Just for fun

[MrBill]

What do I think? I ran for NAFA Mtn director in 2010, I'm sure a couple of folks who were on NAFEX back then might remember, Eric Tabb ran against me, I ran partly because of all the shit and shenanigans I heard about the internal workings of NAFA, so I figured what better way to find out then to get on the board. Be careful what you ask for, because you might get it, so I ended winning, with my term starting on January 1st 2011. At the time Larry Dickerson was president, Bob Welle VP, treasurer April Davenport-Rice, all who started their work with NAFA in January of 2010. I was replacing Bruce Haak as Mtn Director, who had served three terms (6 yrs), big shoes to fill. I credit Larry, Bob, and April for being top professionals, the strides that were made under their watch in terms of fixing the NAFA cash flow and budget, and bringing NAFA into the 21st century with a web presence and communication capabilities were nothing short of revolutionary for an organization that was behind the times.

What did I find in those board meetings? Were there hidden agendas and confrontational issues where board members were stifled from raising words of objection, graft and underhandedness? Unfortunately not, there was no intrigue, nothing, zero, zilch, nada. It was all business, and everyone and anyone could speak their mind. The NAFA board meets every third month, once in person at the NAFA meet in November, then again in January, March, June, and September, so 5 board meeting per year. I think the shortest meeting that I participated in was around 1.5 hours, the longest maybe 2.5 hours. Larry was a strict parliamentarian, so anyone who has ever served on a board knows the advantage of being able to stick to Robert's Rules, otherwise things descend into chaos very quickly.

What did we talk about at those meetings? Early on mostly the state by state adoption of the new federal regs. Dave Eslicker was spearheading this effort and interfaced with all 49 states clubs, or falconers for states without clubs, and with the states G&F dept when requested, or necessary. If you don't think this was a major effort by NAFA you are an idiot, NAFA was there at every step, from working with the USFWS to author the new regs in 2008 with George Allen to final state by state implementation by the December 31st 2012 deadline.

What else? I found out that when you serve on a board that there is a lot of organizational housekeeping chores, things like budgets, meet planning, publications, personnel issues, and member issues. It's all kind of blur to me now, if anyone is really interested I could go through each and every agenda over the 3 1/2 terms, 7 years, that I served and provide some the highlights, but I'm not going to do that this morning.

What did I take away from my time as director? I found out that my initial reasons for running for director were unfounded, there was no overarching hidden agenda, or back room politicking, all I witnessed after 7 years were people who were critically aware that the falconry community needed NAFA to be a leader, a constant desire to meet member expectations given the limitations of a volunteer organization. I found that falconers seemed to believe that NAFA has "operators standing by" to take calls on every bit of falconry minutia that crosses their mind. I can't count the number of times I heard "Why doesn't NAFA _____?" Fill in the blank. My stock reply was always, "Write a proposal and I’ll submit it to the board, and if it's approved, then you will have to step up and do the work." NAFA is a volunteer organization run by volunteers, if you want something to get done you had better be prepared to contribute your time and effort. People seemed to confuse the meanings of the words complain and contribute, cuz complainin’ ain’t contributin’! Very few people took me up on my offer.

Does NAFA have shortcomings? You bet. Volunteer organizations are not efficient, that's my opinion based on observing NAFA. Since those who serve don't get paid, nearly everything else gets attention before dealing with NAFA issues. That’s just life, NAFA will always be a volunteer organization. I wasn’t and am still not happy with most of the directors who I don’t think communicate well with their directorate. During my time as director I sent out emails to the Mtn directorate after every board meeting informing folks on what happened, and how I voted, I was the exception and not the rule, most directors are very out of touch with their directorate, it frustrated the shit out of me, and still does. Communication, or the lack thereof, is the biggest issue in every relationship, whether it’s with your spouse, or an organization and a member.

NAFA and the big picture? All of the mudslinging at NAFA that certain falconers seem to enjoy, most of those are personal grudges, or misinformation, or just weird ass people. Without NAFA there would be no falconry in this country period. In the words of Neil Degrasse Tyson “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it”, same goes for NAFA, NAFA is North American falconry whether or not you believe in it.

There you have it, I could go on and on, but I don't want to bore you any more.

Hey, Paul, you are certainly not boring me, for one. I appreciate you taking the time to share your insights based upon first-hand experience at the helm. And, I totally agree with your comments regarding Larry Dickerson. He was an exceptional president (IMO). I certainly agree that there is an obvious lack of communication between the directors and their constituents, which is too damn bad. And, I remember your director's reports that you sent out. Thanks, and just know that people like myself were appreciative of your efforts. There was one other director during your tenure that was pretty good about doing this reporting also. I forget who he was now. But, I haven't seen a report like yours since.

Bill Boni

[goshawkr]

Well, I certainly would not want you to say the "wrong" thing, Dan; that would not fit your image :-)

Dan was not speaking for himself, it was polite gentlemanly advice. Referring to what you had said to him

Also, it wasn't that long ago that you were complaining and whining about NAFA's handling of the eagle situation to the point of resigning from the club (having since rejoined).

