Please Consider Joining The AFC

[wyodjm]

I’d like to take this opportunity to invite you to join the American Falconry Conservancy (AFC). It is an organization that is working hard to maintain a wild take of raptors for falconry purposes and also nonresident take. The AFC is also working on ideas to help keep the membership more informed on important issues.

Please visit the AFC website and consider joining today. I just renewed my membership.

Thanks,

[gemiller]

I know this thread is way old, but I just wanted to post that I just joined the AFC via the website. I don't know that the references I put are members or not, since I don't really know anyone that has talked about the AFC. I'm also a member of the State Club and NAFA, but from what I did research and could find that this club was also doing it's share so I figured what's skipping on one dinner out this month.

[redtailhawking]

I made application and was accepted about two months ago. This is a very good organization protecting Falconer's rights and has my vote in the future.

Mr. John Shea
Liberty, NC

[Hawkmom]

I am a member of NAFA since 1977, AFC, and now the IAF which now accepts individual memberships. And IAATE, the voice for bird and raptor educators.

[Falconman]

Dan,

Just joined AFC. No longer a NAFA member - looks like AFC is now leading the way...

Not disparaging NAFA - just not my group...

Cheers,

Kevin

[joekoz]

Just joined AFC. No longer a NAFA member - looks like AFC is now leading the way...

I belong to both NAFA and the AFC, as well as a number of sportsman advocacy organizations who share an interest in issues important to our community.

For me it’s simple. Us versus all the tree hugger and anti-2nd Amendment types who have a bigger bank roll and vastly out number us.

Think about it and if you can afford the small cost of annual membership join both NAFA & AFC. Despite past differences both share a larger common interest, and from my perspective the small cost of annual membership to both is well worth the price.

[falcon56]

Dan,

Just joined AFC. No longer a NAFA member - looks like AFC is now leading the way...

Not disparaging NAFA - just not my group...

Cheers,

Kevin

Kevin,
Maybe you should think about who has been fighting (and continues to fight) all these years to allow you and all of us to practice falconry in the manner that we enjoy today. NAFA has always been the driving force and will continue in that role. By not supporting NAFA, you are doing a disservice to all the work that they have done since the 1960's, not to mention riding the coat tails of the organization. Something to consider.

[keitht]

Here is my concern:


Scenario 1
Let's say there are 2000 falconers in NA. All 2000 belong to this one organization.

Scenario 2
There are 2000 falconers. 1000 belong to one organization and the other 1000 belong to another organization.

Which organizations will be the strongest? Obviously the one in scenario#1.

My personal feeling is that if the AFC and its members divide North American Falconers into two smaller groups, it has weakened our position and influence. That's why I couldn't conscientiously join myself. I know many here feel differently.

[goshawkr]

Here is my concern:


Scenario 1
Let's say there are 2000 falconers in NA. All 2000 belong to this one organization.

Scenario 2
There are 2000 falconers. 1000 belong to one organization and the other 1000 belong to another organization.

Which organizations will be the strongest? Obviously the one in scenario#1.

My personal feeling is that if the AFC and its members divide North American Falconers into two smaller groups, it has weakened our position and influence. That's why I couldn't conscientiously join myself. I know many here feel differently.

Ideally, I would agree with that.

However the reality is more like this:
Scenario 3
There are ~4000+ falconers in. Less than 1000 of them belong to one organization, and that organization claims the other 3000 who are non members are apathetic freeloaders and thumbs their nose at them. Of those who are members, far less than 10% had any real influence and those who did have influence had a well earned reputation for telling the other 90% of the members to "shut up about what you want, we know best."

Given that scenario, I don't blame some passionate folks for striking off on their own and making a fresh start. "Scenario 3" has begun to change in the last few years, but only time will tell if those changes will take hold.

The reality of the situation is there is now two national orgs working on improving falconry. They - and their members - can either respectfully share the sandbox, or they can poop in the sand. Those are the two options. Using your two original scenarios, the only reason why scenario 2 is different from scenario one is if those two groups refuse to treat each other in a respectful manner.

Now, I am not an AFC member (I am currently a NAFA member, but certainly no cool-aid drinking flag waver if you cant tell).


