Private Property issues with Raptors

[jfseaman]

Does anyone know him?

[PeteJ]

Found this on google (which you might have already seen). He was a PhD student under Jim Grier up in Minnesota I think it was. Here's what the guy you wanted to know did under Jim.
# Jeremy E. Guinn (2004) -- bald eagle nesting habitat and human presence in Minnesota -- on faculty at Sitting Bull College, Fort Yates, ND

[jfseaman]

Found this on google (which you might have already seen). He was a PhD student under Jim Grier up in Minnesota I think it was. Here's what the guy you wanted to know did under Jim.
# Jeremy E. Guinn (2004) -- bald eagle nesting habitat and human presence in Minnesota -- on faculty at Sitting Bull College, Fort Yates, ND
Thanks Pete. I found that.

I want more details like if anyone knows him.

[Richard F, Hoyer]

Fred:
After reading the article by Dr. Guinn in the latest NAFA journal, on Feb. 19th I sent him a private message in which I pointed out a couple of glitches. One of those glitches was where in his discussion under point #1, he mentioned and quote, "Our wild-taken hawks remain property of the pubic sector."

I gave a lengthy explanation of what transpired during the 'private property' controversy and ended with copying the email message from Dr. George Allen to NAFA president Dan Cecchini in which USF&WS biologist Dr. Allen set the record straight, that raptors possessed by falconers are the private property of said falconers.

Dr, Guinn sent a reply on Feb. 21st but mentioned he was surprised and confused by Dr. Allen's comments. On Feb. 27th I sent a response with further clarification but apparently I was less than sensitive in the manner in which I responded as I have not heard back from him.

I have been tempted to ask if he would be sending in a correction to be published in the next Hawk Chalk but have simply dropped the issue. I have also been tempted to call attention to his mistake to the leadership of the Am. Falconry Conservancy as continuing to spread disinformation, even thought is was likely unintentional, could be confusing to many and then quoted as if factual..

Richard F. Hoyer

[jfseaman]

Fred:
After reading the article by Dr. Guinn in the latest NAFA journal, on Feb. 19th I sent him a private message in which I pointed out a couple of glitches. One of those glitches was where in his discussion under point #1, he mentioned and quote, "Our wild-taken hawks remain property of the pubic sector."

I gave a lengthy explanation of what transpired during the 'private property' controversy and ended with copying the email message from Dr. George Allen to NAFA president Dan Cecchini in which USF&WS biologist Dr. Allen set the record straight, that raptors possessed by falconers are the private property of said falconers.

Dr, Guinn sent a reply on Feb. 21st but mentioned he was surprised and confused by Dr. Allen's comments. On Feb. 27th I sent a response with further clarification but apparently I was less than sensitive in the manner in which I responded as I have not heard back from him.

I have been tempted to ask if he would be sending in a correction to be published in the next Hawk Chalk but have simply dropped the issue. I have also been tempted to call attention to his mistake to the leadership of the Am. Falconry Conservancy as continuing to spread disinformation, even thought is was likely unintentional, could be confusing to many and then quoted as if factual..

Richard F. Hoyer
Thank you Richard.

This is precisely why I asked who he is.

Do you know if he is a licensed falconer?

[jfseaman]

He's a NAFA member.

Now all I need, is he a falconer?

Thank you for the look up function Fred Fogg.

[Saluqi]

He's a NAFA member.

Now all I need, is he a falconer?

Thank you for the look up function Fred Fogg.

Why not call him?

[Jack]

I may be wrong here, but according to the feds, we do not own these birds, period. I think the guy was just agreeing with someone, but it don't make it so. Call and ask the feds first and then take a shot at the guy.

[sharptail]

Jack,
read post #4...you missed a stitch.

[corny13]

I know Dr. Guinn, yes he is a licenesed and practicing falconer....

[corny13]

Sorry misspelled licensed.....

[jfseaman]

I know Dr. Guinn, yes he is a licenesed and practicing falconer....
Can you tell me more?

I saw his article in "The Journal" and I don't want to insult anyone. I interested in where he got the position that we don't own our raptors. Was it his interpretation of the regulations, from his sponsor or what?

[frootdog]

Can you tell me more?

I saw his article in "The Journal" and I don't want to insult anyone. I interested in where he got the position that we don't own our raptors. Was it his interpretation of the regulations, from his sponsor or what?

Why not pick up the phone and call as has been suggested? You will get a far clearer answer than asking friends or friends of friends.

