Preliminary Injunction Filed

[joekoz]

A couple of points that should be the starting point of this conversation:

Subchapter B of 50CFR Part 13 set the over-arching terms for all permits such as Taxidermy, Education, Falconry, rehab etc. In 13.47 you will see that the inspection requirement is an umbrella requirement for all permits relating to bird possession. So it's not like its some crazy thing applied only to falconry.
§ 13.47 Inspection requirement.
Any person holding a permit under this subchapter B shall allow the Director's agent to enter his premises at any reasonable hour to inspect any wildlife or plant held or to inspect, audit, or copy any permits, books, or records required to be kept by regulations of this subchapter B.

50CFR allows someone to hold a permit for education, abatement, eagle exhibition, rehab or whatever; and folks are allowed to conduct unrestrained commercial activity with non-MBTA species. Taken together its a pretty hard argument to claim the government is impinging on one's rights. If the plaintiffs want to do education, then get an education permit and do education. Let's not forget that the feedback loop between commerce and exploitation is at the very essence of why the MBTA came to be in the first place. The law was not written and maintained in law solely to address 1918 conditions.

As most people can understand, falconry is only as true to form as the people practicing it. The original authors of the regs were falconers who had a concern for the birds and a concern for falconry first and foremost. Its based on an understanding that falconry can quickly morph into something else...unless we set some sideboards for those entering into the practice. And we care about the birds - right?. We dont need our native wildlife, captive bred or otherwise, becoming a pure commodity in commerce, or the voices behind that perspective becoming majority members of our community.

What is often hard for folks to appreciate is that the wildlife agencies are our most important allies - even when they sometimes suck. They institutionally recognize and support traditional hunting practices and are the most insulated from the political influence of animal rights lobbyists. They pay their mortgage from sportsman dollars...literally.

If we truly deregulate captive bred birds or others away from wildlife agency control (by classifying them from wildlife to domestic animals)...it will still fall under the oversight of someone. Who would that be? State and federal Department of Ag or county or municipal animal services. Animal rights groups have a growing sphere of influence in these sectors...there is no telling what inspection requirements would come forth. Certainly not ones written by our own community, and likely requirements not in the interests if the birds.

I support our forefather's order of priorities: 1) the birds 2) the practice of falconry 3) the falconer

John:

When I was a boy back in the 50’s I learned an important lesson based upon the concept that “A Little Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing”.

All too often opinions are formed after only being exposed to a small piece of information regarding a subject without understanding the “Rest of the Story”.

Just want you to know that I appreciate the in-depth knowledge you bring and share in many of your posts on this forum.

[Tanner]

I vehemently oppose the commercial use of wild-taken raptors. That agenda is a serious threat to the future of wild take in this country.

I dont care if people want to use captive bred raptors for monetary gain- have at it. However, hawk walks, abatement, showbusiness, and pet keeping are not falconry. Those activities should have their own set of regulations. Labeling those activities as “falconry” jeopardizes the legitimacy of falconry.

If this legal action is about stopping warantless searches- stick to that topic and fix it. The status of birds as private private property and commercial use of raptors is a separate question and should not be rolled into this legal action.

I dont appreciate the way the AFC regularly presumes to know what is best for all of falconry and speaks up loudly on “our behalf”. I find their approach abrasive, poorly concieved and counter productive.

[wyodjm]

All too often opinions are formed after only being exposed to a small piece of information regarding a subject without understanding the “Rest of the Story”.

This is becoming common with social media today!

[Captain Gizmo]

NAFA Counsel and assistants, plus the TAC committee have spent the last couple weeks reading and analyzing the material in this suit, both the plaintiffs brief and the laws it will address. NAFA is at this time in the process of drafting an opinion statement.

Though not legally trained I am personally able at reading dense documents. I believe that if I were to put in 100 hours of diligent study (possibly with a bit of expert guidance) I would have a basic understanding of the filed complaint, the laws it will work under, and the foreseeable results and consequences, leaving only the inevitable unforeseen consequences to fear.

Until such time as I do put in the needed study I will refrain from presenting an opinion.

Due and Considered Regards,
Thomas of the Desert

[JRedig]

This is becoming common with social media today!

Becoming? It has been the norm for years already.

[Montucky]

John:

When I was a boy back in the 50’s I learned an important lesson based upon the concept that “A Little Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing”.

All too often opinions are formed after only being exposed to a small piece of information regarding a subject without understanding the “Rest of the Story”.

Just want you to know that I appreciate the in-depth knowledge you bring and share in many of your posts on this forum.

Aw shucks

[Montucky]

A paper giving some critical context regarding falconry legalization and NAFA's history in developing the federal regs. I feel very indebted to Carnie and others who put in this hard work

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/f0eo4w6qn...V6aKRPWEa?dl=0

[falcon56]

I vehemently oppose the commercial use of wild-taken raptors. That agenda is a serious threat to the future of wild take in this country.

