Ron Clarke -- Candidate for NAFA DAL

[Ron Clarke]

As promised, here's my solo thread. I look forward to your thoughts and questions.

[robruger1]

You have my vote......

[Ron Clarke]

Thanks, Rob, I appreciate your support. What can NAFA do to help you practice falconry the way you want?

[robruger1]

Recognition of falconry as a legitimate field sport. We need to get the usfw to treat us the same as other sportsman. Currently we operate under a microscope with every action scrutinized. When someone poaches an elk they have to face the consequences on their own and all the other elk hunters don't have to fear retaliation from the government for the one parties bad choices. This is not the case in falconry. As most know here in Oregon last year we had some falconers make some bad choices at a peregrine eyrie and now we are no longer allowed access to the eyries, if we want an eyass peregrine we have to get one from off a bridge. This is just one thing I'd like to see changed.

[Ron Clarke]

Good. Thanks for the feedback. You're right on the mark. Please keep in touch.

[everetkhorton]

Ron, Thanks for running for DAL of NAFA.

[Ron Clarke]

Thanks, Ev. I appreciate your involvement in NAFA and your regular participation here on NAFEX.

[oscarpack@yahoo.com]

Thanks for running Ron, I enjoyed our visits in Garden City and Woodward.
Oscar

[Ron Clarke]

Thanks, Oscar. Good to hear from you. I enjoyed our time in KS and OK, too -- looking forward to more. How's that big catching machine doing?

[oscarpack@yahoo.com]

She is going good, molting at a moderate rate at present, I hope my recent move doesn't slow it down
Are you flying anything new this year?
Oscar

[Ron Clarke]

Nothing new yet. My female gyr is in a breeding project in Fairbanks, and I'm ciphering out how to deal with the big change to my hawking grounds. The local dump shut off their incinerator and has been landfilling the garbage. Result: on any given day, there are about 400 bald eagles in our little corner of the world. With no road out and no practical way to get far enough away, I'm reluctant to fly big falcons here any more. I've lost three to eagles over the past twenty years, and don't care to lose any more. Merlin? Goshawk? Maybe a passage falcon would be more eagle smart than an eyas? Haven't decided yet. I love this place, but it was already marginal for falconry. It's downright dangerous now.

[Ron Clarke]

Hi all,

I'm soon off to Whitehorse, Yukon for the greatest softball tournament on Earth, followed by a bit of a road trip. I'll be off line until the end of the month or so, unless I can connect here and there along the way. Since the roaming charges in Canada are incredible, I'll probably be mostly unavailable by phone, too. Looking forward to renewing our conversation when I return.

[Ron Clarke]

Hi everyone,

I'm back at the keyboard and ready to answer questions and continue the conversation.

[Saluqi]

Hi Ron,

I'm asking questions of you and Fred to help me with my decision. I've heard rumblings from folks who say that having worked in the Alaska state government you have an insider approach to doing things, and these folks fear that you will perpetuate that approach much like recent NAFA boards have operated. How do you respond to that?

[Ron Clarke]

Hi Ron,

I'm asking questions of you and Fred to help me with my decision. I've heard rumblings from folks who say that having worked in the Alaska state government you have an insider approach to doing things, and these folks fear that you will perpetuate that approach much like recent NAFA boards have operated. How do you respond to that?

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the question. One of my favorite maxims is "all generalizations are bad." Writing off people who have worked in government or painting them all with a broad brush as secretive insiders is a mistake. Sure, it's tempting and often justified to distrust goverment -- I tend to be skeptical of governments myself -- but people in government are just that. People. And people are all different.

People bring what they are to government jobs. Contact with government doesn't necessarily infect everyone it touches with the evil attributes of the system. People as diverse as, say, Ken Mesch and Cass Sunstein have both worked for a long time in government; I hope Ken won't recoil in horror and hold it against me for being mentioned in the same sentence as that other guy. My point is Ken is a strong advocate for falconry as a hunting sport and, well, let's just hope the other guy never hears a peep about the sport, and they're both career government guys. In Alaska, I've noticed elected officials usually undergo an amplification of their existing natural tendencies. The good-hearted, well-meaning ones become powerful and effective champions of their constituents; others become self-serving, ego-driven, crooked, or all of that and worse.