Kevin,
Maybe you should think about who has been fighting (and continues to fight) all these years to allow you and all of us to practice falconry in the manner that we enjoy today. NAFA has always been the driving force and will continue in that role. By not supporting NAFA, you are doing a disservice to all the work that they have done since the 1960's, not to mention riding the coat tails of the organization. Something to consider.

Ray,

With all due respect, I think you should have reconsidered posting something like this on the AFC sub-forum. At the very least, its in poor taste. Go to NAFA's forum to flag wave! Don't forget, 100% of the founding membership of the AFC were NAFA members who were tired of their interests not being represented.

[sharptail]

My personal feeling is that if the AFC and its members divide North American Falconers Policies within NAFA are what has caused past members to break away and form a new club. Just a couple of the issues are: NAFA's current policy that Falconer's birds are somehow, owned by the governments, a complete myth, exposed by the AFC and NAFA asserting along with USFWS that hybrid raptors are native, naturally occuring in N. America, and therefore under the MBTA, just because the FWS says it is so, in contradiction to court cases to the contrary. With issues like these, the question beggs, is NAFA sided with the Falconers or those groups that are anti-falconry?

[Saluqi]

Policies within NAFA are what has caused past members to break away and form a new club. Just a couple of the issues are: NAFA's current policy that Falconer's birds are somehow, owned by the governments, a complete myth, exposed by the AFC and NAFA asserting along with USFWS that hybrid raptors are native, naturally occuring in N. America, and therefore under the MBTA, just because the FWS says it is so, in contradiction to court cases to the contrary. With issues like these, the question beggs, is NAFA sided with the Falconers or those groups that are anti-falconry?

AFC wants to eliminate all forms of regulation so that the system in the US is exactly like that of the UK. With no regulation on who can own a raptor, the take of wild raptors will be lost. This is not a surprising mentality for the AFC given the past and present leadership of the AFC, i.e., they make their livings off of breeding raptors. Same issue with hybrids, remove restrictions on hybrids that contain a fraction of native raptor, and suddenly the market for who can buy such hybrids increases beyond licensed falconers. I find the AFC's stance on these issues ironic given that they used to call themselves the WRTC, or Wild Raptor Take Conservancy.

[falcon56]

Geoff,
I was responding to Kevins' post in this thread. My post suddenly popping up in a sub forum that has no relevance to anything posted there wouldn't make much sense, don't you think?

[jal4470]

Every so often I get to thinking how nice it would be to join a national falconry organization, socialize with like minded individuals, maybe meet people who I can respect and learn a thing or two from. Maybe contribute something to this sport I love.

Then a NAFA / AFC thread comes up and the pettiness, tribalism, us v. themness and sanctimony on display remind me why I have never joined. Every thread is dominated by three types of people: the NAFA is terrible because reasons people, the AFC is terrible because reasons people, and the if you are not a NAFA member you are leaching off Those Who Went Before You and how dare you not step in line with what you are told is important people.

I know there are good people working hard in each organization but frankly I cant get past the pettiness displayed by the partisans. No thank you.

[goshawkr]

AFC wants to eliminate all forms of regulation so that the system in the US is exactly like that of the UK. With no regulation on who can own a raptor, the take of wild raptors will be lost. This is not a surprising mentality for the AFC given the past and present leadership of the AFC, i.e., they make their livings off of breeding raptors. Same issue with hybrids, remove restrictions on hybrids that contain a fraction of native raptor, and suddenly the market for who can buy such hybrids increases beyond licensed falconers. I find the AFC's stance on these issues ironic given that they used to call themselves the WRTC, or Wild Raptor Take Conservancy.

First, this is clear hyperbole.

However, lets take your statement on face value. This is not a bianary equation. Falconry existed for thousands of years without regulation on its practitioners AND with wild take, and there is little reason it cant do so again in the US in that fashion. The MBTA protections on raptors would either have to be repealed (no one in AFC would go that far) or there would need to be some regulation allowing take, similar to duck hunting.

There are in fact several countries right now with no regulation on falconry or falconers AND wild take (just about anywhere in the mid east for example, as well as Pakistan).

Lastly, if this were to come down to a choice between having wild take or getting the USFWS jack boots off my neck, well, I'd burn my trapping gear in a new York minute. And in my falconry career I have had 2 out of my 15 hawks that were not taken from the wild. I think you may well be surprised at how many others would agree with me on that.