This is certainly not an entirely inaccurate description of events, but it is rather interestingly lacking in detail. And I believe entirely disrespectful in how it is presented.

Dan was the active core of the NAFA eagle committee. This was after Dan had gotten falconry trapping of golden eagles for falconry normalized in this country through decades of astute political navigating. Not entirely by himself, but he was the central core to it and did far more work than anyone else and with no help from NAFA. At one point, it was as simple as applying for a non resident take permit from Wyoming and showing up to trap during the depredation season in designated depredation areas. He does not toot his own blower about that, but that is how it happened.

There was guy who liked to think of himself as an eagle falconer and liked to think he was a significant contributor to eagle falconry that leveraged Dan off the eagle committee and got himself installed as the chair of the eagle committee instead, and under the watch of this guy eagle falconry trapping was shut down without any effort at all to counter it. Those are the facts that you were missing. You may call it whining, but if that had happened to me, I would never say a positive thing about NAFA again. If I had invested that much time and energy into something only to have it junked, well.... I am not as graceful about Dan over such things. And in point of fact, this incident was one of the reasons why I left NAFA under protest for almost a decade. It was not the main reason, but it went on the list.

Still, I never have seen Dan "whine" about this. I have seen him calling NAFA to task about the completely inadequate way they handled the eagle take issue, but even that was done with respect.

NAFA completely utterly and undeniably dropped the ball on protecting eagle falconry and the trapping of eagles in the last ~15 years. Saying anything different is quite simply just engaging in anal tongue waggling. It certainly is unfair to say that NAFA would have been able to keep eagle trapping open. We dont know if that would have been possible because they did absolutely nothing significant to try. So while I cannot actually blame NAFA for take being closed, and I do not, I can and do blame them for sitting on their thumbs and watching it happen. After take was closed, NAFA did very little in terms of effective work to get it reopened. I was watching the board minutes when I rejoined NAFA for a while after one of the board members publicly proclaimed to make eagle take an issue - but I dont recall one word showing up in board minutes related to eagle take.

I agree with you and John that NAFA has done some great things in the the past. And I agree that gratitude is deserved on the part of NAFA for that. It is not accurate to say that without NAFA there would be no falconry, because we really do not know. That alternate history never occured. NAFA was there, and got it done. At any rate, I cannot think of any examples more recent than Operation Falcon where I would make the statement taht NAFA did a great job. I do not think its completely fair to descend into saying "...what has NAFA done for me lately..." However, I also have a hard time saying NAFA is still relevant. I have been called on the carpet about that statement by a previous DAL in NAFA and even a previous president who threw a project in my lap and said "...ok mr, put your tough talk into action..." and I will admit that despite my eager enthusiasm for the project, I dropped it on the floor. I admit that I own some guilt at not helping make NAFA more relevant.

A key example of that - we have a species that was completely delisted more than 20 years that has special quota rules and special flyway oversight over take. NAFA did stage a mild protest at the outset for that, but it was pretty ineffective. When the US FWS decided to play hardball over the peregrine take at delisting, NAFA just went and sat on the proverbial bench. And the work accomplished since then has been relatively light weight.

There has been a tiny amount of progress on getting the eagle take re-opened. And maybe that will build to something significant. The current state is nothing to be crowing about, especially given what was lost. But it might get there, and I am hopeful it will. NAFA deserves some credit for that. As far as I am aware, all the activities that led to this tiny re-opening of eagle take were undertaken by NAFA members. It was a monumentus undertaking, and real credit is due to the progress made so far. When I say tiny amount of progress, I know that this involved lots and lots of effort to even get that far.

One very interesting, and nefarious, link to my prior comment is that the US FWS is rumored to think that the flyway council should have some say on the newly re implemented eagle take. Accepting that sets a very dangerous precedent. The flyway councils are there to equitably regulate a take that has serious potential to impact the resource and make sure it is allocated fairly. On the whole, its a good process for species that seriously could be impacted by take. But there is absolutely no science based justification to use that model to regulate falconry take of eagles or peregrines or any other raptor. It just adds unnecessary red tape. And really bodes the question - what is next? Harris' hawks? Goshawks? Kestrels? The precedent could very easily slip to include all falconry raptors. Do we really need to have that much bureaucracy to make sure that a few apprentices and squirrel hawks do not decimate redtails?

[sharptail]

g. I will begin by saying that during and after Operation Falcon, NAFA was instrumental representing falconry at the federal level. In the aftermath of this so-called operation, the USFWS was prepared to put a real damper on the practice of falconry in the United States through new regs,

Bill Boni [/COLOR]

What I was told by a past Director whom was serving at the time and dealing with the aftermath, was that Operation Falcon was a premeditated attempt by USFWS and National Audubon to outlaw falconry in the U.S. entirely. Is it any wonder that older falconers whom remember these good old days have trust issues and worse with not just the Federal level but also those at the state level whom have shown similar animus. It is not just falconers that are responsible for the ill will. NAFA's surrender on some issues in the 'new falconry regulations' has not helped their reputation or their membership numbers. I doubt I will ever be a member again.