I dont care if people want to use captive bred raptors for monetary gain- have at it. However, hawk walks, abatement, showbusiness, and pet keeping are not falconry. Those activities should have their own set of regulations. Labeling those activities as “falconry” jeopardizes the legitimacy of falconry.

If this legal action is about stopping warantless searches- stick to that topic and fix it. The status of birds as private private property and commercial use of raptors is a separate question and should not be rolled into this legal action.

I dont appreciate the way the AFC regularly presumes to know what is best for all of falconry and speaks up loudly on “our behalf”. I find their approach abrasive, poorly concieved and counter productive.

[rkumetz]

You guys are brave. I got accused of being a troll for asking questions like these so I started my own thread to have an intelligent discussion.
You are welcome to move this discussion there lest you all become trolls. There is not enough room under the bridge for all of us!

http://www.nafex.net/showthread.php?...utional-Rights

[rkumetz]

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/ca...cv01505/345441

[goshawkr]

I vehemently oppose the commercial use of wild-taken raptors. That agenda is a serious threat to the future of wild take in this country.

I dont care if people want to use captive bred raptors for monetary gain- have at it.

B .S.

It is commonly stated that commercialization is a threat to wildlife, but those arguments are quite hollow and collapse with any critical examination of them. There is absolutely nothing that makes non-commercial use more sacred than commercial use. And the wild populations have no concern over whether they are harvested for commercial reasons, purely recreational reasons, or any other reason.

Wildlife management is really quite simple - the deficits to the population (natural mortality, hunting pressure, habitat impacts, etc.) have to be lower than the ability of the population to replenish itself. If that stupid simple formula is followed, it does not make any difference what the motivations are behind the human induced impacts. The passenger pigeon was not exterminated due to commercial hunting, it was exterminated because that commercial hunting was not managed in a sustainable way. There are plenty of other examples of commercial harvest devastating wildlife populations, including the ones that inspired the MBTA to begin with. There are also several examples of unsustainable recreational harvest devastating wildlife populations.

So tell, me, just how exactly is the commercial use of a wild taken raptor the death knell of falconry as we all enjoy it?

BTW - commercial use of wild taken raptors has been alive and well in the US since the mid 80s when the sale of captive bred progeny was formerly allowed.

However, hawk walks, abatement, showbusiness, and pet keeping are not falconry. Those activities should have their own set of regulations. Labeling those activities as “falconry” jeopardizes the legitimacy of falconry.

Rest assured, someone else doing other activities with a falconry bird is not going to water down your legitimacy as a falconer anywhere else but inside your own mind. All of us are pet keepers a good share of the time, so be careful about throwing that particular stone around. And the core contention is what you are able to do with a private owned raptor held under a falconry permit in addition to hunting with it.

If this legal action is about stopping warantless searches- stick to that topic and fix it. The status of birds as private private property and commercial use of raptors is a separate question and should not be rolled into this legal action.

The topic at the core of the suit is about a federal agency illegally trouncing constitutional rights. Thats one issue, even though there are two specific rights that the AFC believes have been stomped upon. Simple enough.

I dont appreciate the way the AFC regularly presumes to know what is best for all of falconry and speaks up loudly on “our behalf”. I find their approach abrasive, poorly concieved and counter productive.

And just why do you think it is appropriate to bash the AFC in their own house? This is the AFC sub forum, and at best this is very bad manners. Disagree with them, fine. But AFC bashing in the AFC forum is extremely poor taste.

[goshawkr]

A couple of points that should be the starting point of this conversation:

Subchapter B of 50CFR Part 13 set the over-arching terms for all permits such as Taxidermy, Education, Falconry, rehab etc. In 13.47 you will see that the inspection requirement is an umbrella requirement for all permits relating to bird possession. So it's not like its some crazy thing applied only to falconry.
§ 13.47 Inspection requirement.
Any person holding a permit under this subchapter B shall allow the Director's agent to enter his premises at any reasonable hour to inspect any wildlife or plant held or to inspect, audit, or copy any permits, books, or records required to be kept by regulations of this subchapter B.

ah, so because the FWS is already violating the 4th amendment with other permits, it is OK for them to do so with falconers?

No one is actually suggesting that the FWS and state agencies should not be able to enforce the rules. The argument here is simply that they should, like any other law enforcement agency, have to have enough probable cause of wrong doing to get a judge to sign off on a warrant before they invade our collective metaphorical castles. Probable cause is a pretty low legal bar - it just means the officer is 51% certain.