[jfseaman]

Why not pick up the phone and call as has been suggested? You will get a far clearer answer than asking friends or friends of friends.
I will eventually. Just doing some research. There are things about it being in "The Journal" I want to try to track down.

[Richard F, Hoyer]

Jack:
This same topic surfaced on our Oregon Falconry Web site where someone suggested that when Oregon adopts new falconry regulations, we should incorporate the position that we own our raptors. I then responded with what you see below.

Richard F. Hoyer

P.S. I give my permission to copy all or parts of this post and sent to anyone you wish. RFH

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++

Concerning the issue of falconry birds being recognized as private property, that issue was addressed back in 2008. In a post I sent on the OFA website on 10/3/08, I included a copy of an e-mail message from USF&WS biologist Dr. George Allen to then NAFA president Dan Cecchini. Below is a copy of Dr. Allen's message.

I have taken the liberty of extracting key parts of Dr. Allen's message as follows: (In the second sentence, 'MBTA' stands for 'Migratory Bird Treaty Act')
"I should not have put the statement in the proposed propagation regulations stating the birds held under the permit are not private property,---."
"MBTA falconry and propagation raptors are private property,---."
"In short, I've been corrected - and we won't say falconry raptors are not private property."

Early in my efforts to ascertain the facts dealing with the 'private property' controversy within NAFA and the falconry community at large, I contacted individuals I knew in state wildlife agencies. One of those I contacted was ODFW biologist Larry Cooper who is the Deputy Administrator of the Wildlife Division. Larry didn't get back to me until Nov.4, 2008, about a month after enough facts had been revealed to have pretty much settled the issue. So I never bothered to repeat the input Larry Cooper sent me.

The following is part of my original inquiry and Larry's response that pacifistically pertained to falconry birds.
Richard Hoyer: "When a falconer traps a Cooper's Hawk, maintains and hunts with it, according to Oregon and federal statutes, does the falconer or state (or federal govt.) own the hawk?"

Larry Cooper: "In the situation where a licensed falconer traps a permitted raptor species, according to Oregon statutes, the falconer “owns” the falcon or hawk. Similarly, the state does regulate the conditions under which the bird(s) can be held and released."

I hope the above information will satisfy any misgivings anyone may have about the 'private property' issue.

For those that are NAFA members, in the latest NAFA journal is an article authored by Dr. Jeremy Guinn. On page 31, second paragraph, Dr. Guinn states, "Our wild-taken hawks remain property of the public sector." On Feb. 19th, I contacted Dr. Guinn and pointed out that particular glitch. I do not know if he will choose to make a correction by contacting the NAFA editors.

Richard F. Hoyer

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: George_T_Allen@fws.gov
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:51:29 -0400

Hi Dan:

I'd also like to try to clarify an ongoing issue involving possession of falconry birds. I should not have put the statement in the proposed propagation regulations stating the birds held under the permit are not private property, and long ago took I it out of the version of the propagation regulations that will address comments and make final changes to the regulations.

MBTA falconry and propagation raptors are private property, but their possession still has more constraints on it than does possession of most private property. I believe that some folks have taken my correction about the private property statement to mean there are now no constraints on the possession of falconry and propagation raptors. That is not correct. The rights and responsibilities of a permittee under the MBTA or the BGEPA are unchanged. Possession of raptors for falconry or propagation is still subject to the same constraints that have always been in place. A permittee must comply with his or her permit conditions, and he or she may not undertake activities or actions not allowed by the permit.

No falconry bird or propagation bird of a species listed in 50 CFR 10.13 is exempt from the MBTA or MBTA regs. For example, because hybrids are defined as MBTA birds, they are covered. Captive-bred birds of MBTA species are still covered under the MBTA. Raptors taken from the wild for falconry still may not be bought or sold. In the future, falconry birds and falconers' facilities and records will still be subject to inspection.

In short, I've been corrected - and we won't say falconry raptors are not private property. However, that does not mean that anything else is changed. As I told someone else, I think that some people are failing to distinguish between "private property" and "exempt from the MBTA." I have said that raptors held under falconry permits are private property. However, both wild-caught and captive-bred MBTA raptors are still protected under the Act.

If you or others have additional questions on this point, please let me know.

Regards,

George

[jfseaman]

Thanks again Richard.

I to thought this issue was settled.

What I'm curious of is whether this is a plant by Mr. Quinn to resurrect this position in an ostensibly 'peer reviewed' publication.