My experience in government taught me it is always preferable to operate openly and with participation by affected people and groups from the outset of any project or program. First and foremost, no one has a monopoly on good ideas. Effective government leaders avail themselves of the experience and expertise of as many knowledgeable people as possible. I lean toward drawing more people in to any situation than to deliberate internally. That always slows things down and makes the discussions more cumbersome, but it's a fair trade. Secondly, at least at the state level in Alaska, it seems everything that happens all comes out publicly in the end anyway, so you might as well get the benefit of broad participation up front.

Having been a government "insider" allowed me to learn how systems work and what it takes to move them. That's useful knowledge, even if some people have a knee-jerk aversion to what they assume is automatically tantamount to back room maneuvering, which it isn't.

Does that help? If not, give me a specific example or two of what concerns you or others about past NAFA Board actions and I'll give you my perspective.

[sharptail]

Well, you certainly have managed to distroy Ken's image by association with a Communist like Sunstein.

How do you feel about repatriation of falconers that have let there membership lapse due to NAFA taking a stance aginst our raptors as private property, something that some feel is betrayal of basic Rights. Would you just as soon they stay gone and fight it out on there own or with the AFC?

I must say that I have a gross mistrust of you as an elite(government) insider as well as a NAFA insider, and a MUCH worse opinion of highup government officals than you seem too.

[Ron Clarke]

You missed my point, Jeff. I held up the example of a solid falconer and a long-time NAFA member and Director as someone who was the total opposite of "that other guy," yet both have worked for governments.

[sharptail]

I didn't miss the point, I just think that it was a dispicable example that did harm to Ken.

[Ron Clarke]

I didn't miss the point, I just think that it was a dispicable example that did harm to Ken.

That certainly wasn't my intent. I'm sorry yoiu took it that way and have written Ken to apologize as well.

[FredFogg]

Ron, this has been discussed before but I really never saw a definate answer from you. Are you for non-resident take in Alaska? Yes or No! And if Yes, do you think states should have recipical fees for non-resident take? My state charges nothing, why should I have to pay $300 to trap in TX and folks from TX can come here and trap for nothing?

[Ron Clarke]

Ron, this has been discussed before but I really never saw a definate answer from you. Are you for non-resident take in Alaska? Yes or No! And if Yes, do you think states should have recipical fees for non-resident take? My state charges nothing, why should I have to pay $300 to trap in TX and folks from TX can come here and trap for nothing?

Hi Fred,

Yes. No. Mind-numbing detail on either position available by request.

[FredFogg]

Hi Fred,

Yes. No. Mind-numbing detail on either position available by request.

Well, I would definately like to hear your mind-numbing detail on why you don't favor reciprocal fees for non-resident take? And before you answer, the theory that my state has birds that your state doesn't have doesn't fly with me (pardon the pun). That gyr in Alaska can fly to any lower state and that state not have a fee for non-resident trapping, so why should Alaska get a fee for the same bird. The only fees should be a minimum administration fee, not $300 or some crazy high number.

[Ron Clarke]

Well, I would definately like to hear your mind-numbing detail on why you don't favor reciprocal fees for non-resident take? And before you answer, the theory that my state has birds that your state doesn't have doesn't fly with me (pardon the pun). That gyr in Alaska can fly to any lower state and that state not have a fee for non-resident trapping, so why should Alaska get a fee for the same bird. The only fees should be a minimum administration fee, not $300 or some crazy high number.

I should have said "sure, but not due to a nationwide mandate or directive." If states want to charge reciprocal fees, that's great. But states appropriately reserve the right to levy taxes and charge user fees as they see fit. If a state wants to adopt a reciprocal arrangement with respect to other states, I'm all for it -- but they shouldn't be forced to do so.

As for species reciprocity, that gets complicated in a hurry. For example, an Alaskan who wants a wild boar can go to North Carolina and pay $60.00; a North Carolinian who wants a musk ox goes to Alaska pays $85.00 plus an $1,100.00 tag. On the other hand, a North Carolinian can come to Alaska and shoot a bear for $85.00 plus a $25.00 bear tag. I would imagine a person trying to persuade the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to drop the price of a bear by $50.00 (from $110.00 to $60.00) might succeed, but dropping musk ox by more than a thousand dollars to $60.00 would require powerful arguments indeed. There are surely a lot of other examples with other states' fees. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'll bet plenty of states are fiercely wedded to their licensing "cash cows."

That said, raptor trapping is in a different realm from the big game hunting industry, i.e., it will never be a big money generator for states and they may well look more kindly on the idea of reciprocal fees. Have you looked into the range of fees states charge for non-resident take of raptors? If you have those data in e-mailable form, I'd love to see them.