50CFR allows someone to hold a permit for education, abatement, eagle exhibition, rehab or whatever; and folks are allowed to conduct unrestrained commercial activity with non-MBTA species. Taken together its a pretty hard argument to claim the government is impinging on one's rights. If the plaintiffs want to do education, then get an education permit and do education. Let's not forget that the feedback loop between commerce and exploitation is at the very essence of why the MBTA came to be in the first place. The law was not written and maintained in law solely to address 1918 conditions.

Actually, I ran this by my apprentice who is a recently graduated lawyer. He is quick to admit he is not a constitutional attorney, but his take on this is that he thought this end of the suit will fall flat. He thinks there are plenty of examples where courts have OK the government from nibbling away at free speech. I asked him how that fell in line with "...shall not be infringed..." and he laughed and said that was a good question.

The feedback loop between commerce and exploitation is noted, but in this case is completely out of line and irrelevant. It is a completely inane line that has been drawn. The wild populations are not impacted in the slightest if the goshawk that I already have for falconry is filmed for commercial reasons during her off time. Or for that matter if someone totes along a camera while I am hunting and sells the footage. This is currently completely legal, provided that the producer does not compensate me in any way. I will even take this a step further - 4 years ago my goshawk was filmed by someone who was in the field with me to use in a rock video. US FWS is welcome to come bust me on that right now if they think I acted illegally. The guy who did it did not compensate me beyond thanking me. If he had so much as bought me a coke afterwards though, the current regs would call that illegal commercial use.

It is now in the hands of a court case to examine this. I think its pretty simple. The USFWS is infringing on my freedom of speech in terms of how I use my lawfully aquired, lawfully held, and privately owned wild taken goshawk by saying that I was not able to accept a token of gratitude in the above example. It is irrelevant if that gratitude was a candy bar or a sports car in my mind. Its a matter of principal.

And we care about the birds - right?. We dont need our native wildlife, captive bred or otherwise, becoming a pure commodity in commerce, or the voices behind that perspective becoming majority members of our community.

I am still waiting for the compelling argument from anyone at all on why these two things are contradictions. They simply are not.

What is often hard for folks to appreciate is that the wildlife agencies are our most important allies - even when they sometimes suck. They institutionally recognize and support traditional hunting practices and are the most insulated from the political influence of animal rights lobbyists. They pay their mortgage from sportsman dollars...literally.

Maybe you are taking this more personally than is warranted. I did not hear or see anyone say that the wildlife agencies were the enemy.

There is some very real potential for an abuse of authority, and this potential is far from imaginary. It has actually factually been realized. I detailed some of the most recent examples in post 25 (although in the first one I mentioned, I had the US FWS region wrong - it was region 6 based in Denver, and not region 1). There have been examples of Permit officials overstepping their authority in both Region 1 (North Pacific) and in Region 6. The 4th amendment is intended to be a check on this abuse of authority and power, to some degree.

If we truly deregulate captive bred birds or others away from wildlife agency control (by classifying them from wildlife to domestic animals)...it will still fall under the oversight of someone. Who would that be? State and federal Department of Ag or county or municipal animal services. Animal rights groups have a growing sphere of influence in these sectors...there is no telling what inspection requirements would come forth. Certainly not ones written by our own community, and likely requirements not in the interests if the birds.

This has not been any problem at all with the completely and utterly deregulated sale of non MBTA raptors. I fail to be convinced that this will change at all with the deregulation of MBTA captive bred raptors.... which is a complete red herring anyway as that is not part of this discussion or suit.

The USFWS actually offered to completely deregulate captive bred MBTA raptors - just like they do with captive waterfowl - until NAFA decided the sky was falling because that would mean we could do anything we wanted with our captive bred birds and did a chicken little routine and insisted that the offer be withdrawn. Thanks NAFA.... (and before anyone bitches, I am a NAFA member and I am NOT posting this in the NAFA forum.....)

[Tanner]

Thanks for sharing your mental diarrhea Geoff. I stand by what I said (that is, what I said....not what you misread and/or misconstrued).

And a criticism of the AFC in this section of the forum is exactly where it belongs.

[Joel Belcher]

B .S.

It is commonly stated that commercialization is a threat to wildlife, but those arguments are quite hollow and collapse with any critical examination of them. There is absolutely nothing that makes non-commercial use more sacred than commercial use. And the wild populations have no concern over whether they are harvested for commercial reasons, purely recreational reasons, or any other reason.

Wildlife management is really quite simple - the deficits to the population (natural mortality, hunting pressure, habitat impacts, etc.) have to be lower than the ability of the population to replenish itself. If that stupid simple formula is followed, it does not make any difference what the motivations are behind the human induced impacts. The passenger pigeon was not exterminated due to commercial hunting, it was exterminated because that commercial hunting was not managed in a sustainable way. There are plenty of other examples of commercial harvest devastating wildlife populations, including the ones that inspired the MBTA to begin with. There are also several examples of unsustainable recreational harvest devastating wildlife populations.

