Just for fun

[Saluqi]

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.


Alton_BS.jpg

[SkyRider]

At this point, I’m not sure if this whole thing is PLF vs the State of California or if it’s become grumpy falconers vs NAFA. I’ve seen more anti-NAFA rhetoric than I’ve seen progress on any lawsuit. It’s disenchanting to say the least.

[rkumetz]

At this point, I’m not sure if this whole thing is PLF vs the State of California or if it’s become grumpy falconers vs NAFA. I’ve seen more anti-NAFA rhetoric than I’ve seen progress on any lawsuit. It’s disenchanting to say the least.

What is really scary is that a lot of falconers do not realize that the PLF lawsuit is really about an agenda that has nothing to do with falconry and that falconers are now pawns in their
quest to drive politics in a direction that suits them.

[rkumetz]

Seems to me that the director at large involved in the Alaska non-resident thing was sanctioned since he is no longer a director.
While he probably should have made a disclaimer that he was not representing NAFA, there is nothing in the NAFA bylaws which
prevents an officer from making statements on behalf of local falconers when involved in intra-state politics. Do I not have a say about
what happens in my state? My state doesn't have non-resident take but then again why would anyone want to come here to trap a
redtail or a passage gos (master falconers only for residents) when they can do that in other more suitable places anyway? If the issue
was opened up it would most likely result in the anti-falconry element coming out in force and resident take would be in jeopardy.

And let's think about this. Directors are volunteers elected by the members. Exactly how is NAFA going to sanction him? Withhold his lucrative
paycheck? Or maybe this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4yqbLHYbcI

[rkumetz]

I have to say that I have had frank discussions with myself about the appointment of the NAFA president and vice-president by the board.

On one hand it goes against my grain to not have a direct say in who is at the helm.

On the other hand there is a relatively good argument for leaving it the way it is. At the moment the board functions a bit like the electoral college.
Living in a state with a dozen falconers (on a good day) if we all voted for those offices it is like that states like Texas (nothing against Texans. God bless Texas..... )
and California would elect those officers and I might as well just not bother voting. Sort of like the people in 95% of New York counties who have their votes for national
offices negated by the huge population in the NYC.

It is not a perfect system but then again the alternative has problems too.

[goshawkr]

I have to say that I have had frank discussions with myself about the appointment of the NAFA president and vice-president by the board.

On one hand it goes against my grain to not have a direct say in who is at the helm.

On the other hand there is a relatively good argument for leaving it the way it is. At the moment the board functions a bit like the electoral college.
Living in a state with a dozen falconers (on a good day) if we all voted for those offices it is like that states like Texas (nothing against Texans. God bless Texas..... )
and California would elect those officers and I might as well just not bother voting. Sort of like the people in 95% of New York counties who have their votes for national
offices negated by the huge population in the NYC.

It is not a perfect system but then again the alternative has problems too.

I dont think the electoral college analagy applies here very well. Although my understanding is the the board appointed president was a check against hostile control by anti-falconry sorts coming from outside. If so, that seems silly to me because there is no check against a majority of the board being made up of anti-falconry sorts.

What has happened in the not so distant past is for crony control occur, because the board knew which good ole boy should be appointed despite what the peasant membership might think of the chap. That has not been a problem recently, thankfully. But I have been told that it was so bad in the 80s (a bit before my time in NAFA) that it nearly caused the collapse of NAFA, and likely set up the events that lead to the schism that eventually lead to the creation of the AFC.

[rkumetz]

I dont think the electoral college analagy applies here very well. Although my understanding is the the board appointed president was a check against hostile control by anti-falconry sorts coming from outside. If so, that seems silly to me because there is no check against a majority of the board being made up of anti-falconry sorts.

What has happened in the not so distant past is for crony control occur, because the board knew which good ole boy should be appointed despite what the peasant membership might think of the chap. That has not been a problem recently, thankfully. But I have been told that it was so bad in the 80s (a bit before my time in NAFA) that it nearly caused the collapse of NAFA, and likely set up the events that lead to the schism that eventually lead to the creation of the AFC.

Geoff,
That was the logic I had while wearing my no direct say in who is at the helm hat. It was a heated argument. Not sure which of my personalities won.