[jal4470]

Lastly, if this were to come down to a choice between having wild take or getting the USFWS jack boots off my neck, well, I'd burn my trapping gear in a new York minute. And in my falconry career I have had 2 out of my 15 hawks that were not taken from the wild. I think you may well be surprised at how many would agree with that.

+1

I love my passage birds, but given a choice i'd take no special hunting regs in a second.

[goshawkr]

Geoff,
I was responding to Kevins' post in this thread. My post suddenly popping up in a sub forum that has no relevance to anything posted there wouldn't make much sense, don't you think?

Perhaps, but it would not have caused any confusion at all to just not say anything.

Just something to consider...

[sharptail]

AFC wants to eliminate all forms of regulation so that the system in the US is exactly like that of the UK. With no regulation on who can own a raptor, the take of wild raptors will be lost. This is not a surprising mentality for the AFC given the past and present leadership of the AFC, i.e., they make their livings off of breeding raptors. Same issue with hybrids, remove restrictions on hybrids that contain a fraction of native raptor, and suddenly the market for who can buy such hybrids increases beyond licensed falconers. I find the AFC's stance on these issues ironic given that they used to call themselves the WRTC, or Wild Raptor Take Conservancy.Hi Paul,
Much of what you have posted here is simply not true. The AFC does not want to eliminate falconry regulations, we just want them to conform to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The AFC has never been anything close to any kind of an agenda that would promote changing the U.S. falconry regs to resemble or duplicate those in the UK. I even believe in the three tiered licensing system that we have, with the exceptions that government personel should not do testing or inspections. These should be done by qualified Falconers. Many government personal are not qualified to determine what is best for our birds and are more concerned with violations of law than the welfare of our raptors. Many who inspect cannot even determine the difference in similar size raptors, such as a Gyrfalcon and a Redtail, when perched nearby.

I do not make a living off of breeding raptors. I do not breed at all. Nor do several of the other current board members. It is darn difficult to make a living, breeding raptors. Your whole reference to 'AFC breeders' is off target and inappropiate.

On the hybrid issue, all non-native raptors are NOT under the control of FWS and present no special problems and there are many in this country. Hybrids, like non-natives are best handled at the state level. All any state would need to do, is require a falconry license to practice or posess. The idea that we would loose wild take is simply fear mongering.

Whether you call it the WRTC or the AFC, we are all about falconers rights. The use of our natural resources, within sustainable restraints, is the right of every qualified(in our case licensed falconer) U.S. citizen. Make no mistake about it, wild raptors are a natural resource. The AFC is a great and honorable orginization and I am proud to serve it.

What I find to be a suprising mentality is, the disreguard for the freedom in the falconry regs. Our country was established as a free nation under our, blood steeped Constitutions(federal and states) and the Bill of Rights. The MBTA and the falconry regs are in blatant violation of several rights. I am apalled that so many have forgotten their roots and choose to assist the FWS in making laws in contradiction to the Bill of Rights. There is no reason why the falconry regulations cannot co-exist within the framwork of our founding documents.

[falcon56]

Perhaps, but it would not have caused any confusion at all to just not say anything.

Just something to consider...

If you subscribe to that line of thinking, maybe Kevin, or anybody else for that matter should never have expressed an opinion on anything at all, which would make this whole NAFEX moot. Oh wait, what would that do to freedom of speech?

[tony123abc]

Protect ALL natural resources for the pubic. Not from the public. And by the way, get off my damn lawn!

[sharptail]

Lastly, if this were to come down to a choice between having wild take or getting the USFWS jack boots off my neck, well, I'd burn my trapping gear in a new York minute. And in my falconry career I have had 2 out of my 15 hawks that were not taken from the wild. I think you may well be surprised at how many others would agree with me on that.I hope that none of us ever has to choose one over the other. I will settle for both.

[wyodjm]

AFC wants to eliminate all forms of regulation so that the system in the US is exactly like that of the UK. With no regulation on who can own a raptor, the take of wild raptors will be lost. This is not a surprising mentality for the AFC given the past and present leadership of the AFC, i.e., they make their livings off of breeding raptors. Same issue with hybrids, remove restrictions on hybrids that contain a fraction of native raptor, and suddenly the market for who can buy such hybrids increases beyond licensed falconers. I find the AFC's stance on these issues ironic given that they used to call themselves the WRTC, or Wild Raptor Take Conservancy.