So tell, me, just how exactly is the commercial use of a wild taken raptor the death knell of falconry as we all enjoy it?

BTW - commercial use of wild taken raptors has been alive and well in the US since the mid 80s when the sale of captive bred progeny was formerly allowed.



Rest assured, someone else doing other activities with a falconry bird is not going to water down your legitimacy as a falconer anywhere else but inside your own mind. All of us are pet keepers a good share of the time, so be careful about throwing that particular stone around. And the core contention is what you are able to do with a private owned raptor held under a falconry permit in addition to hunting with it.



The topic at the core of the suit is about a federal agency illegally trouncing constitutional rights. Thats one issue, even though there are two specific rights that the AFC believes have been stomped upon. Simple enough.



And just why do you think it is appropriate to bash the AFC in their own house? This is the AFC sub forum, and at best this is very bad manners. Disagree with them, fine. But AFC bashing in the AFC forum is extremely poor taste.

Geoff,

You make some really good points. It seems we as falconers, and hunters in general, like to think we can take a purely scientific, unbiased view of wildlife management and rely on sound biological data when making decisions for the best way to manage our resources for sustainability. Except when we are given that option, then our passions come in to play. We throw scientific data out the window and let emotions take over. The exact same thing we accuse the animal rights activists of doing. We have no problem regulating coyotes, wolves, bears or other predators with hunting, but I can't imagine the outcry if there was even a single permit issued annually for the hunting of a Bald Eagle. Even if the biological data supported it, and I think it would, the falconry community would cry foul. Based on what? Resource sustainability? As much as we hate to admit it we are just as susceptible to irrational reasoning for the protection of the birds we enjoy.

We often hear falconers berate each other for not hunting their bird enough or just being a 'pet keeper' while it is totally acceptable to retire a perfectly healthy, vibrant bird to a breeding chamber (for commercial use) at two to three years of age. How is holding a bird in a breeding chamber and never hunting it any different than someone who lets their falconry bird sit in a chamber?

Sorry if this has gotten off topic. I am not one to comment very often as I don't think comments given in a forum always come across as intended. Just to be clear, I am in no way advocating raptor hunting and I am just as guilty as anyone for allowing irrational feelings guide my views of raptor protection.

Respectfully,

Joel Belcher

[wyodjm]

Geoff,

You make some really good points. It seems we as falconers, and hunters in general, like to think we can take a purely scientific, unbiased view of wildlife management and rely on sound biological data when making decisions for the best way to manage our resources for sustainability. Except when we are given that option, then our passions come in to play. We throw scientific data out the window and let emotions take over. The exact same thing we accuse the animal rights activists of doing. We have no problem regulating coyotes, wolves, bears or other predators with hunting, but I can't imagine the outcry if there was even a single permit issued annually for the hunting of a Bald Eagle. Even if the biological data supported it, and I think it would, the falconry community would cry foul. Based on what? Resource sustainability? As much as we hate to admit it we are just as susceptible to irrational reasoning for the protection of the birds we enjoy.

We often hear falconers berate each other for not hunting their bird enough or just being a 'pet keeper' while it is totally acceptable to retire a perfectly healthy, vibrant bird to a breeding chamber (for commercial use) at two to three years of age. How is holding a bird in a breeding chamber and never hunting it any different than someone who lets their falconry bird sit in a chamber?

Sorry if this has gotten off topic. I am not one to comment very often as I don't think comments given in a forum always come across as intended. Just to be clear, I am in no way advocating raptor hunting and I am just as guilty as anyone for allowing irrational feelings guide my views of raptor protection.

Respectfully,

Joel Belcher

I liked your comments Joel! Thanks!

All my best,

[wyodjm]

Thanks for sharing your mental diarrhea Geoff. I stand by what I said (that is, what I said....not what you misread and/or misconstrued).

And a criticism of the AFC in this section of the forum is exactly where it belongs.

I'm opposed to the commercialization of wild-taken raptors also. It's not that far fetched to imagine the nightmare that could potentially create.

On the topic of criticising the AFC, NAFA has its own dirty laundry. Its own power cluster of personalities who think their opinions and agendas speak for all licensed falconers in the U.S. Hasn't anyone read Carnie's book?

I don't have any answers. Heaven forbid if anyone actually does and doesn't fit neatly within the inner sanctum of the current politically correct rat pack!

What do falconers want? What long term goals should we be discussing to ensure falconry's future? Can the AFC and NAFA coexist, each with different, but interfacing missions? Are people so desensitized that any dialog is going to be considered "mental diarrhea"?

