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.Originally Posted by Peregrinus
Reply With Quote