I'm sorry, but this is not accurate information. It just isn't. AFC is simply promoting intelligent and reasonable regulations including wild take based on biology.

Personally, I feel good, sound promulgated rule and regulation legitimizes falconry and protects it legally.

What started out as a simple and polite invitation to join AFC has again turned into an AFC bashing platform. And from a NAFA official. Would this be allowed on the NAFA forum if someone attacked NAFA? I'm thinking not. So why here? Is there a double standard?

BTW, I am an AFC and NAFA member.

This stuff has to stop. It's getting really old. The fact is there are two national U.S. falconry clubs. People just need to come to grips with the reason why.

Best,

[Saluqi]

Policies within NAFA are what has caused past members to break away and form a new club. Just a couple of the issues are: NAFA's current policy that Falconer's birds are somehow, owned by the governments, a complete myth, exposed by the AFC and NAFA asserting along with USFWS that hybrid raptors are native, naturally occuring in N. America, and therefore under the MBTA, just because the FWS says it is so, in contradiction to court cases to the contrary. With issues like these, the question beggs, is NAFA sided with the Falconers or those groups that are anti-falconry?


AFC wants to eliminate all forms of regulation so that the system in the US is exactly like that of the UK. With no regulation on who can own a raptor, the take of wild raptors will be lost. This is not a surprising mentality for the AFC given the past and present leadership of the AFC, i.e., they make their livings off of breeding raptors. Same issue with hybrids, remove restrictions on hybrids that contain a fraction of native raptor, and suddenly the market for who can buy such hybrids increases beyond licensed falconers. I find the AFC's stance on these issues ironic given that they used to call themselves the WRTC, or Wild Raptor Take Conservancy.


I would like to apologize to the members of NAFEX for stooping to the level of vindictive, there really is no place for that tone. My post was me lashing out at Jeff Odell's post, quoted above, Jeff and I have a long history of verbal sparing here on NAFEX, and over recent years I have all but stopped posting anything even mildly acerbic. However, after reading Jeff's post I was fed up and I let my emotions get the better of me and let loose with a perception of the AFC that is not unique to me alone. Truth or not, it's irrelevant, once something is posted to the internet and people read it, then it can become a reality in which they believe. Just as my assertions of the AFC may be misguided, so are Jeff's assertions of NAFA. There is no truth in what Jeff says, but as I already pointed out that fact is irrelevant, because there is a certain fraction of people who read his post who take it at face value, as fact. If you have questions regarding either NAFA or the AFC and their policies and philosophies I suggest that you do your research and not believe what people say on the internet.

[dboyrollz76]

I have no place really in this but I have thought about joining both. The arguments between the two don't matter to me a bit. I know that both in thier own right are working to preserve the art/sport.
But logic suggests that one club or organization, with members working together, consolidating funds and focusing on the big issues that plague the sport/art would be more successful. Instead of two clubs picking thier own issues. What matters is the preservation of falconry for those active in its presuit and the ones that will build the future.

[xjturnerx]

Seriously kids? Way to convince people either way. Arguing like twelve year old girls on the internet. If you disagree with the afc and its policies keep your damn mouths shut. And the same if you disagree with nafa. Save that for private conversations. Somebody outta punch y'all in the throat. Hang on for a couple more months and you can go back to flying birds. Mods should delete every post in here except the first one. Then close it. You can leave mine though. As a reminder about arguing online

[MrBill]

But Kevin, aren't you heading up NAFA's 2015 field meet in Kansas?

Bill Boni

[GONEHAWKN]

Somebody outta punch y'all in the throat.

Great way to constructively and maturely add to what is obviously a sensitive thread.

[MrBill]

This stuff has to stop. It's getting really old. The fact is there are two national U.S. falconry clubs. People just need to come to grips with the reason why.

Dan, why does it have to stop? it is no different than the Republican bashing the Democrats, or visa versa. Seriously, there is nothing wrong with this type of discussion; it might not accomplish anything, but there is nothing "wrong" with it.

Bill Boni

[MrBill]

If you have questions regarding either NAFA or the AFC and their policies and philosophies I suggest that you do your research and not believe what people say on the internet.