[Tanner]

Are people so desensitized that any dialog is going to be considered "mental diarrhea"?

Dialog can occur when people actually read/understand/address what another has said, rather than spewing every piece of minutia that occurs to them.

[wyodjm]

Dialog can occur when people actually read/understand/address what another has said, rather than spewing every piece of minutia that occurs to them.

I agree. So where do we go from here? I think most of us have lost our chance of a first impression!

[rkumetz]

Geoff,
I am going to have to disagree about the inappropriate nature of being critical of AFC in this area. This is a public forum not their living room. If you post something on a public forum then it is fair for anyone to respond as long as they do it in a respectful way, don't get personal and act like adults. Hopefully AFC is not run by a
bunch of millennials with swollen heads over their participation trophys who can understand that disagreeing with them is not a personal attack.

With respect to your comments about regulating wildlife I agree with your premise which essentially that sustainable take need not differentiate between what is done with the animals harvested (falconry, bird shows, eat them, etc.) but you are ignoring the fact that ANY take is under attack by emotional nuts who think that all of nature is for us to see and not touch. Hey kid don't turn over that rock and pick up a salamander or we will arrest you.....

Your interpretation of the constitution is not necessarily incorrect but then again since nobody cloned any of the guys who wrote it I can't be sure that it is
correct either. All of this boils down to a debate in a courtroom where we could gain a little or lose everything. The court system is supposed to be impartial
but it has never been and never will be free of the influence of politics. Do we really want to kick that bees' nest given that falconers represent an insignificant
number of votes and will never be heard over the loud voices, lobbying power and media access that the animal rights groups have?

In a perfect world you are absolutely correct. As long as we don't eat too many bald eagles it doesn't matter that we are eating them. Unfortunately
this is far from a perfect world. Keep in mind that this is one of the few countries where wild take is legal. It has remained so because even Audubon is ok
with "properly regulated falconry". I am having fun with my falconry. I have talked to you while you are driving along so I know you are not hold up in a bunker
somewhere waiting for the black SUVs and helicopters so I also suspect you are having fun with yours as well. So what exactly is so bad with the situation?

Again. Does the possible benefit to poking the bees' nest justify the potential that things won't go our way?

[rkumetz]

I agree. So where do we go from here? I think most of us have lost our chance of a first impression!

You know Dan, that is a really good observation. I think we all need to keep these discussions in perspective.

First and foremost is not taking things personally.

We have probably all been guilty of hitting enter once or twice before we contemplate how people might interpret what we are about to say as well.

Civility is something that seems to be lost in our society these days.

(although this could all just be random minutia that occurred to me your mileage may vary! )

[goshawkr]

I'm opposed to the commercialization of wild-taken raptors also. It's not that far fetched to imagine the nightmare that could potentially create.

I would concede that a great starting point for commercial use of raptors would to be to say it should be with captive bred only, although as I mentioned I see no rational difference to forbid this for wild taken birds, provided the take from the wild is sustainable. I do not agree that there will be a sudden glut of impact on the wild raptor population for a commercial use here or there. There just is not that kind of demand out there. As has already been pointed out, any demand for hawks in commercial uses is already being filled with non MBTA birds or more usually by Computer Animation.

Arguably one the very best single things that ever happened for the conservation of raptors was when Morley Nelson and his sons began using wild taken golden eagles and other wild taken raptors in the film industry for some of Walt Disney's (back when he still ran the company personally) nature films. At the time, neither eagles nor raptors were protected by the MBTA. This was a leading cause for the public perception of raptors to shift from viewing raptors as the serial killers of nature to something worthy of respect and protection.

With the insatiable appetite in the Arabian world for falcons, I suppose I could conceive of a way that commercial harvest and sale could be impactful to falconry. But that commercial influence is already at play with gyrfalcon and even to a lesser degree peregrine harvest. I have a few friends that make a decent amount of money selling captive bred falcons to the Arabs, and this certainly has an impact on the value of wild gyrfalcons and desire to get these wild falcons into breeding programs so their progeny can be sold.

A key sticking point is nailing down what commercialization means. Selling the birds themselves? Using them in some commercial production? Having one perched in the back of your office while you are earning a living? Is a hawk sitting in your booth a tradeshow? On your logo for your company? I have had my photograph in a commercial newspaper a few times with my wild taken hawk - is that commercial use? I have met some BlankBehindTheEyes enforcement types that would definately argue that it was, even though I was not paid. Where is the line?

[goshawkr]

Your interpretation of the constitution is not necessarily incorrect but then again since nobody cloned any of the guys who wrote it I can't be sure that it is
correct either. All of this boils down to a debate in a courtroom where we could gain a little or lose everything. The court system is supposed to be impartial
but it has never been and never will be free of the influence of politics. Do we really want to kick that bees' nest given that falconers represent an insignificant
number of votes and will never be heard over the loud voices, lobbying power and media access that the animal rights groups have?