One thing that NAFA did right was to appoint a new President, that was outside of the 'old guard'. Someone without a long history, that some view as on the wrong side of things.

[wyodjm]

What I was told by a past Director whom was serving at the time and dealing with the aftermath, was that Operation Falcon was a premeditated attempt by USFWS and National Audubon to outlaw falconry in the U.S. entirely. Is it any wonder that older falconers whom remember these good old days have trust issues and worse with not just the Federal level but also those at the state level whom have shown similar animus. It is not just falconers that are responsible for the ill will. NAFA's surrender on some issues in the 'new falconry regulations' has not helped their reputation or their membership numbers. I doubt I will ever be a member again.

One thing that NAFA did right was to appoint a new President, that was outside of the 'old guard'. Someone without a long history, that some view as on the wrong side of things.

Many people believe Operation Falcon was also an attempt on the part of the USFWS to shut down the Peregrine Fund.

A year after Operation Falcon, (1985) I had a haggard female Golden Eagle on a rehab permit. She was blind in one eye. I had her for a year and had her stooping the lure like a Peregrine while slope soaring her. A week before I was going to release her back to the wild, the USFWS called me and ordered me to ship the eagle to Jeff McPartlin!

The USFWS even sent me a prepaid crate to my door to put the eagle in with a shipping label already on it! All I was to do was drive the eagle to our local airport in Rock Springs! They actually told me not to release the eagle!

I mailed their worthless federal rehab permit back to them and told them to cancel it! I still have the paperwork!

[wyodjm]

After making my last post, I realized I had left some things out concerning the rehab eagle the feds made me send McPartlin. It was a long time ago and I moved on without really skipping a beat!

But I want to say that during the time I was working to get passage eagle take opened in the 1990's, Nafa was very supportive of my efforts. Frank Bond was a personal advisor who helped me navigate the political and legal maze I was constantly finding myself in. And he believed in me and what I was doing! That was very important! Nafa Presidents Ken Felix and Tim Kimmel were also very supportive of my efforts. I will always be grateful to them for that. Tim and I became very good friends through that ordeal.

[MrBill]

Dan was not speaking for himself, it was polite gentlemanly advice. Referring to what you had said to him



This is certainly not an entirely inaccurate description of events, but it is rather interestingly lacking in detail. And I believe entirely disrespectful in how it is presented.

Dan was the active core of the NAFA eagle committee. This was after Dan had gotten falconry trapping of golden eagles for falconry normalized in this country through decades of astute political navigating. Not entirely by himself, but he was the central core to it and did far more work than anyone else and with no help from NAFA. At one point, it was as simple as applying for a non resident take permit from Wyoming and showing up to trap during the depredation season in designated depredation areas. He does not toot his own blower about that, but that is how it happened.

There was guy who liked to think of himself as an eagle falconer and liked to think he was a significant contributor to eagle falconry that leveraged Dan off the eagle committee and got himself installed as the chair of the eagle committee instead, and under the watch of this guy eagle falconry trapping was shut down without any effort at all to counter it. Those are the facts that you were missing. You may call it whining, but if that had happened to me, I would never say a positive thing about NAFA again. If I had invested that much time and energy into something only to have it junked, well.... I am not as graceful about Dan over such things. And in point of fact, this incident was one of the reasons why I left NAFA under protest for almost a decade. It was not the main reason, but it went on the list.

Still, I never have seen Dan "whine" about this. I have seen him calling NAFA to task about the completely inadequate way they handled the eagle take issue, but even that was done with respect.

NAFA completely utterly and undeniably dropped the ball on protecting eagle falconry and the trapping of eagles in the last ~15 years. Saying anything different is quite simply just engaging in anal tongue waggling. It certainly is unfair to say that NAFA would have been able to keep eagle trapping open. We dont know if that would have been possible because they did absolutely nothing significant to try. So while I cannot actually blame NAFA for take being closed, and I do not, I can and do blame them for sitting on their thumbs and watching it happen. After take was closed, NAFA did very little in terms of effective work to get it reopened. I was watching the board minutes when I rejoined NAFA for a while after one of the board members publicly proclaimed to make eagle take an issue - but I dont recall one word showing up in board minutes related to eagle take.