[FredFogg]

I should have said "sure, but not due to a nationwide mandate or directive." If states want to charge reciprocal fees, that's great. But states appropriately reserve the right to levy taxes and charge user fees as they see fit. If a state wants to adopt a reciprocal arrangement with respect to other states, I'm all for it -- but they shouldn't be forced to do so.

As for species reciprocity, that gets complicated in a hurry. For example, an Alaskan who wants a wild boar can go to North Carolina and pay $60.00; a North Carolinian who wants a musk ox goes to Alaska pays $85.00 plus an $1,100.00 tag. On the other hand, a North Carolinian can come to Alaska and shoot a bear for $85.00 plus a $25.00 bear tag. I would imagine a person trying to persuade the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to drop the price of a bear by $50.00 (from $110.00 to $60.00) might succeed, but dropping musk ox by more than a thousand dollars to $60.00 would require powerful arguments indeed. There are surely a lot of other examples with other states' fees. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'll bet plenty of states are fiercely wedded to their licensing "cash cows."

That said, raptor trapping is in a different realm from the big game hunting industry, i.e., it will never be a big money generator for states and they may well look more kindly on the idea of reciprocal fees. Have you looked into the range of fees states charge for non-resident take of raptors? If you have those data in e-mailable form, I'd love to see them.

Ron, you still sound like a politician. LOL Why even bring up bears and musk ox when you end by saying raptor trapping is in a different realm? Yes, it is in a different realm. No state is going to make much of anything from falconers and raptor trapping, so why should any state charge any fee other than administrative cost? And I am not talking about a mandate on all states, only what as a NAFA director would you want NAFA to try and suggest the states to do. NAFA will never be able to create regulations within states, but they can help guide states. And then you end your answer with a question, wow, can you be more like a politician than that? LOL

[Ron Clarke]

Ron, you still sound like a politician. LOL Why even bring up bears and musk ox when you end by saying raptor trapping is in a different realm? Yes, it is in a different realm. No state is going to make much of anything from falconers and raptor trapping, so why should any state charge any fee other than administrative cost? And I am not talking about a mandate on all states, only what as a NAFA director would you want NAFA to try and suggest the states to do. NAFA will never be able to create regulations within states, but they can help guide states. And then you end your answer with a question, wow, can you be more like a politician than that? LOL

Your logic is right on the mark. I'd carry it even further -- I've long maintained falconry should be regulated according to its impact on the resource, which is so negligible so as to be nonexistent or even positive when you consider the education, rehab, etc. work falconers do. That's not to say there should be no rules -- I like the apprentice system and other features of our system that look after the welfare of the birds. But logic or even biological fact doesn't often rule in political and administrative environments, especially when money is involved.

When it comes to fees collected by states, I know how jealously they guard every single one of their revenue generators, even the ones that don't bring in much money. As far as bears and musk oxen, that's the sort of thing game and fish departments will think of first. I can guarantee you the first thought in the minds of state wildlife department number crunchers and license administrators -- and they are the ones who run these systems --will be something like "If we drop raptor trapping fees, will that set a precedent whereby we might be legally required to offer the same deal to big game hunters?" If there's a hint of a possibility that a revenue source like non-resident deer hunting license fees would be jeopardized by writing off the negligible take by raptor trappers, they'll be seriously concerned. Even without that possible threat, I suspect you're going to have to have your arguments in good order if you're suggesting to a state like Texas that they reduce their raptor trapping fee from $300.00 to zero.

It should be, but this is not a black-or-white question. Sorry if my answer was too gray for you. As for asking questions, it's something I do a lot. So do you have those data or not? I'll start running them down myself if you don't. I was merely hoping you might save me some time.

As a NAFA director, I'd find out which states had implemented reciprocal fees and how they accomplished that arrangement, and then make that information part of the information available to state clubs. I suspect state clubs might have some suggestions as to how best another state might implement those regs -- advice on how to do it better, what to look out for, useful arguments to counter commonly encountered concerns, etc.

[wyodjm]

A few years back, I had a discussion on falconry take and reciprocity with our Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Wyoming basically came to the conclusion, many years ago, that they aren’t our birds. We don’t own them. I think it is the correct perspective. If Wyoming falconers can take raptors here, then so can licensed nonresidents. That is Wyoming’s position.