There are scenarios where that is a valid concern, but this is not one of them. Courts are a pretty closed loop system. The AR nuts can write letters or even file friend of the court briefs, but that is about it. Let the bees buzz all they want!

Going before the courts like this has a pretty simple spectrum of outcomes, provided it actually makes it far enough along to go to a judge before it is dropped. Those outcomes range from nothing changes and the regs as written stay put to the AFC gets the regulations they are challenging struck down. The mid points are that one rule stands and the other is struck down or that there is some compromise that the judge(s) impose on the FWS to make changes to the rules to make them constitutional.

I have talked to you while you are driving along so I know you are not hold up in a bunker somewhere waiting for the black SUVs and helicopters so I also suspect you are having fun with yours as well. So what exactly is so bad with the situation?

I guess that is an easy position to take, when all of these scenarios are purely theoretical.

I have had two close friends stomped on by the US FWS jack boots. Bullet point 1 and 4 from the examples I gave in post 25 were cases that I watched, with a certain degree of horror and trepidation, quite closely in real time as they unfolded. The nightmare of these real and valid examples of inspections being used as an abuse of authority was something I experienced - thankfully for me in a second hand manner. The example in the second bullet point I gave was not someone I personally knew at the time, although I do know them now, and it occurred just 20 miles from where I sit as I type this.

I do not need this to happen to me to want it corrected. Its enough that it happened to anyone. For that matter, its enough that it could happen.

No, I do not hide in a blanket fort and wait for the black helicopters.

[JRedig]

And just why do you think it is appropriate to bash the AFC in their own house? This is the AFC sub forum, and at best this is very bad manners. Disagree with them, fine. But AFC bashing in the AFC forum is extremely poor taste.

I’m curious Geoff, just what/who’s house do you think this is? This is the afc sub forum of *nafex*. It is a platform provided by nafex for topics specific to the afc. That’s it.

[goshawkr]

I’m curious Geoff, just what/who’s house do you think this is? This is the afc sub forum of *nafex*. It is a platform provided by nafex for topics specific to the afc. That’s it.[/COLOR]

Fair enough point.

However, some of the statements made here would not have been tolerated if they had been made over on the NAFA sub forum directed at NAFA. There is not a consistent standard of politeness (on the part of the posters) at the very least.

[rkumetz]

However, some of the statements made here would not have been tolerated if they had been made over on the NAFA sub forum directed at NAFA. There is not a consistent standard of politeness (on the part of the posters) at the very least.

Geoff,
I am not quite sure what you are talking about. I read the OP and asked a bunch of relevant questions in a respectful way as I did in the previous APC sub forum post on this issue. In both cases my questions were ignored and I was accused not only of being a person who doesn't care about their constitutional rights (which I read as being accused of being ignorant and apathetic) but also of being a troll. So who exactly shows a lack of respect? If you make claims in a public forum and you are not willing to answer questions you may want to try a billboard since that is one way advertising assuming that the person who reads it is disinclined to climb it with a can of spray paint.

You yourself write some pretty terse material and I suspect that those who know you simply write it off as Geoff eschewing the pleasantries and getting down to business. What was said here that was not polite? Or in the words of Ricky Ricardo, "splain Lucy"

[goshawkr]

I am not quite sure what you are talking about.

The statements to the effective of "... NAFA is not out to do what is best for falconers in general..." would never be tolerated over on the NAFA sub forum. I do not understand why they are tolerated here, or why people think such statements are polite, here.

The leaders of the AFC are in fact doing what they think is best for falconers in general. That is their core mission. You and others may disagree with that assessment (as do I in many circumstances....).

[joekoz]

NAFA sent out the following e-mail message to all of their member's yesterday:

Dear NAFA Member:

As reported in February, NAFA had been monitoring and examining the main complaints of a lawsuit filed on behalf of a few falconers in California. The lawsuit covers a wide variety of issues ranging from what constitutes a reasonable search to how, and even whether, the government can regulate what you do with falconry birds, captive bred and taken from the wild. For these reasons, we took our time to carefully analyze and understand the complaints. As I mentioned then, there are many legal nuances to the complaints, and the possible outcomes are numerous. The potential to impact our sport is significant.

The Board of Directors instructed NAFA General Council to prepare an amicus curiae brief for consideration. Sadly the plaintiffs sought to limit NAFA’s involvement in the case and objected to our request to the court. NAFA did prevail and yesterday General Counsel’s completed brief was presented to and approved by the NAFA Board of Directors and subsequently filed.