There was a time when I first joined NAFA when I really didn't think that anyone running the show was interested in what an apprentice with a redtail was doing
or any other dirt hawker for that matter. The picture I was painting in my head was cigar chomping good old boys with big long wings driving large new SUV's with
leather seats and wearing custom Gokey boots. (Yes, I do have a good imagination but I don't think I was far off)

I do not however feel that the formation of AFC had a lot to do with that since AFC doesn't do much except get involved in politics. As a disclaimer, I also joined
AFC and was a member for a number of years.

NAFA is not perfect however I had a lot of reservations about the way AFC goes about things. I am not saying that I disagree with all of their ideas but they
are simply way too confrontational. I am not above becoming confrontational but from the day I joined I got the impression that being confrontational was
Plan A with them and I believe you should exhaust other means before going that route.

I joined AFC because I felt that supporting another organization that was supposed to be supporting falconry was a good idea. I left because I felt that
AFC was actually pursuing a political philosophy within the microcosm of falconry regulations and that doing so while purporting to be about falconry
was misleading.

[goshawkr]

I do not however feel that the formation of AFC had a lot to do with that since AFC doesn't do much except get involved in politics. As a disclaimer, I also joined
AFC and was a member for a number of years..

The Wild Raptor Take Conservancy, which went on to become the AFC formed from a core group of NAFA members who were frustrated with the crony good ole boy politics within NAFA that was working to ensure that the issues they kept trying to bring up - primarily Non Resident Take - were never actively addressed. At the time, from what I could tell a majority of the NAFA membership agreed that NAFA should address it (I seem to recall some internal poling of NAFA members that indicated this) but the good ole boys would not even consider it. Likely because one of their core influential personalities was dead set opposed to NRT in his state.

Bill,

Good for you for trying to pull this around into a positive direction.

[MrBill]

The Wild Raptor Take Conservancy, which went on to become the AFC formed from a core group of NAFA members who were frustrated with the crony good ole boy politics within NAFA that was working to ensure that the issues they kept trying to bring up - primarily Non Resident Take - were never actively addressed. At the time, from what I could tell a majority of the NAFA membership agreed that NAFA should address it (I seem to recall some internal poling of NAFA members that indicated this) but the good ole boys would not even consider it. Likely because one of their core influential personalities was dead set opposed to NRT in his state.

Bill,

Good for you for trying to pull this around into a positive direction.

Thanks, Geoff. I figure, if people will take the time to point out the accomplishments of NAFA over the years (absent embellishment), then we can compare it to the list Paul posted, and see how it all washes out. But, if people don't have anything to offer, well, . . . .

BTW, Geoff, I have taken the same approach you have in terms of contacting the NAFA board directly, but I have not had any real luck doing this; in fact, when I get back home in a few days, I will forward an e-mail I sent with some recommendations, that I never received a response to from any of the members. I thought perhaps it never got to them, so a couple of months later I wrote James Gregory Thomas, and sure enough they had received it; in fact, he--then--responded. I guess he felt obligated at that point. Over the years, this has happened to other folks, as well. So, I do think this is an area where NAFA has failed their constituents. I will say, however, that if you contact the President directly he will respond. He is pretty good at doing that, as have previous presidents, but the board needs to do their share as well (IMHO). I have often heard, "these are volunteer positions." My response to that has always been, "If you don't have the time to do devote to a particular position in NAFA, then don't take on the job."

Bill Boni

[Montucky]

leadership folks in any similar constituent-based member organization are volunteering their time for the benefit of members. What is so disappointing about falconers is the frequency of really challenging personalities who display irrational hostility to leadership. Many of these folks frankly dont have the full picture of facts and context to ground their criticism. By in large volunteer leadership gets extremely pissed and burned out having to deal with really personal attacks. In most cases the irrational criticisms are usually based in political beliefs not falconry interests. If NAFA leadership seems aloof, critics should think about their own personal responsibility in that outcome. Anyone will start to circle the wagons after they hear enough bullets cracking by their ears its human nature.