I agree with you and John that NAFA has done some great things in the the past. And I agree that gratitude is deserved on the part of NAFA for that. It is not accurate to say that without NAFA there would be no falconry, because we really do not know. That alternate history never occured. NAFA was there, and got it done. At any rate, I cannot think of any examples more recent than Operation Falcon where I would make the statement taht NAFA did a great job. I do not think its completely fair to descend into saying "...what has NAFA done for me lately..." However, I also have a hard time saying NAFA is still relevant. I have been called on the carpet about that statement by a previous DAL in NAFA and even a previous president who threw a project in my lap and said "...ok mr, put your tough talk into action..." and I will admit that despite my eager enthusiasm for the project, I dropped it on the floor. I admit that I own some guilt at not helping make NAFA more relevant.

A key example of that - we have a species that was completely delisted more than 20 years that has special quota rules and special flyway oversight over take. NAFA did stage a mild protest at the outset for that, but it was pretty ineffective. When the US FWS decided to play hardball over the peregrine take at delisting, NAFA just went and sat on the proverbial bench. And the work accomplished since then has been relatively light weight.

There has been a tiny amount of progress on getting the eagle take re-opened. And maybe that will build to something significant. The current state is nothing to be crowing about, especially given what was lost. But it might get there, and I am hopeful it will. NAFA deserves some credit for that. As far as I am aware, all the activities that led to this tiny re-opening of eagle take were undertaken by NAFA members. It was a monumentus undertaking, and real credit is due to the progress made so far. When I say tiny amount of progress, I know that this involved lots and lots of effort to even get that far.

One very interesting, and nefarious, link to my prior comment is that the US FWS is rumored to think that the flyway council should have some say on the newly re implemented eagle take. Accepting that sets a very dangerous precedent. The flyway councils are there to equitably regulate a take that has serious potential to impact the resource and make sure it is allocated fairly. On the whole, its a good process for species that seriously could be impacted by take. But there is absolutely no science based justification to use that model to regulate falconry take of eagles or peregrines or any other raptor. It just adds unnecessary red tape. And really bodes the question - what is next? Harris' hawks? Goshawks? Kestrels? The precedent could very easily slip to include all falconry raptors. Do we really need to have that much bureaucracy to make sure that a few apprentices and squirrel hawks do not decimate redtails?

Now, Geoff, you know me well enough to have fully realized that when you made this post, you were going to get a response-in-kind; however, because Dan did not instigate this response, I won't "disrespect" him anymore, but I will certainly address your other comments.

First of all, Dan--on a number of occasions--made it perfectly known, and in no uncertain terms, how he felt about NAFA's handling of the eagle situation, which I have referred to as "complaining and whining" because that is a fair description.

Secondly, I have "never" denied Dan's overall efforts in terms of recovering the eagle for falconry purposes; in fact, to the contrary. So, I am not sure why you brought these topics into the discussion.

Thirdly, i have never heard your take on how Dan left NAFA. And, I don't ever recall Dan saying anything like what you have suggested. What I have heard is Dan resigned from the eagle committee and left NAFA because he was thoroughly disgusted with the way NAFA tending to eagle issue.

Fourth, I didn't know Brian Kellogg was such a dismal failure on the eagle committee. And since he was living in Washing State (where you live) at the time, and had for many years, I am surprised that you have chosen to disrespect him. But, then again, look what I have done to Dan.

The rest of your comments reflect your feelings about NAFA, etc., and are certainly in keeping with the theme of this discussion. I would like to point out though that

nowhere did I even infer that NAFA was without fault when it came to this issue; so please don't put me in that camp.

Thanks.

Bill Boni

[goshawkr]

Thirdly, i have never heard your take on how Dan left NAFA. And, I don't ever recall Dan saying anything like what you have suggested. What I have heard is Dan resigned from the eagle committee and left NAFA because he was thoroughly disgusted with the way NAFA tending to eagle issue.

You heard wrong. Dan did not resign from the eagle committee, he was pushed out by someone who was jealous of his position and wanted his job. I know this from several sources, including Dan himself. He did resign from NAFA (or more correctly, refused to renew his dues) because of how he was treated. He told me today he is done with the skunk pissing in this thread - which is wise of him - so that is as far as I will take it here and now.

Fourth, I didn't know Brian Kellogg was such a dismal failure on the eagle committee. And since he was living in Washing State (where you live) at the time, and had for many years, I am surprised that you have chosen to disrespect him. But, then again, look what I have done to Dan.

I did not mention Brian, why did you?

That is who I was referring to, but I refrain from dragging peoples name through the mud when they are not around to wipe it off. I did not disrespect him, what I stated is exactly what happened. There are a lot more things that I could say that I did not, things that are well known by those who know him and watched events unfold. As a side note, I think it is rather odd that you are implying that just because the guy is from the same state as me I should be looking up to him. That actually is precisely why I know the nature of that particular proverbial leopard's spots. Some I admire, more that I do not.

Also, dont begin to put words in my mouth. I did not say that he was a dismal failure on the eagle committee. I actually have no idea what, if anything, he did with his position on that committee. I expressed some harsh criticism over the lack of action in keeping eagle take open, but that is a fact based statement. On that particular point, he was asleep at his post.