NAFA’s amicus brief covers the salient points of the case and provides NAFA’s opinions, positions, and concerns. The brief speaks to the fundamental and guiding principle of both NAFA and the falconry community that focuses on the wildlife we employ, the game we pursue, and the conservation-ethics that are essential to our hunting heritage.

Below are links to:

NAFA’s Amicus Brief, filed 3/22/2019
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.n-a-f-a.co...e_north_am.pdf

NAFA's Supporting Documents, filed 3/22/2019
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.n-a-f-a.co...tted_with_.pdf

California Department of Fish and Game Motion to Dismiss, filed 3/15/2019
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.n-a-f-a.co...to_dismiss.pdf

US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Motion to Dismiss, filed 3/15/2019
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.n-a-f-a.co...to_dismiss.pdf

Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, filed 1/18/2019
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.n-a-f-a.co...laint_for_.pdf

Original Complaint, filed 10/30/2018
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.n-a-f-a.co..._against_c.pdf


As the case unfolds, we will work to keep you up to date of any important developments.

[MrBill]

Hey Geoff, ole buddy,

I am surprised that you--of all people--would be for censoring what people say on here. And, last I checked this is not an AFC forum. As for what NAFA would do as it pertains to their forum, who knows? But, if they chose to delete attacks upon their organization, that would certainly be within their purview to do so, as it is their forum. When it comes to social media, Freedom of Speech has certain limitations. And, speaking of Freedom of Speech, as long as you have been around and involved with social media, you should know that, if nothing else, it has revealed the imperfections of human nature, and we are who we are, no more, no less, which is not going to change. I used to be like you, as you know, and it took me a loooong time to realize that I was not going to change anyone's mind with my well-thought-out rants; if anything, I was simply pissing people off, which was not my intent, and it is not yours, but people can form very strong opinions about people via these forums having never met them. Just something to think about.

BTW, I have learned a lot from this discussion.

Take care,

Bill Boni

[dboyrollz76]

Looks like usfws, is saying they don’t have a dog in the fight and that this should handled at a state levels and that they do not conduct searches. By handing regulations and permits over to the states to enforce. They have essentially removed themselves from this law suit and asking complaints against them be dismissed.

[MrBill]

Looks like usfws, is saying they don’t have a dog in the fight and that this should handled at a state levels and that they do not conduct searches. By handing regulations and permits over to the states to enforce. They have essentially removed themselves from this law suit and asking complaints against them be dismissed.

That makes sense to me.

Bill Boni

[frigginchi]

I think the reason USFWS is involved is that they provide the framework to which the state regulations are based of of and that the state claims it is only following the USFWS framework. Just a guess.

Looks like usfws, is saying they don’t have a dog in the fight and that this should handled at a state levels and that they do not conduct searches. By handing regulations and permits over to the states to enforce. They have essentially removed themselves from this law suit and asking complaints against them be dismissed.

[dboyrollz76]

I think the reason USFWS is involved is that they provide the framework to which the state regulations are based of of and that the state claims it is only following the USFWS framework. Just a guess.

That’s right, but how will the court view it. I’m sure it’s obvious that usfws framework is responsible for the constitutional violation. But if they are not the ones enforcing the regulations, if the falconer was searched by state authorities then the state violated his constitutional rights. USFWS can’t be held responsible for this, but their framework incited it. This should have been done a few years back when there was, clear and substantial constitutional violation. Like when the regulations were wrote. But then again by excepting the terms of the regulations knowing it includes the provision of search of premises. I could be argued with success that you contracted away or waiver this constitutional protection. The same as one would waive their right to remain silent or to an attorney.
It’s sad, but if I was the judge I would have to say, the falconer knowing this provision existed prior to obtaining a falconry permit waived his right to a warranted search.
even though it conflicts with the 1st and 4th. By obtaining and signing on these rights are waived, at that point you have agreed to their terms.
If was was the judge I would rule this way, you signed on, you knew it could happen you waive your rights. Glad I’m not the judge.

[goshawkr]

Joe,

Thanks for posting those documents pertaining to the case and NAFAs statements.

Interesting that in the statement with regards to the 4th amendment argument NAFA seems to have completely missed the point that the complaint is not directed at the pre-licensing inspection. I think all of us are in favor of some form of that (even though it is laughably ineffective when State Agencies conduct them since they know nothing about falconry husbandry.

... And, last I checked this is not an AFC forum....

Then Bill, you are not paying attention: Forum -> National Falconry Organizations -> American Falconry Conservancy

Chris has set NAFEX up with areas focused on specific interest areas, and this one is the area for the AFC. NAFA has one of its own as well.

I am surprised that you--of all people--would be for censoring what people say on here.

I am not advocating for censorship, but for politeness and respect for opposing points of view.