If NAFA has done anything wrong over the years, its probably not adequately telling the story of how and why we are where we are with rules and regs etc. Also its important to remember that NAFA is not a default state club....state associations have their own role and responsibility....like any national entity, NAFA needs to be asked for help before they dive into state clubs.

I hate to say it, but most of the folks throwing the most criticism simply do not have the personal attributes to lead. After all the doors are fully open to take on leadership roles. Speaking from personal experience - the more I learned about how stakeholders make progress with agencies, the more I realized that 99% of the scenarios require patience, diplomacy, and humility, with a strong dose of stubbornness to keep one's eye on the prize. At least from my point of view, folks have varying amount of these attributes, but regardless, it takes time and seasoning to be effective. We have been lucky to have been represented by so many that have had these qualities in spades.

[rkumetz]

leadership folks in any similar constituent-based member organization are volunteering their time for the benefit of members. What is so disappointing about falconers is the frequency of really challenging personalities who display irrational hostility to leadership. Many of these folks frankly dont have the full picture of facts and context to ground their criticism. By in large volunteer leadership gets extremely pissed and burned out having to deal with really personal attacks. In most cases the irrational criticisms are usually based in political beliefs not falconry interests. If NAFA leadership seems aloof, critics should think about their own personal responsibility in that outcome. Anyone will start to circle the wagons after they hear enough bullets cracking by their ears its human nature.

If NAFA has done anything wrong over the years, its probably not adequately telling the story of how and why we are where we are with rules and regs etc. Also its important to remember that NAFA is not a default state club....state associations have their own role and responsibility....like any national entity, NAFA needs to be asked for help before they dive into state clubs.

I hate to say it, but most of the folks throwing the most criticism simply do not have the personal attributes to lead. After all the doors are fully open to take on leadership roles. Speaking from personal experience - the more I learned about how stakeholders make progress with agencies, the more I realized that 99% of the scenarios require patience, diplomacy, and humility, with a strong dose of stubbornness to keep one's eye on the prize. At least from my point of view, folks have varying amount of these attributes, but regardless, it takes time and seasoning to be effective. We have been lucky to have been represented by so many that have had these qualities in spades.

This is all something that people who want to whine and complain should contemplate in depth. As chief of a volunteer fire department I know first hand how people love to whine, complain and make demands but when you ask them if they would like to volunteer even a few hours of their time they rarely offer to help while they totally ignore the hundreds of hours of my time that go into keeping their houses above the cellar and they and their families able to call an ambulance if need be.

While I don't agree with everything the NAFA board does, I also don't have any time left to serve myself so I try to give them the benefit of the doubt and when I do have a problem with something they do I give them the courtesy of an email or call to discuss the situation rather than taking out an add on the front page of the NY Times to bitch about it.

[goshawkr]

The guy obviously has an axe to grind, and I dont see anything positive coming out of the way he is communicating his gripe.

That being said, he is right on point with his first point. NAFA admitted with the WBPA regs came out they were asleep at the wheel (more acurately, they inquired about it early on in the process and were told to not worry that raptors were not affect). To me, that does not mean they should stay sleep. The WBPA has been in place long enough now though that is highly unlikely to be readdressed. I cannot argue with what was said on point 2 as well, although demanding an appology over that now seems silly.

I have to say that I have had frank discussions with myself about the appointment of the NAFA president and vice-president by the board.

On one hand it goes against my grain to not have a direct say in who is at the helm.

On the other hand there is a relatively good argument for leaving it the way it is. At the moment the board functions a bit like the electoral college.
Living in a state with a dozen falconers (on a good day) if we all voted for those offices it is like that states like Texas (nothing against Texans. God bless Texas..... )
and California would elect those officers and I might as well just not bother voting. Sort of like the people in 95% of New York counties who have their votes for national
offices negated by the huge population in the NYC.

It is not a perfect system but then again the alternative has problems too.

I dont think the electoral college analagy applies here very well. Although my understanding is the the board appointed president was a check against hostile control by anti-falconry sorts coming from outside. If so, that seems silly to me because there is no check against a majority of the board being made up of anti-falconry sorts.