Paul,

There seems to be a real propensity on this list to assume that people will somehow be mislead by what others have written, and feel obligated to "set the record straight." IMHO, this type of approach does not discredit what someone else has said, regardless of how profound or dramatic this opposition is pronounced, because invariably these type of comments amount to categorical statements without any real substance; in other words, they don't offer any supporting evidence. As a result, these pronouncements come across as rants, regardless of who is doing the ranting. I've learned long ago that people are not so gullible as to accept everything that they read or are told; that would be terrible, as we would all be clones (more or less), so no need to be too concerned about them being mislead, and if they are, it won't be for long :-)

Bill Boni

[FredFogg]

I joined what was back then the World Raptor Take Conservancy, I never renewed for several reasons.

One, I am tired of falconers bashing falconers and that is what was happening within this group. Any chance they could, that would make a remark about NAFA or some state club. In my opinion, that is not the way to be a leader.

Second, just look at their website, their very first accomplishment says "Through our efforts and the hard work of some Minnesota falconers, the best State in the Union for trapping passage goshawks was opened for non-resident raptor take." Total bullshit! It should say through the hard work of many MN falconers and their state DNR and a little help from us (AFC) in the form of a support letter.....blah blah blah! Why are they trying to take the credit for something that was well in the works before they ever entered the picture. It is ok to list your accomplishments but be honest and don't try and take more credit than what is due.

Don't get me wrong, I think there is a place for the AFC. Sometimes there needs to be an enforcer and they fit that mode. NAFA try's to accomplish things with the Feds by trying to work with them and the AFC just goes through the legal system to try and get what they want. Is either wrong, I don't believe so and I think there is a need for both. But just like the troubled years when NAFA went through a few bad apples in their leadership, the AFC has a few in theirs.

Hopefully, in the future, both organizations will work with each other for the better of falconry!

[sharptail]

I There is no truth in what Jeff says, Hi Paul,
Don't you wish there was no truth here. Disprove me and I have and will admit my mistakes and apologise, but there is little need to worry about that. Your apology rings hollow.

[FredFogg]

Policies within NAFA are what has caused past members to break away and form a new club. Just a couple of the issues are: NAFA's current policy that Falconer's birds are somehow, owned by the governments, a complete myth, exposed by the AFC and NAFA asserting along with USFWS that hybrid raptors are native, naturally occuring in N. America, and therefore under the MBTA, just because the FWS says it is so, in contradiction to court cases to the contrary. With issues like these, the question beggs, is NAFA sided with the Falconers or those groups that are anti-falconry?

Jeff, show me the exact wording in NAFA's policies that says they support the government's assertion that raptors are owned by them! I don't believe you can!

[sharptail]

I will tell you where you can find it and than you can look it up and post it on nafex, if you would be so kind. I was told recently that all of the comments on the FWS portal on the subject of the hybrid proposed regulation are still available for public view. Perhaps you remember where they provide a box to type in your comments on the website. I remember objecting to what Mr. Dickerson put on the record as NAFA'S official comment. My comment as well as others are also on display. Thanks for the opportunity to clear my name. I was none too happy to have NAFA tell FWS that it was OK to place hybrids on their list while I was a member.

[Saluqi]

I will tell you where you can find it and than you can look it up and post it on nafex, if you would be so kind. I was told recently that all of the comments on the FWS portal on the subject of the hybrid proposed regulation are still available for public view. Perhaps you remember where they provide a box to type in your comments on the website. I remember objecting to what Mr. Dickerson put on the record as NAFA'S official comment. My comment as well as others are also on display. Thanks for the opportunity to clear my name. I was none too happy to have NAFA tell FWS that it was OK to place hybrids on their list while I was a member.

Jeff, why don't you just post the link?

[WILL HUNT]

I have no place really in this but I have thought about joining both. The arguments between the two don't matter to me a bit. I know that both in thier own right are working to preserve the art/sport.
But logic suggests that one club or organization, with members working together, consolidating funds and focusing on the big issues that plague the sport/art would be more successful. Instead of two clubs picking thier own issues. What matters is the preservation of falconry for those active in its presuit and the ones that will build the future.

Derek,

Your observation is on point and I struggled with this division of efforts issue at one time as well. The deciding factor for me was the realization that, while generally both clubs have more in common than not there are some core beliefs that are simply not the same.