Why should raptors be any different than other migratory birds that can be legally harvested, nationwide, within sound management objectives? Even the flyway councils are debating the national passage peregrine harvests. Yet many states have this thing about a few raptors being taken for falconry purposes. I don’t think there are any reciprocity restrictions addressing waterfowl hunting anywhere in the nation. Why should there be for raptors?

Reciprocity has been a topic for a long time. I think, and I’m not alone, that if the right person with deep enough pockets wanted to challenge any state’s reciprocity restriction on raptor take, in court, the state would lose. Especially when it came to trapping passage birds for falconry. And especially on federal, public lands. The right person with enough money to challenge it simply hasn’t come along yet. But then, why would they? It would be cheaper to just go and buy a bird!

You want a set of model regulations to look at when it comes to nonresident raptor take for falconry? Why reinvent the wheel? Just look at and copy Wyoming's regulations. They've been in place for over 40 years. We don't care if you copy us. It's no big deal.

[FredFogg]

A few years back, I had a discussion on falconry take and reciprocity with our Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Wyoming basically came to the conclusion, many years ago, that they aren’t our birds. We don’t own them. I think it is the correct perspective. If Wyoming falconers can take raptors here, then so can licensed nonresidents. That is Wyoming’s position.

Why should raptors be any different than other migratory birds that can be legally harvested, nationwide, within sound management objectives? Even the flyway councils are debating the national passage peregrine harvests. Yet many states have this thing about a few raptors being taken for falconry purposes. I don’t think there are any reciprocity restrictions addressing waterfowl hunting anywhere in the nation. Why should there be for raptors?

Reciprocity has been a topic for a long time. I think, and I’m not alone, that if the right person with deep enough pockets wanted to challenge any state’s reciprocity restriction on raptor take, in court, the state would lose. Especially when it came to trapping passage birds for falconry. And especially on federal, public lands. The right person with enough money to challenge it simply hasn’t come along yet. But then, why would they? It would be cheaper to just go and buy a bird!

You want a set of model regulations to look at when it comes to nonresident raptor take for falconry? Why reinvent the wheel? Just look at and copy Wyoming's regulations. They've been in place for over 40 years. We don't care if you copy us. It's no big deal.

Funny point you make there Dan, but doesn't Wyoming have a nice hefty fee for non-residents to trap there? Kind of the opposite of what you just said, the birds are everyones, but hmmm, let's charge you a nice big fee to come here to trap! My whole deal isn't really with reciprocity, but more with it should be free in every state, resident or non-resident! We have ZERO impact on raptors, this isn't anything new. It just seems the states don't get that! And that is what I would want NAFA and the directors to fight for and hence, my questioning the candidates for DAL on this subject.

[wyodjm]

Funny point you make there Dan, but doesn't Wyoming have a nice hefty fee for non-residents to trap there? Kind of the opposite of what you just said, the birds are everyones, but hmmm, let's charge you a nice big fee to come here to trap! My whole deal isn't really with reciprocity, but more with it should be free in every state, resident or non-resident! We have ZERO impact on raptors, this isn't anything new. It just seems the states don't get that! And that is what I would want NAFA and the directors to fight for and hence, my questioning the candidates for DAL on this subject.

Hi Fred:

I was going to mention the fee thing. You’re right. Yes, Wyoming charges about $240 for a nonresident capture permit. I can’t remember the exact amount. All hunting and fishing license fees are set by the state Legislature. There’s a formula. If the fees go up for deer, elk, antelope, or whatever, all fees go up incrementally across the board.

Personally, I think the nonresident fees here are too high also. I think a cap of about $100 would be fair. But it’s not my call. In the long run, your license fees to come here to take a bird will probably be the least of your expenses. I don’t have a problem with a state charging a fee. I also don’t have a problem with residents paying cheaper license fees and having first access to set aside permits where there’s limited quota take on certain species.

I guess if Wyoming’s fees give people too much heartburn, then they can choose to go take a bird somewhere else. My point was we have nonresident take and we don't have reciprocity restrictions.

[FredFogg]

I guess if Wyoming’s fees give people too much heartburn, then they can choose to go take a bird somewhere else. My point was we have nonresident take and we don't have reciprocity restrictions.