What has happened in the not so distant past is for crony control occur, because the board knew which good ole boy should be appointed despite what the peasant membership might think of the chap. That has not been a problem recently, thankfully. But I have been told that it was so bad in the 80s (a bit before my time in NAFA) that it nearly caused the collapse of NAFA, and likely set up the events that lead to the schism that eventually lead to the creation of the AFC.

[falconrydope]

Member of NAFA sincen1974. Have watch them accomplish great things over the years. I moved 2,000 miles away from my family to practice the type of falconry I wanted. I back NAFA 100%. I'm too old fashioned for face book so I don't know what's going on there, don't have the time. Not even sure about what I'm doing here, but wanted to voice my opinion about NAFA support.

[MrBill]

As I see it, this gentleman has laid out how NAFA has failed over the years. We can argue, ad nauseum, about the merit of his claims, but I think it would probably be more productive if we took the time to point out what NAFA has accomplished over the years. If what we have to say on behalf of NAFA conflicts with his comments, we can then discuss them, but to simply refute his comments because we are enamored with NAFA, proves nothing. 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, but falconers from all over the country, under the umbrella of NAFA and with the club's encouragement, launched a hell of letter writing campaign to our elected representatives in Washington, and others, which resulted in the feds backing off; in fact, the USFWS sent a representative to the 1988 meet in Amarillo to mend fences with falconers. From this experience, I learned that it is very important to have a national organization that we can run to in times of need. Now, this is not to suggest that NAFA has without fault; in fact, what this individual has written is not entirely wrong (IMO).

Bill Boni

Bill Boni

[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.

[Montucky]

The bottom line is that in the social media world we live in - we now know that mental diarrhea rises and nuanced, learned debate falls. Calls to burn everything to ground rank higher than stories about a diplomat who can speak 7 languages and negotiated a peace settlement. The falconry community needs to basically grow a pair, and tell the truth about who we are and where we came from. Even if that means losing a few hundred political zealots in our ranks. NAFA (or any state club) isn't a pure representative organization bending to the whims of whatever ideology pays dues - it is a member organization with a clear mission: "to encourage the proper practice of the sport of falconry and the wise use and conservation of birds of prey."

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.

Most people make choices based on their own financial stability and their own political beliefs. Few have the mental constitution to advocate for the greater good of a larger mission beyond themselves. We call those people leaders. I side with the leaders that follow the mission with passion and dedication. Most of the naysayers couldnt negotiate a tree trimming with their neighbors...never mind a continent-wide wildlife policy.

[falcon56]

The bottom line is that in the social media world we live in - we now know that mental diarrhea rises and nuanced, learned debate falls. Calls to burn everything to ground rank higher than stories about a diplomat who can speak 7 languages and negotiated a peace settlement. The falconry community needs to basically grow a pair, and tell the truth about who we are and where we came from. Even if that means losing a few hundred political zealots in our ranks. NAFA (or any state club) isn't a pure representative organization bending to the whims of whatever ideology pays dues - it is a member organization with a clear mission: "to encourage the proper practice of the sport of falconry and the wise use and conservation of birds of prey."

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.

Most people make choices based on their own financial stability and their own political beliefs. Few have the mental constitution to advocate for the greater good of a larger mission beyond themselves. We call those people leaders. I side with the leaders that follow the mission with passion and dedication. Most of the naysayers couldnt negotiate a tree trimming with their neighbors...never mind a continent-wide wildlife policy.

[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

[Captain Gizmo]

A personal opinion.

Considering the tiny constituency the falconry community represents I am constantly surprised to the point of amazed at the favorable treatment from state and federal legislators and agencies that has been achieved.

Regards,
Thomas of the Desert

[rkumetz]

A personal opinion.

Considering the tiny constituency the falconry community represents I am constantly surprised to the point of amazed at the favorable treatment from state and federal legislators and agencies that has been achieved.