[MrBill]

You heard wrong. Dan did not resign from the eagle committee, he was pushed out by someone who was jealous of his position and wanted his job. I know this from several sources, including Dan himself. He did resign from NAFA (or more correctly, refused to renew his dues) because of how he was treated. He told me today he is done with the skunk pissing in this thread - which is wise of him - so that is as far as I will take it here and now.

I did not mention Brian, why did you?

That is who I was referring to, but I refrain from dragging peoples name through the mud when they are not around to wipe it off. I did not disrespect him, what I stated is exactly what happened. There are a lot more things that I could say that I did not, things that are well known by those who know him and watched events unfold. As a side note, I think it is rather odd that you are implying that just because the guy is from the same state as me I should be looking up to him. That actually is precisely why I know the nature of that particular proverbial leopard's spots. Some I admire, more that I do not.

Also, dont begin to put words in my mouth. I did not say that he was a dismal failure on the eagle committee. I actually have no idea what, if anything, he did with his position on that committee. I expressed some harsh criticism over the lack of action in keeping eagle take open, but that is a fact based statement. On that particular point, he was asleep at his post.

Well, good, then I can have the last say. These damn skunks anyway.

Whether you mentioned Brian's name or not, you drug him through the mud. It isn't as if many of us didn't know who you were talking about. And, if "there was a guy who liked to think of himself as an eagle falconer and liked to think he was a significant contributor to eagle falconry that leveraged Dan off the eagle committee and got himself installed as the chair of the eagle committee instead, and under the watch of this guy, eagle falconry trapping was shut down without any effort at all to counter it" is not disrespect, and a statement of "dismal failure," then I don't know what is. And, you are right, he is not here to defend himself. At least Dan is, although "silence is golden," particularly under some circumstances. And please understand everyone, Dan has certainly disrespected me a few times over the years, both publicly and otherwise. What goes around, comes around.

The end.

Bill Boni

[FredFogg]

Now girls! LOL

[rkumetz]

And please understand everyone, Dan has certainly disrespected me a few times over the years, both publicly and otherwise. What goes around, comes around.

Bill. This is not intended as a criticism of you but as a bit of a helpful hints for success that we all might consider.

One thing that I noticed when I took over the helm of my fire department was that there were various groups of people who didn't like various other groups of people.
At times people would start not showing up if they knew certain people were there and we have even had people quit because of interpersonal issues.

The first thing I did was to lay out the big picture: We do not have to agree with each other nor do we need to actually like each other. We are here because we have a common goal to provide a critical service to the community. When we show up we need to check our egos at the door and keep that in mind. We can argue and sometimes it becomes heated but it is not in the interest of the organization to let it sink to that "you disrespected me" sort of stuff. That is the kind of stuff that you find in gangs of kids who have their pants hanging down off their asses doing drive by shootings.

Likewise we are all here because we are passionate about falconry. It is not about me, you, Dan, Bill or any one of us. If there are 100 falconers there will be at least 100 different opinions. The unique personality that makes us gravitate toward falconry also seems to also make us passionate about our opinions and often we (as a group) are not predisposed to having excellent people skills.

It is valuable to have these discussions about the past but keep in mind that it is the past and it does not have to impact the future.

I guess what I am saying here is that it is in the best interest of the sport we all love to try to not end up taking sides and allowing the opinions expressed by other falconers make us feel like we were personally attacked. There are not very many of us so we need to check our guns at the door.

[goshawkr]

Whether you mentioned Brian's name or not, you drug him through the mud. It isn't as if many of us didn't know who you were talking about.

I made some reference to him as an official representative of NAFA. Anyone who knew the lay of the land was welcome to connect those dots, but I did not drag his name through the mud. I pointedly left his name out of it.

And, if "there ..... it" is not disrespect, and a statement of "dismal failure," then I don't know what is.

Your words, not mine. Do not put that on me. Once again, I did not say he was a dismal failure. He might have been, but I did not say it. For all I know he did a lot of fantastic things while he was in the role. I really would not know, because most of the time he was chairing that committee I was refusing to participate in NAFA over issues that I had with the NAFA leadership. And during that time when I was not supporting NAFA, I just was not paying that close attention to the all of the little details of their business.

[MrBill]

Bill. This is not intended as a criticism of you but as a bit of a helpful hints for success that we all might consider.

One thing that I noticed when I took over the helm of my fire department was that there were various groups of people who didn't like various other groups of people.
At times people would start not showing up if they knew certain people were there and we have even had people quit because of interpersonal issues.

The first thing I did was to lay out the big picture: We do not have to agree with each other nor do we need to actually like each other. We are here because we have a common goal to provide a critical service to the community. When we show up we need to check our egos at the door and keep that in mind. We can argue and sometimes it becomes heated but it is not in the interest of the organization to let it sink to that "you disrespected me" sort of stuff. That is the kind of stuff that you find in gangs of kids who have their pants hanging down off their asses doing drive by shootings.

