Mtn Director

[Saluqi]

I'm running for mtn director, I'd be happy to try and answer your questions.

[outhawkn]

Thanks Paul, this is going to be fun.....

All kidding aside, my two biggest issues are the private property issue?
My second issue, is the search. What are your views on it?

You may have covered this elsewhere, if so please direct me to it rather than retype if you like.

[Saluqi]

This what I posted in the private property thread:
http://www.nafex.net/showthread.php?...ight=ownership

They are private property, doesn't matter if they are captive bred or wild caught, but there are stipulations. If you have any animal, whether it be a dog, cat, horse, snake, or hawk, if it is unhealthy and not receiving proper care from it's owner, then it can be taken away from you. Unlike a car where you can never add oil and beat in a public place with sledge hammer and no one will take it away for abusing it, you can't do that with an animal.

I posted this response on another thread:
http://www.nafex.net/showthread.php?...nership&page=2

Hi Jeff,
I've been crunching through the NM regulations the last few weeks, updating them to include the new aspects of the federal regulations. In a meeting with LE last December the head of LE asked that we include ownership as part of the definition of falconry. Here is what I came up with, the definition has been approved by our state and George Allen.


19.35.8.7 DEFINITIONS:
A. “Falconry” shall mean the ownership, caring for, and training of raptors for the pursuit of wild game, and hunting wild game with raptors. Falconry includes the use of captive bred raptors and taking of raptors from the wild to use in the sport; and the ownership, caring for, training, and transporting raptors held for falconry.

I'm all for raptors being held as private property, just like owning a horse or a dog, the ownership can be taken away if you mistreat the animal. Unlike a TV or a car which you own, you can not abuse an animal expect that it will not be taken away from you. By the same token I'd guess like an aggressive dog that harms others, if your raptor attacks a person you may also lose it. I would vote in favor of raptors as private property.

[Saluqi]

This is from the new federal regs on inspections, page 59470 top of third column.

(9) Falconry facilities, raptors, equipment, and records inspections. Falconry bird(s), facilities, equipment, and records may be inspected only in the presence of the permittee, during business hours on any day of the week by State, tribal, or territorial officials.


This is from the question and answer section of the new federal regs, this can be found on page 59452, third column of text.

Issue. Federal authority under revised regulations.
• ‘‘The proposed rule offers little clarification on how enforcement might operate in the future. With additional regulatory and permitting burdens being
placed on the states, we assume that there is a potential for federal law enforcement to diminish. Even if the state-federal law enforcement of
migratory bird regulations is envisioned to remain the same, the rule should state this in clear language.’’ (State agency)
• ‘‘Does the FWS retain the authority to suspend or revoke falconry permits under 50 CFR. If not, this should be stated. Exactly what authority does the Service (LE) retain under the proposed regulations, i.e. with no Federal Permit. This should be clarified and stated in the regulations.’’
Response. We do not believe that the regulation change affects law enforcement substantially, or that there are additional regulatory or permitting burdens placed on the States, tribes, or territories. With one exception, Service enforcement of the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act, 16 U.S.C. 668-668d) are not affected by the regulations change. The exception is that, because the Service will no longer issue falconry permits, Service law enforcement officers will not have the authority to conduct inspections of falconers’ records and facilities, unless the Service officers also are delegated State law enforcement authority. The Service will not have authority to suspend or revoke permits issued by the States, tribes, or territories, but compliance with all provisions of these regulations remains under the purview of the Service, and falconry permittees are subject to Federal prosecution for failure to comply with the regulations.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________________________
In an ideal world, if I became a director I would work as hard as I could to have the possibility of inspections removed from the federal falconry regulations. Realistically we know that will never happen.

Under the new regulations only the state has the authority to perform inspections, the feds no longer have that authority, unless delegated by the state. The new regulations do nothing to state under what conditions an inspection is warranted, which leaves open the door for pop inspections. I can't speak for other states, but I know that in NM the only time an inspection will occur is if there is some probable cause. In my conversations with state LE they said the only time they have had cause to visit a falconers house is when they get a report from a neighbor saying that so and so has a hawk in a cage in their yard. In every instance, except one, these were non-falconers who somehow or another came into possession of a bird and stuck it in their chicken coop, so they weren't actually doing a falconry inspection. The head of LE told me that one time they went on one of these calls and arrived at the residence to find out the bird was being legally held by a licensed falconer, no harm no foul.