Regards,
Thomas of the Desert

When you are not a sizeable voting population and don't have deep pockets it becomes more an issue of who you know than what you know as the saying goes.
We didn't have much success at the state level until we found some people to build personal relationships with. There is still a lot of room for improvement but
at least we are no longer viewed as simply an annoyance. Handshake politics is not the fastest way to achieve your goals but the bull in a China shop approach
can have repercussions. The PLF lawsuit might very well achieve its intended goals with respect to making falconry regs acceptable to libertarians and the
specific constitutional grounds they cite. Of course after they remove inspections and we can use birds held on falconry permits for commercial purposes how
will the state and federal agencies retaliate? Unless there is derivative benefit for PLF with respect to their own agenda they are not going to step to the plate
to save falconry. They could care less and we don't have deep enough pockets to litigate ourselves.

[elycreek]

God i wish we had a LIKE button! Thanks Tom!

[FredFogg]

I find it amusing the mention of the creation of the AFC (WRT) was due to former members of NAFA being fed up with the good ole boys within NAFA and now I look at the AFC and I see that same good ole boys mentality going on just like it was back in those days within NAFA that caused them to leave. LOL

[wyodjm]

Looking back over the years, it's been a pretty fulfilling and fun falconry ride. In fact, I'm thankful, and there are multiple people to thank! I saw my dream of flying passage eagles and goshawks fulfilled. At a quality and respectable level. And now the opportunity to fly passage Prairie Falcons on ducks. It doesn't get much better than that. Life is good!

At the end of the day, what's important? They say bitterness is like drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die! I've learned life is just too short to complain and whine. I'm so glad I learned it sooner than later!

My best falconry could still be in front of me! 👍

Good hawking everyone!

[BestBeagler]

Dan, What a great attitude!

[rkumetz]

Looking back over the years, it's been a pretty fulfilling and fun falconry ride. In fact, I'm thankful, and there are multiple people to thank! I saw my dream of flying passage eagles and goshawks fulfilled. At a quality and respectable level. And now the opportunity to fly passage Prairie Falcons on ducks. It doesn't get much better than that. Life is good!

At the end of the day, what's important? They say bitterness is like drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die! I've learned life is just too short to complain and whine. I'm so glad I learned it sooner than later!

My best falconry could still be in front of me! 

Good hawking everyone!

Dan that may be the most positive thing I have ever read on NAFEX. You are not just saying that to promote a self-help book you are writing are you?

There is a good point to be made here though. This is supposed to be fun. When falconers get bitter and nasty they are missing the point. It is a hobby. Granted most of us
are pretty passionate about it but at the end of the day it is all about enjoying ourselves. We can all disagree about the details (and we do) and still enjoy the ride.

[MrBill]

Looking back over the years, it's been a pretty fulfilling and fun falconry ride. In fact, I'm thankful, and there are multiple people to thank! I saw my dream of flying passage eagles and goshawks fulfilled. At a quality and respectable level. And now the opportunity to fly passage Prairie Falcons on ducks. It doesn't get much better than that. Life is good!

At the end of the day, what's important? They say bitterness is like drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die! I've learned life is just too short to complain and whine. I'm so glad I learned it sooner than later!

My best Falconry could still be in front of me! 

Good hawking everyone!

Dan,

I agree that falconry (for the most part) has been fulfilling and fun. And I also agree that we have many people to thank. And I am glad that you have been able to fly passage eagles and goshawks, but why follow it up with "at a quality and respectable level"? Are you trying to tell us something? 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). So, I am not sure you learned "sooner than later" (unlike the rest of us mortal souls) that life is too short. Please tell us how NAFA has played a part in your falconry journey over the years? Thanks.

Bill Boni

[wyodjm]

Dan,

I agree that falconry (for the most part) has been fulfilling and fun. And I also agree that we have many people to thank. And I am glad that you have been able to fly passage eagles and goshawks, but why follow it up with "at a quality and respectable level"? Are you trying to tell us something? 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). So, I am not sure you learned "sooner than later" (unlike the rest of us mortal souls) that life is too short. Please tell us how NAFA has played a part in your falconry journey over the years? Thanks.

Bill Boni

Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment. - Benjamin Franklin

Cheers Bill! 👍

[MrBill]

Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment. - Benjamin Franklin

Cheers Bill! 

Well, I certainly would not want you to say the "wrong" thing, Dan; that would not fit your image :-) But if you can bring yourself to do so, will you please share with us how NAFA has contributed (or not) to your falconry experience? Thanks, again.

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?

[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