It is my belief that this is serious, it has been weighing on me since I received my copy of 'The Journal'.

[Saluqi]

Hi Fred,

The NAFA journal is not a peer reviewed publication. There is no technical, legal, or scientific board that reviews the Journal. It's a place for members to share their experience, stories, history, and ideas about the sport.

[jfseaman]

Hi Fred,

The NAFA journal is not a peer reviewed publication. There is no technical, legal, or scientific board that reviews the Journal. It's a place for members to share their experience, stories, history, and ideas about the sport.
Hi Paul,

We know that but Mr. Quinn is a Ph.D. and as such, his writings carry weight beyond his wisdom.

So did this just slip in as one falconers opinion?

[Lowachi]

Hi Paul,

We know that but Mr. Quinn is a Ph.D. and as such, his writings carry weight beyond his wisdom.

So did this just slip in as one falconers opinion?

Just ask Jon. here or on a p/m... jmo

[PeteJ]

Hi Paul,

We know that but Mr. Quinn is a Ph.D. and as such, his writings carry weight beyond his wisdom.

So did this just slip in as one falconers opinion?
LOL @ Weight (Piled higher deeper=Ph.D.)

[Saluqi]

Hi Paul,

We know that but Mr. Quinn is a Ph.D. and as such, his writings carry weight beyond his wisdom.

So did this just slip in as one falconers opinion?

Carry weight, really? Even if his PhD is in some unrelated field like English or engineering? If he was writing about raptor diseases and had a DVM next to his name then I would assume he has credentials, but the title of PhD reflects more on this guy's opinion of himself and nothing more.

I think your reading too much into this.

[jfseaman]

Carry weight, really? Even if his PhD is in some unrelated field like English or engineering? If he was writing about raptor diseases and had a DVM next to his name then I would assume he has credentials, but the title of PhD reflects more on this guy's opinion of himself and nothing more.

I think your reading too much into this.
That is very possible.

I know your position, you know mine.

Get a straight answer from Larry. I tried and didn't.

[sharptail]

Who are Jon and Larry?

[PeteJ]

Carry weight, really? Even if his PhD is in some unrelated field like English or engineering? If he was writing about raptor diseases and had a DVM next to his name then I would assume he has credentials, but the title of PhD reflects more on this guy's opinion of himself and nothing more.

I think your reading too much into this.

I would say that his Ph.D is likely in biology, ornithology or zoology based on his field work citation. And, as you say, often such credentials are thrown around a little like Master falconer is, or the type of car one drives. But, in this case I believe it was thrown around to give credit to what he was saying.
I do sort of get the impression that even though the article was published recently, it perhaps had been in the works for a longer period of time, perhaps from before G. Allen said what he said about private property. Also, to be fair, there are many falconers out there that are pretty much keeping to themselves and definitely not on the forums, and therefore out of the loop of updated information as we recently saw on a thread about year round trapping associated with the new regs in some states! It is tough to keep on top of things unless it really is important to you. I know very competent falconers that are often clueless as to what the regs say or mean, and I have had many conflicts with some falconers that just aren't paying close enough attention and also passing along their disinformation to their apprentices and acquaintances who might respect their position. You can really get yourself into a jam if you aren't careful.
But, while the Journal is not particularly 'peer reviewed' as Paul pointed out, I would hope that the editor would have caught this error and pointed it out to the author before publication, or perhaps the editor could have put an editor's note in the article to indicate that this particular issue was already cleared up somewhat by George Allen. I have seen articles in the Journal over the years that had some editor notes within them to update something that might have recently changed from the information presented in the article.
I agree a little with Fred on this though that it gives the impression of a throwback to earlier thinking within the NAFA community when it should be moving forward rather than getting bogged down with out-dated thinking.

[sharptail]

Hi Fred,
Really gald that you brought this up!

[frootdog]

Who are Jon and Larry?

Journal editor and NAFA pres? D'Arpino and Dickerson?

[Yeomanfalconer]

Hi Fred,
Really gald that you brought this up!

Yeah, the Doc. had a lot of gall to say that stuff.

[sharptail]

Speaking as a long time NAFA member and one that has wanted to see NAFA 'heal old wounds' between the different camps in the falconry community, I would like to request of all 3 NAFA directors on this forum, that they introduce and support an offical change to the clubs stance, away from the idea that raptors are not private or personal property and remain 'ward of the public or government agencys.'

[jfseaman]

Journal editor and NAFA pres? D'Arpino and Dickerson?
Yup.