For me some of these beliefs were important not just as a falconer but as a citizen and I felt I had no representation and support in these matters. I joined American Falconry Coservancy when I discovered that not only did they have many of these same core beliefs, but supported and fought for them during the federal regulatory rule making process. Falconry is a very important part of my life, I am member of two state clubs and two federal clubs and I cant say I agree with all things about all the clubs all the time but the annual dues don't make me miss any meals.

IMHO $35 year for AFC membership is money well spent for a rights oriented club to defend my liberty as a citizen and a falconer.

[FredFogg]

I will tell you where you can find it and than you can look it up and post it on nafex, if you would be so kind. I was told recently that all of the comments on the FWS portal on the subject of the hybrid proposed regulation are still available for public view. Perhaps you remember where they provide a box to type in your comments on the website. I remember objecting to what Mr. Dickerson put on the record as NAFA'S official comment. My comment as well as others are also on display. Thanks for the opportunity to clear my name. I was none too happy to have NAFA tell FWS that it was OK to place hybrids on their list while I was a member.

Answer the question! frus)

[Ducksanddogs]

Uh, I joined both and don't really care about all of your petty disagreements. Both clubs try to do good things for the sport and uphold a tradition. Sounds to me like too many feelings are hurt.

This is like when a candidate from party A wins an election because party B nominated someone and had a pissed off person go on campaigning as a write-in and divide party B's votes to a point where party A wins. We're all falconers, we're all people, at the end of the day we want to be able to trap/buy and fly birds. Why so much bickering. I've seen kids go to timeout for arguing like this...

[Captain Gizmo]

Uh, I joined both and don't really care about all of your petty disagreements. Both clubs try to do good things for the sport and uphold a tradition. Sounds to me like too many feelings are hurt.

This is like when a candidate from party A wins an election because party B nominated someone and had a pissed off person go on campaigning as a write-in and divide party B's votes to a point where party A wins. We're all falconers, we're all people, at the end of the day we want to be able to trap/buy and fly birds. Why so much bickering. I've seen kids go to timeout for arguing like this...

By all means let us squabble privately where we disagree, but for the sake of the sport let us show a united front to the public and to the regulatory agencies where we can agree (or even where we can just meet at a compromise in the name of appearing to show a united front).

[rkumetz]

By all means let us squabble privately where we disagree, but for the sake of the sport let us show a united front to the public and to the regulatory agencies where we can agree (or even where we can just meet at a compromise in the name of appearing to show a united front).

Well said. clapp

[rkumetz]

By all means let us squabble privately where we disagree, but for the sake of the sport let us show a united front to the public and to the regulatory agencies where we can agree (or even where we can just meet at a compromise in the name of appearing to show a united front).

I decided to add to this a bit. Falconers constitute such a minimal amount of votes that politicians pretty much l laugh us off like spilled water in an expensive restaurant. There are so few of us that we are not really an effective lobbying force against animal rights groups even when we DO stick together so the reality is that we had better stick together or risk being singled out like the one lame gazelle in the herd.

I am a member of both NAFA and AFC. To be honest their political agendas are a bit different and I have some issues with BOTH when
their priority list doesn't match my own. On the other hand I get
even more frustrated with falconers who decide they are not going to
support either (or both...) because their agendas don't precisely match their own or because they are not currently addressing something that is
important to that individual.

Guess what folks, ever hear that saying about throwing the baby out with the bath water? I am not fond of the antiquated NAFA structure where the president is not elected by the members but by the board. That seems to me a bit like an extension of the old boy network and reminiscent of tweed clad falconers with pipes and glasses of single malt scotch deciding who is is practicing falconry up to standard. That old school crap was elitism and I am not fond of it. Now having said my piece, I am not going to effect any change from outside so I pay my dues, participate as much as I can and when I step back and look closely I can see that things HAVE changed for the better. Things are generally moving in a positive direction even if not at a speed that I am totally happy with.

So if you want to snipe over some beers when you are with your falconry buddies go for it. When it comes time to sit down with legislators and law enforcement I suggest that everyone show up willing to avoid giving any
sense that he falconry community is in any way divided.

[Ducksanddogs]

I decided to add to this a bit. Falconers constitute such a minimal amount of votes that politicians pretty much l laugh us off like spilled water in an expensive restaurant. There are so few of us that we are not really an effective lobbying force against animal rights groups even when we DO stick together so the reality is that we had better stick together or risk being singled out like the one lame gazelle in the herd.