Likewise we are all here because we are passionate about falconry. It is not about me, you, Dan, Bill or any one of us. If there are 100 falconers there will be at least 100 different opinions. The unique personality that makes us gravitate toward falconry also seems to also make us passionate about our opinions and often we (as a group) are not predisposed to having excellent people skills.

It is valuable to have these discussions about the past but keep in mind that it is the past and it does not have to impact the future.

I guess what I am saying here is that it is in the best interest of the sport we all love to try to not end up taking sides and allowing the opinions expressed by other falconers make us feel like we were personally attacked. There are not very many of us so we need to check our guns at the door.

Ron,

Trust me, I know all about getting people to work together that have different opinions (some strong), and let us not forget the part that personalities and egos play in the grand scheme of things, as I spent 27 years in the Marine Corps, dealing with people from all different walks of life; and talk about egos--yikes, there were some whoppers in that environment. But, in the end, we always put the mission first, and came together for the sake of the mission and the Corps. But, we were on on the same playing field, just like the folks in your fire department; plus, we were dealing with each other eyeball to eyeball, not so on social media. So, the "big picture" you have described doesn't work well in this arena; it never has. But, thanks for your advice; most appreciated.

Bill Boni

[MrBill]

I made some reference to him as an official representative of NAFA. Anyone who knew the lay of the land was welcome to connect those dots, but I did not drag his name through the mud. I pointedly left his name out of it.



Your words, not mine. Do not put that on me. Once again, I did not say he was a dismal failure. He might have been, but I did not say it. For all I know he did a lot of fantastic things while he was in the role. I really would not know, because most of the time he was chairing that committee I was refusing to participate in NAFA over issues that I had with the NAFA leadership. And during that time when I was not supporting NAFA, I just was not paying that close attention to the all of the little details of their business.

Damn, Geoff, you said in your previous post that you were not going to take this discussion any further. I'm disappointed :-(

Bill Boni

[MrBill]

There's a person, I hesitate to call them a falconer, on Facebook who has an axe to grind with the evil empire, oh sorry, I mean NAFA. I thought in the spirit of open discussion I'd post his manifesto here. What do you all think?

P.S. I think he actually meant to write "severe", not sever, as in cut off.


Attachment 8426

As you may recall, I was hoping that we would define what NAFA has accomplished over the years (which some of us tried to do) and see if any of NAFA's accomplishments conflicted with these transgressions that Paul posted. Thus far I don't see where any of the accomplishments we have mentioned conflicts at all with what this person evidently posted somewhere. I am not sure what this suggests. I am also not sure, (assuming we are, in fact, attempting to truly reveal the validity of these comments) if this is the proper way to go either, without that person being part of the discussion, as s/he could best explain the true meaning and intent behind these contentions.

Bill Boni

[rkumetz]

Ron,

Trust me, I know all about getting people to work together that have different opinions (some strong), and let us not forget the part that personalities and egos play in the grand scheme of things, as I spent 27 years in the Marine Corps, dealing with people from all different walks of life; and talk about egos--yikes, there were some whoppers in that environment. But, in the end, we always put the mission first, and came together for the sake of the mission and the Corps. But, we were on on the same playing field, just like the folks in your fire department; plus, we were dealing with each other eyeball to eyeball, not so on social media. So, the "big picture" you have described doesn't work well in this arena; it never has. But, thanks for your advice; most appreciated.

Bill Boni

I do recall you have mentioned your experience in the corps so I am sure you understand how the personality dynamics work.

As a small group with substantial detractors falconers have no choice but to rise above the behavior expected elsewhere on social media.
We can either stick together despite our differences or allow those differences to become fractures that will eventually allow those who
are not fond of what we do to exploit our inability to circle our wagons. I am sure that there are some falconers that disagree with me on
various issues and probably some (perhaps even many) who have decided they simply don't like me for one reason or another but I hope that
despite reaching those conclusions they have also realized I am willing to work with just about anyone when it comes to preserving what our
common interest.

[MrBill]

I do recall you have mentioned your experience in the corps so I am sure you understand how the personality dynamics work.

As a small group with substantial detractors falconers have no choice but to rise above the behavior expected elsewhere on social media.
We can either stick together despite our differences or allow those differences to become fractures that will eventually allow those who
are not fond of what we do to exploit our inability to circle our wagons. I am sure that there are some falconers that disagree with me on
various issues and probably some (perhaps even many) who have decided they simply don't like me for one reason or another but I hope that
despite reaching those conclusions they have also realized I am willing to work with just about anyone when it comes to preserving what our
common interest.

Ron,

Social media does not define us and, believe me, falconers will definitely circle the wagons if push comes to shove, just like we did during in the aftermath of Operation Falcon. However, I do agree that there may be people who don't like you because of things you have said, even though they may have never met you. I know of people who don't like me, whom I have never met, simply because of what I have said on social media that they did not appreciate, or something that they have only heard, which may or may not be true. But, Ron, that's life in the Big City. I know a falconer who has been around for many years and is very popular. He is popular--as I have told him--because he has always placed his true feelings about people close to the vest. So, if you want to be popular, just keep your mouth shut :-) and/or simply say good things about people, regardless of how you feel; it is as simple as that.