In terms of states that actually do these pop inspections I would hope that the state club was taking the initiative to find out what motivated the inspection, and seek to improve the relationship between the falconers and the LE department. I suppose at the NAFA level, if I were director and a state falconry association in my directorate requested that NAFA get involved because of unsolicited inspections, then I would put it up to the board and see if NAFA could look into the issue, which I'd guess would happen with the formation of a committee. How could NAFA help? Maybe with facts in hand a NAFA representative, perhaps myself or a DAL, could meet with the LE division of the state in question and work to improve the situation. I know a rather vague answer on my part, but there's not much that we as a group can do because allowing inspections is condition of our permit. I don't think there is a legal way to be a falconer and be guaranteed 100% immunity from inspections.

[sharptail]

Hi Paul,
I appreciate your realistic view. USFWS has gotten out of inspections in a timely fashion. The only way to stop illegal searches in falconry now, is the same path that was taken with the eyass peregrine take in Utah and with the hiring of Mr. Horn on the personal property issue....a legal one. With USFWS now out of the 'inspection' picture, individual states would now have to be challanged, splitting the total group support and potential sources of money to sue.

If all states had an attitude like you discribe with LE in NM, and it stayed that way, there would be little support for any action. For those who do not remember, there have been may falconry birds wrongfully siezed in the past, some that were taken off of eggs from breeding chambers, many of the siezed birds died of ill handling or neglect.

When one looks at the potential of some breeding raptor to make a profit, the likelyhood of law suits, increase dramitacly.

[Ron Clarke]

The only inspections I'm aware of in my state are the pre-licensing facilities visits. I had my first mews inspected over thirty years ago by a representative of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and have never been visited by either state or federal officials since. That seems to be the same experience other falconers here have had.

Help me understand the scale of the situation where you are. How often do "pop inspections" happen? Is this a common thing? Federal officials? State agents? Both? Are birds frequently confiscated? Under what circumstances have birds been taken away in the past? What has been the fate of those birds? How have affected falconers responded?

And here's something I've long wondered about: if federal and/or state wildlife law enforcement officials are so deeply concerned with making sure the laws and regulations on raptors are followed to the letter, why don't they go to every rodeo on the circuit in the western U.S. and bust people for all those illegal hawk, owl, and eagle feathers in their hatbands? For all I know, maybe they do this all the time. Just the same, I imagine the LE folks aren't exactly eager to tell some 275-pound bulldogger to hand over the feather in his hat and pay a fine for the privilege of doing so.

[sharptail]

The last 'pop in' inspection here in Wy. that I remember, was at Steve Jones facility, just after 'Op witch hunt'. If memory serves, it was shortly after he voiced oppisition, to police actions.

D. Jamieson in the past has told me a tale of wanting to take a peregrine he was hawking from his home in Reno into Calif. for a falconry meet and contacted state and federal autorities, seeking permission and recieved it. When he showed at the meet his falcon was confiscated by a federal agent and died in captivity. Dave sued and won and was given another peregrine some years later.

Mr. Dan has told me a tale a few times or a state agent showing up on a 'pop' basis and demanding all of the paperwork for his large breeding project. After consulting his attorney on the phone, they asked the agent to return the next day, when the attorney was present to oversee the proceedings. The attorney told the agent of the value of some of the falcons in the project and that he would be held accountable for any dammages and the inspection was called off.

I have had pop in visits on at least 2 occasions while living in oregon, by there game dept.. One was just prior to 'Op Falcon', seems they were looking for any sort of violations to include in Op FAlcon. After working a graveyard shift and getting home just after 6 am., I had just gone to bed when there was a knock at the door at 6:45 and 2 agents, one state and one federal demanded an inspection. We had nothing to hide so agreed. That was all they needed, and they started upstairs to the bedrooms and my wife objected and wanted to go up first and tidy up the bedroom, being somewhat embarrased, when she was shoved aside by the fed, and told "NO!, that is all right, I will go first". They found nothing but a messy house and I was not included in 'Op falcon', but not for lack of trying.

I am not privy to everything that triggered so called in inspections while living in oregon, but what I can tell you is that it was every falconer in the area in Oregon on the same day and happened more than just prior to Op falcon. As far as I know there were never any violations found with any of us.