I am a member of both NAFA and AFC. To be honest their political agendas are a bit different and I have some issues with BOTH when
their priority list doesn't match my own. On the other hand I get
even more frustrated with falconers who decide they are not going to
support either (or both...) because their agendas don't precisely match their own or because they are not currently addressing something that is
important to that individual.

Guess what folks, ever hear that saying about throwing the baby out with the bath water? I am not fond of the antiquated NAFA structure where the president is not elected by the members but by the board. That seems to me a bit like an extension of the old boy network and reminiscent of tweed clad falconers with pipes and glasses of single malt scotch deciding who is is practicing falconry up to standard. That old school crap was elitism and I am not fond of it. Now having said my piece, I am not going to effect any change from outside so I pay my dues, participate as much as I can and when I step back and look closely I can see that things HAVE changed for the better. Things are generally moving in a positive direction even if not at a speed that I am totally happy with.

So if you want to snipe over some beers when you are with your falconry buddies go for it. When it comes time to sit down with legislators and law enforcement I suggest that everyone show up willing to avoid giving any
sense that he falconry community is in any way divided.



That's pretty much what I was trying to say 8 months ago!

[dboyrollz76]

I don't know any of the people in nafa or the afc. But from what I read and hear there has been a lot of division among the two.
But the thing I hate the most is how the knowledge and power used and possess by some is directeted at personal gain and protection of their values. Not for falconry.
Hate me if you want, dont really care. Most do!
But y'all better hope I don't get a half million dollars to give to Horn. Cuz I'll leave a bad taste in a bunch of folks mouth.

[rkumetz]

I don't know any of the people in nafa or the afc. But from what I read and hear there has been a lot of division among the two.
But the thing I hate the most is how the knowledge and power used and possess by some is directeted at personal gain and protection of their values. Not for falconry.
Hate me if you want, dontreally

Derek,
The most important thing that we as falconers must do is to not take the word of a vocal minority who are bitter, disgruntled and unwilling to compromise for their (our) own good. Divisive politics is bad across the board. Just look at the current presidential race and imagine that falconers look a bit like the republican debate when we talk to USFWS and state officials. Not that the democrats are any better but since falconers all have their own opinion the plethora of disagreeing parties among falconers is in the current example more like the republicans. (BTW this is just an example, not a political statement of any kind)

If you don't participate in the organizations that step forward to represent falconry then you are just like people who don't bother to vote because their perfect candidate is not running. At least if you participate you can try to influence the direction that those organizations are going.

[rkumetz]

That's pretty much what I was trying to say 8 months ago!

Yes but I have aspergers so I am not afraid of offending people. box2

[dboyrollz76]

Yes but I have aspergers so I am not afraid of offending people. box2
Need more people to speak their minds, instead of kissing the donkeys rear. Or just going along with others to gain notearity among their alleged piers or to prevent being a outcast because of their opinion.
I for one, will always speak my mind. If some one dislikes me after words.
I found falconry, it's like I found my life.
I will stand and defend my right and the rights of others to practice the art.

[Captain Gizmo]

Whether it is nobler in the mind to speak your truth boldly and fail to advance your cause, or to speak part of your truth softly and gain a step toward your goal, that is the question!

Thomas of the Desert, 2016 A.D.

[rkumetz]

Need more people to speak their minds, instead of kissing the donkeys rear. Or just going along with others to gain notearity among their alleged piers or to prevent being a outcast because of their opinion.
I for one, will always speak my mind. If some one dislikes me after words.
I found falconry, it's like I found my life.
I will stand and defend my right and the rights of others to practice the art.

Speaking your mind is good when you are within falconry circles but outside our circles exercising some good judgement about when saying what is on your mind is prudent and when not so is a good idea.

Look at the mess we have in congress. We basically have 2 opposing gangs who spend all of their time wagging the dog to show their constituency that they are defending their interests (whether real or perceived). What they neglect to mention is that by digging in their heels and failing to make any sort of compromises they also get little if anything done.

The only way that a democracy can function properly is if everyone is willing to compromise here and there so that everyone gets at least some of what they want. That requires us to LISTEN as well as speak our minds.

[dboyrollz76]

I don't really think it's about who's better or has better opinions. I think it's because there one blueberry Lollie pop left and there fightin over who gets it.