I, too am for non-resident take but I believe in reciprocity restrictions only because some states will never revert back to charging smaller fees. The only fee we have is for the peregrine lottery, which last year was $5. If you were to come here to trap a peregrine or any raptor, I believe we should charge you $240. To me that is only fair, why should I have to pay $240 to trap in your state and you pay nothing here or just $5 to trap a peregrine. My wish would be that all states not charge anything other than a small administrative fee, definately not more than $25 or so. But the reality of that is it isn't going to happen, so reciprocity is the only fair solution in my eyes.

[Ron Clarke]

A few years back, I had a discussion on falconry take and reciprocity with our Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Wyoming basically came to the conclusion, many years ago, that they aren’t our birds. We don’t own them. I think it is the correct perspective. If Wyoming falconers can take raptors here, then so can licensed nonresidents. That is Wyoming’s position.

Dan, you and I have talked about this in the past. I agree, Wyoming's is an enlightened position. Do you know how that attitude came to exist as an agency policy? Was it the perspective of a single chief or director in the early days that just became entrenched after a while, or did the agency as a whole sit down and discuss it and reach that conclusion as the result of a logical exchange of views? If so, what prompted that discussion? Do you have any suggestions for how to promote that attitude in other states?

I think, and I’m not alone, that if the right person with deep enough pockets wanted to challenge any state’s reciprocity restriction on raptor take, in court, the state would lose. Especially when it came to trapping passage birds for falconry. And especially on federal, public lands.

Hmmmm, federal lands... In Alaska, managers of units of the National Wildlife Refuge system and other federal territory retain authority to allow or disallow various activities on the lands for which they are responsible. There's been a long-standing Alaska Region policy regarding take of falconry birds that says if birds are available elsewhere, federal officials disallow take on federal lands. Is that not the federal policy where you are? If that's not a nationwide federal stance, we ought to see what we can do to change that policy in Alaska. No raptor take on federal lands means 60% of Alaska is off limits to falconers.

[JRedig]

Funny point you make there Dan, but doesn't Wyoming have a nice hefty fee for non-residents to trap there? Kind of the opposite of what you just said, the birds are everyones, but hmmm, let's charge you a nice big fee to come here to trap! My whole deal isn't really with reciprocity, but more with it should be free in every state, resident or non-resident! We have ZERO impact on raptors, this isn't anything new. It just seems the states don't get that! And that is what I would want NAFA and the directors to fight for and hence, my questioning the candidates for DAL on this subject.

Something to keep in mind, the fee may justify the expense of the paperwork etc to keep the program alive. As falconers we are a small number but the same procedures and policies must be followed to abide by regulations set at state and federal levels. These things don't pay for themselves. All of the other licenses issued in the state are cheaper due to volume discount, it's something we will always face.

Considering what breeders charge for birds, that $240 is cheap, IMO.

Here in MN, i'm involved with the Muskies Inc organization. People have lobbied for a muskie stamp for years to support stocking. The DNR did the math, the program won't pay out for what it would take to cover the costs etc.

[Ron Clarke]

Something to keep in mind, the fee may justify the expense of the paperwork etc to keep the program alive. As falconers we are a small number but the same procedures and policies must be followed to abide by regulations set at state and federal levels. These things don't pay for themselves. All of the other licenses issued in the state are cheaper due to volume discount, it's something we will always face.

Considering what breeders charge for birds, that $240 is cheap, IMO.

Here in MN, i'm involved with the Muskies Inc organization. People have lobbied for a muskie stamp for years to support stocking. The DNR did the math, the program won't pay out for what it would take to cover the costs etc.

A lot of states have abandoned their state duck stamp print programs for the same reason. Even in the biological agencies, there are always a team of number crunchers injecting fiscal reality into everything.

And don't forget the late Minnesota artist Les Kouba's infamous "Lutefisk Stamp," which raised funds, for, well, I don't know what. The Sons of Norway? The Retired Norwegian Fishermen's Home? The Friends of Stinky Foods Foundation? Whatever -- it was a real piece of work.

[Lowachi]

And don't forget the late Minnesota artist Les Kouba's infamous "Lutefisk Stamp," which raised funds, for, well, I don't know what. The Sons of Norway? The Retired Norwegian Fishermen's Home? The Friends of Stinky Foods Foundation? Whatever -- it was a real piece of work.

Lutefisk....Just say no!!!

[Ron Clarke]

Lutefisk....Just say no!!!

I always knew you had prodigious common sense, lad.

[Lowachi]

I always knew you had prodigious common sense, lad.

Swedish!! I know better! If Andrew Zimmer won't eat it, I sure as ....