Blll Boni

[jdrmd]

I am not trying to make a statement just an observation. Do you notice the people that are posting on Ron's thread about dogs? Some members who have been on NAFEX much longer than I and its the first time I have seen them post.

It seems as though they are more interested in the art of falconry and lack interest in the bickering arguing political threads that occur here. Personally, I enjoying reading threads like this one, for multiple reasons, but most of my interest comes from observing human behavior.

[goshawkr]

Damn, Geoff, you said in your previous post that you were not going to take this discussion any further.

you should read what I said a little more carefully. I did not say that at all.

[MrBill]

Ron,

Social media does not define us

Ron, I just wanted to tell you (and others) that this statement I made was erroneous--social media (for better or worse) does define us. But there are numerous falconers, many of whom have been around a long time and are accomplished in their own right, who do not post here or the various falconry FB pages. There are, of course, reason(s) for them not doing this, but that is a topic for another day. What I was trying to say (and didn't) is that absent their valued input on social media, in addition to a complete absence of the volumes of has been written about falconry over the years, social media does not get anywhere near the full picture of what falconry is all about. Sorry about the misstatement.

Bill Boni

[JRedig]

In response to the original post, here are some thoughts on the items (i realize a lot of this has been covered):

1. Not true, we have non native raptors. Tons of them. Why would the North American falconers association be interested in non native raptors anyway? That is not relevant to continuing North American falconry, which at the core is about the wild take of raptors and pursuing quarry.

3. I’m not sure what sever is, but NAFA was heavily involved in the Reg change over, but as the below point shows, it was state issues and that is not their playground. It’s not a volunteer organization for national representation so that it can get involved at a state level with extremely limited resources. They were involved in the framework and rule making, that’s where the effort belongs. There were NAFA representatives following up with every state to help, but ultimately it was up to each state. NAFA wasn't going to do it for anyone, and they shouldn't. California was almost dead last, which is where the person who posted this list is from. Interesting that they would try and blame NAFA (which they are not a member) instead of getting involved at his state level to help?

2. & 4. Deal with falconry at state levels. NAFA is a federal organization, the states didn’t ask for help, why would they inject themselves when not asked? Not to mention in the alaska situation the very person he is blaming is the one responsible for us even having non-resident take in AK now.

5. Is merely opinion and conjecture from someone who isn’t in the organization. Plus what would that change??? What’s the up or the down side?

6. Failure to announce....hmmm announce what? Was there a press release from the feds that we now privately own our raptors? Given that when we take them, they are reduced to possession, we have always privately retained them. That’s not new! Same as when you catch a fish.

7. Actually we do vote for the president, by voting for our director initially. We have the ability to influence our directors and how they vote.

So it seems to me it is a list of unfounded opinions. Even if someone chooses to look at the world through cracked and broken lenses this list provides, they are also living in the very far past and at no point are trying to improve the situation. As has been said here, it's a volunteer group, rather than bitch, roll up your sleeves and get involved. Otherwise, don't waste everyone's time living on a stack of lies from the past.

[rkumetz]

Ron, I just wanted to tell you (and others) that this statement I made was erroneous--social media (for better or worse) does define us. But there are numerous falconers, many of whom have been around a long time and are accomplished in their own right, who do not post here or the various falconry FB pages. There are, of course, reason(s) for them not doing this, but that is a topic for another day. What I was trying to say (and didn't) is that absent their valued input on social media, in addition to a complete absence of the volumes of has been written about falconry over the years, social media does not get anywhere near the full picture of what falconry is all about. Sorry about the misstatement.

Bill Boni

Your original post was only missing a single but very important word: Social media does not define us ACCURATELY

[rkumetz]

So it seems to me it is a list of unfounded opinions. Even if someone chooses to look at the world through cracked and broken lenses this list provides, they are also living in the very far past and at no point are trying to improve the situation. As has been said here, it's a volunteer group, rather than bitch, roll up your sleeves and get involved. Otherwise, don't waste everyone's time living on a stack of lies from the past.

When I see crap like that (and I don't often because mainstream social media is a waste of my time) it makes me wonder what the 99.99% of people who don't actually know a falconer or have much of a clue what we are about think of us. What sort of an image do they have in their head as to what a falconer looks like? Rants like that most likely make the image of Ted Kaczynski pop into their heads.

[Captain Gizmo]

My best guess as to interpreting: "3. Sever failures in supporting --"
is: "3. Several failures in supporting--"

Retrogrades,
Thomas of the Dialectics

[JRedig]

And I figured it was severe.

[goshawkr]

I dont want to give the impression that I am trying to validate the comments that Paul posted. Despite seeing some merit in a few of the points he raised, I think the comments are best ignored.