When I moved to Wyo., I started my relationship with my local warden on the basis of the illegal nature of inspections, and we got along great. I told him that if there was ever any problem in reguard to my falconry to just give me a call and we would straighten it out. I did have one inspection by him, after moving, at the insistance head of LE, with his apoligies. He is a great guy and was a falconer, before working for Game and Fish.

All one has to do is look, there are plenty of horror stories out there.

[Flatwater Falconer]

The only inspections I'm aware of in my state are the pre-licensing facilities visits. I had my first mews inspected over thirty years ago by a representative of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and have never been visited by either state or federal officials since. That seems to be the same experience other falconers here have had.

I had one inspection of facilities and gear on getting my first permit. Haven't heard or seen and LE since then. Nebraska has traditionally had a good relationship with our game and parks people. They know we police ourselves pretty strongly too so maybe that helps.

[bluejack]

Thought you all might want to take a look at this.


Pivotal Florida ruling boosts pet owners' rights

More Info

Almost a year and a half after NAIA Trust and two of its members sued Volusia County Florida over its new animal control ordinance, a federal judge has issued a key ruling permitting the case to go forward to trial.

The plaintiffs object to the licensing requirements of the county and assert that their rights to equal protection, due process and freedom from unreasonable searches are violated by the licensing requirements.

Plaintiffs have not made formal complete application for "hobby breeder" licenses because they allege they would be required to waive some of their federal and state constitutional rights in order to obtain such licenses, and they are not willing to do so.

The court found that, contrary to the county's arguments, because of the nature of the claims asserted by plaintiffs, plaintiffs have standing to pursue this case at this time. "... [A] denial of equal treatment is an actual injury even when the complainant is able to overcome the challenged barrier." Plaintiffs allege that they are being subjected to unequal treatment and that the county may not force them to waive their 4th Amendment rights as a condition of licensure. "...[T]he court finds that plaintiffs may pursue their claims even without having made a formal license application."

Patti Strand, National Director of NAIA Trust, said "This is what we've been waiting for and we feel very optimistic. Finally we can take the search and seizure issue, the mandatory spay/neuter issue, and all of our other concerns to trial.

Now the real fight begins. The goal is to stop the march of unconstitutional animal laws that empower the government and private groups to take our animals and sell them at a profit without just cause, or force us to perform life altering surgeries on our pets without due process. This is a battle that must be fought. The alternative is to allow our powerful opponents to prevail by outspending us and bleeding our resources while they usurp our constitutional rights.

Please join us in our fight and donate today. We can not do it without your support.


For further information contact us at NAIA Trust

If you received this link from a friend, click here to sign up for our alerts and articles.

NAIA Trust
Strengthening the human-animal bond and safeguarding the rights of responsible animal owners

[jfseaman]

Having been at a meeting of the state game commission, it is obvious that a commission member who is a former USFWS agent and the head warden want this tool and it has made it's way into the abatement regulations of California.

It's simple.

This tool of intimidation and coercion must be removed from the regulations.

If LE suspect illegal activity then they must go through the same processes as for any other investigation, obtain a warrant and execute the warrant.

We are subject to more scrutiny that someone bringing a new baby home from the hospital. How twisted is that?

[Saluqi]

Having been at a meeting of the state game commission, it is obvious that a commission member who is a former USFWS agent and the head warden want this tool and it has made it's way into the abatement regulations of California.

It's simple.

This tool of intimidation and coercion must be removed from the regulations.

If LE suspect illegal activity then they must go through the same processes as for any other investigation, obtain a warrant and execute the warrant.

We are subject to more scrutiny that someone bringing a new baby home from the hospital. How twisted is that?

Hi Fred,

Can you clarify this statement for me, I'm a little slow and don't understand what you're talking about. Does CA really allow a member of the game commission to also head law enforcement? That just seems wrong to me.

What "tool of intimidation and coercion" are you talking about?

[jfseaman]

Hi Fred,

Can you clarify this statement for me, I'm a little slow and don't understand what you're talking about. Does CA really allow a member of the game commission to also head law enforcement? That just seems wrong to me.

What "tool of intimidation and coercion" are you talking about?

A commission member is a former USFWS agent. Very chummy relationship with the chief FG warden/officer.

Snap inspections/mid-night inspections.