Over the years when some of the militant AFC supporters and others who did not like NAFA were bashing NAFA on the NAFA forum, and even in some of the more generalized discussions, they were rightly chastised. I was crying foul because the same consideration was not made over here in this discussion, IMO when similar statements were made directed at the AFC. I know from personal communication that the original poster shares that opinion, which is precisely why she does not participate on here any more than popping in to spread news every off an on.

In the end, its up to Chris to decide what behavior is over that line, and some of the NAFEX moderators have been in here participating in this discussion and they act as his surrogates, so I suppose they collectively disagree with me.

Looks like usfws, is saying they don’t have a dog in the fight and that this should handled at a state levels and that they do not conduct searches. By handing regulations and permits over to the states to enforce. They have essentially removed themselves from this law suit and asking complaints against them be dismissed.

Not a surprise, but the FWS absolutely and definitely is involved. They imposed the federal regulations. And those regulations REQUIRE states to formulate state regulations which include administrative inspections. When the FWS turned over falconry administration to the states they would not have certified any State's regulations that did not include administrative inspections at any reasonable hour. Luckily for me Washington currently requires an enforcement officer to get a warrant before they perform an inspection. Which isnt hard to do, but it does keep inspections from happening just because an officer wanted some entertainment for the day.

The FWS also explicitly reserved the right to conduct inspections when the regulations were handed down to the States 10 years ago, and they stated so in the Federal Register. As far as I am aware, they have not conducted any since that time, but that does not absolve them of involvement in this. I also found it a bit horrifying that the FWS did not even know for certain if they had conducted inspections in the last 5 years.

If that were not the case, and California went and implemented the inspection process all on their own, then I would agree with them.

Its all up to the judge though.

[goshawkr]

[QUOTE=dboyrollz76;398592]That’s right, but how will the court view it. I’m sure it’s obvious that usfws framework is responsible for the constitutional violation. But if they are not the ones enforcing the regulations, if the falconer was searched by state authorities then the state violated his constitutional rights. USFWS can’t be held responsible for this, but their framework incited it. This should have been done a few years back when there was, clear and substantial constitutional violation. Like when the regulations were wrote. But then again by excepting the terms of the regulations knowing it includes the provision of search of premises. I could be argued with success that you contracted away or waiver this constitutional protection. The same as one would waive their right to remain silent or to an attorney. [QUOTE]

It was attempted then. There was a legal push from the predecessor to the AFC and one of their attorneys that nearly had the inspections pulled from the regulations. I do not at the moment recall why it failed. I have this dim recollection that someone in the US FWS found an argument that made their legal department feel cozy with keeping the inspection around.

It’s sad, but if I was the judge I would have to say, the falconer knowing this provision existed prior to obtaining a falconry permit waived his right to a warranted search.
even though it conflicts with the 1st and 4th. By obtaining and signing on these rights are waived, at that point you have agreed to their terms.
If was was the judge I would rule this way, you signed on, you knew it could happen you waive your rights. Glad I’m not the judge.

That is a common argument, but it is not legal for the Government to coerce you to give up your rights in that manner.

Having said that, all of our rights have a lot of legal cracks that have been found by various court rulings to apply. Actually to the extent that I think it is rather laughable to think of any of them as "rights" at all. More like "rough legal notions".

[goshawkr]

That’s right, but how will the court view it. I’m sure it’s obvious that usfws framework is responsible for the constitutional violation. But if they are not the ones enforcing the regulations, if the falconer was searched by state authorities then the state violated his constitutional rights. USFWS can’t be held responsible for this, but their framework incited it. This should have been done a few years back when there was, clear and substantial constitutional violation. Like when the regulations were wrote. But then again by excepting the terms of the regulations knowing it includes the provision of search of premises. I could be argued with success that you contracted away or waiver this constitutional protection. The same as one would waive their right to remain silent or to an attorney.

It was attempted then. There was a legal push from the predecessor to the AFC and one of their attorneys that nearly had the administrative inspections pulled from the regulations entirely. I do not at the moment recall why it failed. I have this dim recollection that someone within the US FWS found an argument that made their legal department feel cozy with keeping the inspection around.

It’s sad, but if I was the judge I would have to say, the falconer knowing this provision existed prior to obtaining a falconry permit waived his right to a warranted search.
even though it conflicts with the 1st and 4th. By obtaining and signing on these rights are waived, at that point you have agreed to their terms.
If was was the judge I would rule this way, you signed on, you knew it could happen you waive your rights. Glad I’m not the judge.

That is a common argument, but it is not legal for the Government to coerce you to give up your rights in that manner.

Having said that, all of our rights have a lot of legal cracks that have been found by various court rulings to apply. Actually to the extent that I think it is rather laughable to think of any of them as "rights" at all. More like "rough legal notions".