1. Not true, we have non native raptors. Tons of them. Why would the North American falconers association be interested in non native raptors anyway? That is not relevant to continuing North American falconry, which at the core is about the wild take of raptors and pursuing quarry.

I think that is a very curious response. I wont rehash my earlier comments, but are you saying NAFA should not be representing the interests of NA falconers who want to work with non native raptors? Why not? There is a lot of interest from North American falconers in non native raptors for a variety of reasons. Prior to WBCA going in place, bringing them into the US was as simple as satsifying the CITIES concerns, if any, and arranging quarantine. NAFA was interested in non native raptors enough in the late 80s and very early 90s when the WBCA was being put in place to monitor it. Why not enough interest to fix it?

It is true, that birds can still be imported but the level of red tape is, in a word, ludicrous. I have been through the process. And all without any real valid reason. There really are not any raptor populations that fall in line with the WBCA goals - protecting wild bird populations throughout the world from illegal and corrupt legal trade to the US markets.

There has been enough interest to make it worth while for some of the breeders to go through that process, thankfully. Some of the birds being brought in are "native" anyway - aplomados, peregrines, gys, goshawks, European kestrels, and Harris' hawks have all been imported after the WBCA went in place.

There were NAFA representatives following up with every state to help, but ultimately it was up to each state. NAFA wasn't going to do it for anyone, and they shouldn't.

I was very actively involved with the reg change in my state, and I could not really say that NAFA was very helpful in the process. The "help" we received from NAFA was a two page letter that could best be described as a beginners guide to working state politics. No follow up, no offers to support us through the process through communication with our state. Maybe the guys who were helping the state had already been told that the Washington folks can handle it on their own, which was absolutely true. There is a good pool of politically saavy talent in the falconry community here, and we know quite well how to work both the legislative and regulatory process.

2. & 4. Deal with falconry at state levels. NAFA is a federal organization, the states didn’t ask for help, why would they inject themselves when not asked?

I do not see why you think issue 2 was a state issue that NAFA should not have been involved in. It was the US FWS that spearheaded that action, as I recall, as a way to justify the "jail" that they had built to house up to 9 raptors during enforcement seizures. Colorado state Fish and Game was involved, but they were just along for the ride. Regardless, it was pretty clear early on that this was a fishing expedition by the agencies involved. All of the citations were dropped within a year for lack of a case. I know for sure one of the seized hawks died in custody, and as I recall there were several of them if not all that died. That is not something NAFA should care about? The USFWS abused their power, rail roaded some falconers, and killed birds through neglecting to care for them properly. By your logic, should a state stay out of the case if some bonehead county Sheriff is persecuting people without cause?

I know this reads like I am coming down hard on your statement, but really, I am just trying to understand where you are coming from because I am honestly baffled by it.

Non resident take is, by its very nature, not a sate level issue. If the falconers in one state are being selfish with "their" falconry take, I cannot even begin to wrap my mind around why anyone can say with a straight face that the national organization needs to stay out of it until invited by the state. Now, that being said, I know you are correct with what you said about the individual being drug through the mud.

Apart from that, it is not legal for a state that offers take to its residents to discriminate against the residents of another state. There are clear cut supreme court decisions addressing that matter. NAFA should have been the first one to have been pushing on this, if possible with co-operation with the state residents but definately with respect for the effect on the state residents (something that other group still needs to get their head wrapped around).

[rkumetz]

Are we having all the fun promised by the name of this thread yet?

[MrBill]

Hey, Geoff,

I've been meaning to say this for a while, and this is probably an opportune time to do so.

You bring a lot of relevant information to the table, and it is not just about falconry. You seem to be well-read on a number of topics. As I have mentioned to you before, you seem to want to focus on the weaknesses of peoples' considered opinions, and some folks might roll their eyes when they see one of your profound posts; regardless, what you have had to say has historically added depth to the discussions. Now, don't interpret this as me trying to make amends; you know me better than this. Plus, I don't want to ruin my image.

Bill

[Saluqi]

Are we having all the fun promised by the name of this thread yet?

Ron,
Hopefully the bickering Bickersons will stop bickering soon, but given their name it's doubtful!

[BestBeagler]

I liked Paul's post on his experiences with NAFA. People tend to complain a lot about how an organization is lacking in whatever. You want to change something volunteer and do something about it. It's easy to complain harder to actually do something about it.

We all have opinions and here's mine, just because we have opinions it doesn't mean they are constructive or that we should always share them even when asked. I may have an opinion on NAFA, for example, and it may be a complaint, but if I'm not going to do anything about it does it really matter? Probably not, It just means that I feel some way about something but not willing enough to make a change so how useful is it?

So much of this is front porch old men on rocking chair talk. Nothing wrong with that though.

Guess those that are doing are doing. Thanks to those that volunteer their time to NAFA. I appreciate you giving your time for something you care about.