[PHILADELPHIA CITY HAWKER]

I may be wrong here, but according to the feds, we do not own these birds, period. I think the guy was just agreeing with someone, but it don't make it so. Call and ask the feds first and then take a shot at the guy.

John F. Kennedy Jr, Esquire did a Pace University Law Review Article on the property rights of raptors for falconry. He sent me a copy 10+ years ago, I gave Ken Felix (Previous NAFA President ?) a copy back then. I may still have a copy in storage. I will have to look. Its interesting reading. I think Ken's copy went to the NAFA General Councel if you need quick access.

Jeff

[NMHighPlains]

We know that but Mr. Quinn is a Ph.D. and as such, his writings carry weight beyond his wisdom.

Only if you let it.

Jim Weaver doesn't have a PhD. 'nuff said. :D

[sharptail]

John F. Kennedy Jr, Esquire did a Pace University Law Review Article on the property rights of raptors for falconry. He sent me a copy 10+ years ago, I gave Ken Felix (Previous NAFA President ?) a copy back then. I may still have a copy in storage. I will have to look. Its interesting reading. I think Ken's copy went to the NAFA General Councel if you need quick access.

Jeff
Hi Jeff, I would also love to have a copy...maybe you should post one!

I am not sure that NAFA General Council at the time would have wanted copies out in public.

[Saluqi]

I am not sure that NAFA General Council at the time would have wanted copies out in public.

Why not just spit it out and explain yourself Jeff? What does this mean? You make it sound like some sort of grand scheme put forth by the evil empire....

[sharptail]

Speaking as a long time NAFA member and one that has wanted to see NAFA 'heal old wounds' between the different camps in the falconry community, I would like to request of all 3 NAFA directors on this forum, that they introduce and support an offical change to the clubs stance, away from the idea that raptors are not private or personal property and remain 'ward of the public or government agencys.'3 emails sent.

[Saluqi]

Speaking as a long time NAFA member and one that has wanted to see NAFA 'heal old wounds' between the different camps in the falconry community, I would like to request of all 3 NAFA directors on this forum, that they introduce and support an offical change to the clubs stance, away from the idea that raptors are not private or personal property and remain 'ward of the public or government agencys.'

When I ran for director against Eric Tabb we had opposing views on the private property issue. Eric stated up front in his bio that he was against it, while I did not, at least not in my bio. I did during the course of that election send an email to probably one hundred members of the mountain directorate in which I stated my support for the private ownership of captive bred and wild taken raptors. I quickly learned just how bad a move it was in doing so. I received a deluge of emails from people who were, and probably still are, totally and completely opposed to private ownership. I seriously doubt that taking a stance one way or another will do anything to "heal old wounds" as the fact remains that falconers are divided on this issue.

[Yeomanfalconer]

When I ran for director against Eric Tabb we had opposing views on the private property issue. Eric stated up front in his bio that he was against it, while I did not, at least not in my bio. I did during the course of that election send an email to probably one hundred members of the mountain directorate in which I stated my support for the private ownership of captive bred and wild taken raptors. I quickly learned just how bad a move it was in doing so. I received a deluge of emails from people who were, and probably still are, totally and completely opposed to private ownership. I seriously doubt that taking a stance one way or another will do anything to "heal old wounds" as the fact remains that falconers are divided on this issue.

I just feel it would be arrogant of me to assume that I "own" a creature as inherently free and wild as a passage falcon. More and more, I feel that way about even captive bred falcons, in spite of the domesticity factor. We have many years to go before we are akin to dogs and horses on this ownership issue. Some of my peers accuse me of loosing too many falcons. I look at it as enabling entitled liberty. I take Ed Pitcher's theories to extremes, and it is Ed's fault.

[sharptail]

I just feel it would be arrogant of me to assume that I "own" a creature as inherently free and wild as a passage falcon. More and more, I feel that way about even captive bred falcons, in spite of the domesticity factor. We have many years to go before we are akin to dogs and horses on this ownership issue. Some of my peers accuse me of loosing too many falcons. I look at it as enabling entitled liberty. I take Ed Pitcher's theories to extremes, and it is Ed's fault.What ever that means? Sounds like psyco-babble to me but maybe like muddy water, with time it may settle out.

