Just for fun

[MrBill]

As such, it has not only made huge strides in that mission, but one could argue the NAFA legacy is a model. You would be hard pressed to show any other example of a stakeholder member organization that worked with officials to create a continent-wide framework for a practice that had no context in existing law and was generally opposed by majority of environmental stakeholder voices. In just 50 years, they shepherded what was essentially an illegal practice with no historical roots in NA, to a legally entrenched sport continent-wide. The trajectory has been the gradual liberalization of rules as trust and understanding has grown. Personal attacks directed at NAFA leadership are pathological in the face of this legacy (nevermind 99% of the attacks are factually/historically wrong). At worst its a positive trend of effective rational advocacy with the agencies. At worst! At best, NAFA has been one of the premier voices in raptor conservation.

Well-put, John. Thanks for pointing out the work that NAFA did early on to make sure falconry was "legal," in the face of a real threat from organizations like the Audubon Society. But, let us not forget that California and Colorado led the way, as the first states to have sanctioned falconry regulations.

I was wondering if you would clarify, "

The falconry community needs to basically grow a pair, and tell the truth about who we are and where we came from"; in other words, why would falconers not want to tell the truth about where they came from? Also, it appears you are saying that what motivates these people is simply pure politics; that there is no validity to their protests. Yes?

Bill Boni

Bill Boni

[Montucky]

Well-put, John. Thanks for pointing out the work that NAFA did early on to make sure falconry was "legal," in the face of a real threat from organizations like the Audubon Society. But, let us not forget that California and Colorado led the way, as the first states to have sanctioned falconry regulations.

I was wondering if you would clarify, "

The falconry community needs to basically grow a pair, and tell the truth about who we are and where we came from"; in other words, why would falconers not want to tell the truth about where they came from? Also, it appears you are saying that what motivates these people is simply pure politics; that there is no validity to their protests. Yes?

Bill Boni

Bill Boni

Well NAFA played a key role working with states...I would argue that the core group of NAFA folks that authored the federal regs created something that the states would accept. theycevaluated the anti's and preemptively drafted regs to address opposition from groups like Audubon and did a ton of behind the scenes work for clubs as they marched legalization across the country. Kent Carnie, more than any one person, is more responsible for this heavy lifting. Facts get lost to time...we forget where we come from. I think in any enterprise, the founding principles or mission can get lost as subsequent generations come on board. Its true for any mission-driven Enterprise. What I am suggesting is that its human nature to bend to the loudest voices and concede things that are against the founding principles. Before you know it, the organization looks nothing like the original charter so to speak. You see this a lot in non-profits, where a brilliant visionary sort collects a core group of similar minded folks to create something great like an art museum...they bring in a board....key people leave, and eventually you have a board installing a zip line and a water park. (I give that example as someone who listened to a board chair try to convince the others to install a zipline at a natural history museum. Im just suggesting that falconers need to guard their legacy. Sure there can be lots of validity to various points...but I think there is a theme we have observed where the most ardent abrasive critics of NAFA (in this example) typically voice their concerns in political language not falconry language.

[MrBill]

Well NAFA played a key role working with states...I would argue that the core group of NAFA folks that authored the federal regs created something that the states would accept. theycevaluated the anti's and preemptively drafted regs to address opposition from groups like Audubon and did a ton of behind the scenes work for clubs as they marched legalization across the country. Kent Carnie, more than any one person, is more responsible for this heavy lifting. Facts get lost to time...we forget where we come from. I think in any enterprise, the founding principles or mission can get lost as subsequent generations come on board. Its true for any mission-driven Enterprise. What I am suggesting is that its human nature to bend to the loudest voices and concede things that are against the founding principles. Before you know it, the organization looks nothing like the original charter so to speak. You see this a lot in non-profits, where a brilliant visionary sort collects a core group of similar minded folks to create something great like an art museum...they bring in a board....key people leave, and eventually you have a board installing a zip line and a water park. (I give that example as someone who listened to a board chair try to convince the others to install a zipline at a natural history museum. Im just suggesting that falconers need to guard their legacy. Sure there can be lots of validity to various points...but I think there is a theme we have observed where the most ardent abrasive critics of NAFA (in this example) typically voice their concerns in political language not falconry language.

Thanks for your explanation, John; that clears it up for me.

Bill Boni

[MrBill]

Well NAFA played a key role working with states...I would argue that the core group of NAFA folks that authored the federal regs created something that the states would accept. theycevaluated the anti's and preemptively drafted regs to address opposition from groups like Audubon and did a ton of behind the scenes work for clubs as they marched legalization across the country. Kent Carnie, more than any one person, is more responsible for this heavy lifting. Facts get lost to time...we forget where we come from. I think in any enterprise, the founding principles or mission can get lost as subsequent generations come on board. Its true for any mission-driven Enterprise. What I am suggesting is that its human nature to bend to the loudest voices and concede things that are against the founding principles. Before you know it, the organization looks nothing like the original charter so to speak. You see this a lot in non-profits, where a brilliant visionary sort collects a core group of similar minded folks to create something great like an art museum...they bring in a board....key people leave, and eventually you have a board installing a zip line and a water park. (I give that example as someone who listened to a board chair try to convince the others to install a zipline at a natural history museum. Im just suggesting that falconers need to guard their legacy. Sure there can be lots of validity to various points...but I think there is a theme we have observed where the most ardent abrasive critics of NAFA (in this example) typically voice their concerns in political language not falconry language.

John,

I have been thinking more about your above statement regarding NAFA, and would like to follow-up on it.

One of the main things you touched upon, even though you didn’t say it, was “loyalty.” I am a big fan of loyalty, even though in today’s society, loyalty is fairly nebulous. And you, of course, were not talking about “blind loyalty.” You were simply saying, regardless of faults, we should always honor the fact that NAFA paved the way for falconry in the United States; and I certainly agree. We should never lose sight of our roots, so to speak. Then you go on to suggest that we should be careful of the firebrands that attack NAFA purely from a political perspective. As you know there are numerous definitions of “politics,” but I think I found one that you are referring to, which is, “activities within an organization that are aimed at improving someone's status or position and are typically considered to be devious or divisive.” I can’t argue with your contention here, either, except to say that there are personal reasons why people take this approach, and we should probably factor this reality into the scenario before we condemn the person (IMHO).

In light of your cautionary tale about how clubs can recreate themselves to a point where they involve themselves in issues that are well beyond the scope of the club’s original intent, are you suggesting that the list of things that Paul posted fall into that category, or are you simply saying, “Consider the source and the politics of it all”?

Finally, I would like to point out the obvious that “viable clubs” do evolve; a good example in terms of NAFA would be the Internet. Not too long after the Internet became available, I started a webpage and a listserv for falconers. NAFA leadership voiced strong opposition to doing this, suggesting that it would sound the death knell to falconry. But, look where we are today. Another good example is the leadership’s opposition in 80’s (as I recall) to the selling of captive-bred raptors. But, look where we are today. I am sure this is not the type of evolution you are talking about, John. I only point this out as way to broadcast the importance of not getting stuck in the mud, so to speak; in fact, in years gone by, I was one of those firebrands, who felt that NAFA was always playing catch-up on important issues, never ahead of the power curve. But, again, that had a lot to do with me as a person, more than anything else. And, as Ron has pointed out, “Handshake politics is not the fastest way to achieve your goals but the bull in the China shop approach can have repercussions.” So, my philosophy now is, All’s well that ends well, or in some cases, “All’s well that ends”

Bill Boni