Just for fun

[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

[rkumetz]

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

Bill.
What you are saying is perfectly logical but it doesn't really work out that way. When a volunteer leadership position opens up there are usually two kinds of people who can fill it:
Those who really really really want it and have loads of time to dedicate to the task and those who are qualified, desirable candidates who's time may be in short supply because they
are also qualified to be doing other things. Very often the first category of people are the ones who you least want to have the job for one reason or another. The most qualified people are often those who doubt that they are right for the job. You and I know that smart people are aware of exactly how much they do not know. The people who think they know everything are going to cause problems. The ones who just want to be in charge are also to be avoided at all costs.

Volunteering in a leadership role is a mostly thankless time consuming and stressful endeavor.

[MrBill]

Bill.
Volunteering in a leadership role is a mostly thankless time consuming and stressful endeavor.

I hear you, Ron. A good example would be the NAFA President job; this is a job that, under no circumstances, would I even consider taking on. In fact, I'm not sure why people even want to be president, as it is--as you say--"thankless, time-consuming, and stressful'; it is also costly because (as I have been told) making a NAFA showing at a lot of these functions is paid for out of pocket. But, I can't imagine the directors' jobs being all that laborious. I think it is more of a matter of how much effort people are willing to put into the job.

Bill Boni

[rkumetz]

I hear you, Ron. A good example would be the NAFA President job; this is a job that, under no circumstances, would I even consider taking on. In fact, I'm not sure why people even want to be president, as it is--as you say--"thankless, time-consuming, and stressful'; it is also costly because (as I have been told) making a NAFA showing at a lot of these functions is paid for out of pocket. But, I can't imagine the directors' jobs being all that laborious. I think it is more of a matter of how much effort people are willing to put into the job.

Bill Boni

Our last 2 NE directors have made a much better effort to "engage the members" for lack of a better description. Prior to that it was hit or miss. I got the impression that the previous people had their arms twisted into taking the job. I am not being critical of those individuals since if that is the case nobody else stepped to the plate so we only have ourselves to blame.
In the big picture just touching base with members to see how they feel about issues being discussed by the board is nice. Despite the dangerous ideas of our current general counsel we elect our directors and they represent us on the board so NAFA is in fact a member guided organization. It may be representative democracy but that is far different from a board run organization. A good example of that type of outfit would be various charitable foundations that give away lots of money. Most of those boards are appointed by people who ponied up the cash in the first place.

I agree that our current president does a pretty good job of hearing people out. Given that for n falconers there are n+1 opinions his ear must hurt from talking on the phone and I hope NAFA will pick up the tab for his carpal tunnel surgery.

[rkumetz]

Are we having all the fun promised by the name of this thread yet?