisions, to be a lawful and just people. To obey the laws of the land. If you obey the laws of the land, then you should have no worries or fears of what may come crashing through the door.

[rkumetz]

I'm not arguing whether it violates my 1st amendment rights or not, I'm not a lawyer or more importantly a judge, but in FL this isn't true. Part of the issue here is we all operate under slightly different rules in our particular state. In FL I am not allowed to take my bird to a school, boy scout troop or anywhere without a separate "Wildlife Exhibition" permit. Whether I'm getting paid or doing it for free. I have to buy a $50 permit. I don't know CA laws either. I know the federal rules allow it but that doesn't matter if the state doesn't.

As it turns out, I very recently had some discussions with a law professor who seems to differ with PLF on the matter.
Now you and I know that lawyers fatten their retirement accounts by arguing things until the cow comes home so that in itself is not surprising.
It is really too bad that my daughter wasn't being paid to disagree when she was a teenager because that would have paid for college.

The 1st amendment issue hinges upon whether or not it is your free speech that is being squashed. In this case, it is not. What is not permitted is the use of your bird held on a falconry permit which
does not (in your state) allow you to use that bird for purposes other than falconry. You can stand behind a podium, on a soap box or dangle from a trapeze by your knees and TALK about falconry
if you don't bring your bird.

Of course in a practical sense your state is shooting itself in the foot because any time they can get someone to go out and get the general population enthusiastic
about wildlife it is in their own best interest. I disagree with their policy but it is reaching to say that it infringes upon your 1st amendment rights.

[rkumetz]

Assuming those that are doing the crashing have your same beliefs. lol

I don't mean this in a disrespectful way but it seems that your state seems to have a disproportionate number of issues with this whole armed storm troopers inspecting
things issue. Given that they pay for commercials that portray y'all as laid back dudes with no worries in the world that seems sort of odd.

Is there some sort of attitude prevalent in CA government which causes this? Is it an issue outside of falconry?

Given the absurd disclaimers about carcinogenic substances that everyone has to use to sell any sort of product in CA I am given to believe that it can't
be just falconry.

You seem to be pretty well informed and a thoughtful sort of fellow so I would appreciate you sharing your thoughts as a CA resident.

[dboyrollz76]

California is beautiful country, I loved it. But there are so many people. And law enforcement is crazy at best, if you fit the profile or somewhat do. You’ll have issues and don’t get on their bad side make them mad. You’ll probably end up as a cold case, in some parts. You, want to talk about over regulated. California’s regulations have regulations to regulate the regulations to regulate.
The thing that really turned me off about California is paying a dollar at McDonald’s to use the bathroom. I mean really, coin vended bathroom use. That shit should be unconstitutional. Eye balls floating while I’m behind 50 people in line to get quarters for the bathroom.

[rkumetz]

The thing that really turned me off about California is paying a dollar at McDonald’s to use the bathroom. I mean really, coin vended bathroom use. That shit should be unconstitutional.

Pun intended? You do realize how funny that is, right?

[dboyrollz76]

Pun intended? You do realize how funny that is, right?

Yes.

[SkyRider]

I have tried to read as many sources on this topic as I can. And the more I have read, the less sure I am. This leads me to believe there is no easy answer, which is apparent from the very passionate arguments (both with very good points) coming from each side.

I will say this... as someone “on the fence” who is trying to decide what he feels is best for falconry as a whole... the publications the PLF have come out with feel more like attacks and smear campaigns to me. They seem as though they are designed to enrage me against the way things currently are and make me feel ashamed if I’m not.

That doesn’t sit well with me. Appeal to me with logic and reason. Don’t try to rally me with the troops and shame those who don’t get in line. That will turn me against your cause (I am not saying this is the intent of the PLF, merely my current perception).

I will continue to watch, read, and learn as much as I possibly can. I may never make a decision one way or another. But initially, I’m disappointed in the public approach taken by the PLF.

[ericedw]

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.

[rkumetz]

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.

Regardless of outcome or even what I think about AFC & PLF I find it encouraging that so many NAFEX members are willing to think about it and form an opinion. I am ok with people that disagree with me as long as they have some intelligent argument. Apathy I cannot tolerate.

[rkumetz]

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.

Isn't this being heard by what is arguably the most liberal federal court in the country? how do you suspect that leaning will affect the ruling?
We all know that few federal judges are appointed who do not have an activist bent.

[MrBill]

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

[frigginchi]

This just happened. https://www.yahoo.com/news/sales-soa...062323757.html

Isn't this being heard by what is arguably the most liberal federal court in the country? how do you suspect that leaning will affect the ruling?
We all know that few federal judges are appointed who do not have an activist bent.

[JRedig]

So I have heard almost the entirety of this PLF lawsuit was dismissed recently. I don't see any news stories, anyone have any updates?