Just for fun

[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

[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

[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]

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.

[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]

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