[sharptail]

When I ran for director against Eric Tabb we had opposing views on the private property issue. Eric stated up front in his bio that he was against it, while I did not, at least not in my bio. I did during the course of that election send an email to probably one hundred members of the mountain directorate in which I stated my support for the private ownership of captive bred and wild taken raptors. I quickly learned just how bad a move it was in doing so. I received a deluge of emails from people who were, and probably still are, totally and completely opposed to private ownership. I seriously doubt that taking a stance one way or another will do anything to "heal old wounds" as the fact remains that falconers are divided on this issue.Does that mean that you will or will not bring this issue up at the board meeting on the 17th?

[Jimmy]

I just feel it would be arrogant of me to assume that I "own" a creature as inherently free and wild as a passage falcon. More and more, I feel that way about even captive bred falcons, in spite of the domesticity factor. We have many years to go before we are akin to dogs and horses on this ownership issue. Some of my peers accuse me of loosing too many falcons. I look at it as enabling entitled liberty. I take Ed Pitcher's theories to extremes, and it is Ed's fault.


I must be arrogant. I know damn well that I own all of mine, and I don't feel bad at all for it.

[PeteJ]

Really, at this point the private property issue is a no-brainer. It all comes down to 'take' and 'possession'. If you shoot a pheasant, that's a take, if you take it home and eat it, that's possession. If someone steals it before you get to eat it, that's theft of private property because you secured the pheasant with your paid for permit and legal means of securing it. Now, what we choose to do with the admitted private property rights that the USFWS has already acknowleged that we have is really up to the individual. If you don't want to do anything with it and feel that you are a steward of the public trust by having the bird...well, I don't think anyone is going to come down on you for that. If you want to release a trapped bird after a certain period of time, I don't think that anyone will fault you for that either. If you want to have someone arrested for stealing your bird or shooting your bird, I don't think that anyone will come down on you for that either. But, I don't think we should bury our head in the sand and not acknowledge that the govt. has admitted that we own them after we take possession of them. Its a win win situation. Let's not let the presumption be that it didn't happen because getting the govt. to admit this fact is a reallllllllly BIG DEAL! Handle it the way you see fit....like flying your bird...weight control or not, pitch or not, kite or not, bagged game or not. It is an individual preference how you want to handle this 'right'.

[Saluqi]

Does that mean that you will or will not bring this issue up at the board meeting on the 17th?

I'll bring it up, you asked, I'll do it, but you have to help me out. Give me ideas how the sport of falconry will be better off by NAFA taking a public position that raptors held under a falconry permit are private property. That is the question that I will have to have an answer to for the board. You can't expect me to come up with the backing arguements, I'm already working on other things for the meeting. Thanks.

[sharptail]

I'll bring it up, you asked, I'll do it, but you have to help me out. Give me ideas how the sport of falconry will be better off by NAFA taking a public position that raptors held under a falconry permit are private property. That is the question that I will have to have an answer to for the board. You can't expect me to come up with the backing arguements, I'm already working on other things for the meeting. Thanks.
That is fair, I will work on it! Thanks!!

[PeteJ]

I just feel it would be arrogant of me to assume that I "own" a creature as inherently free and wild as a passage falcon. More and more, I feel that way about even captive bred falcons, in spite of the domesticity factor. We have many years to go before we are akin to dogs and horses on this ownership issue. Some of my peers accuse me of loosing too many falcons. I look at it as enabling entitled liberty. I take Ed Pitcher's theories to extremes, and it is Ed's fault.
The only thing I would say about this is, that a passage falcon isn't very free when its tied to a perch and not flown right? The wildness may or may not exhibit itself if kept to where it can't be what it is. But, if you fly it, you automatically acknowledge that you are no longer in control the way you would be if you still held it by its jesses. That has nothing to do with private property rights. That is an individual expression of how you feel about your birds.
Here's a legal definition that applies;
"Qualified property consists in the right which men have over wild animals which they have reduced to their own possession, and which are kept subject to their power; as a deer, a buffalo, and the like, which are his own while he has possession of them, but as soon as his possession is lost, his property is gone, unless the animals, go animo revertendi." http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p100.htm

[Yeomanfalconer]

The only thing I would say about this is, that a passage falcon isn't very free when its tied to a perch and not flown right? The wildness may or may not exhibit itself if kept to where it can't be what it is. But, if you fly it, you automatically acknowledge that you are no longer in control the way you would be if you still held it by its jesses. That has nothing to do with private property rights. That is an individual expression of how you feel about your birds.
Here's a legal definition that applies;
"Qualified property consists in the right which men have over wild animals which they have reduced to their own possession, and which are kept subject to their power; as a deer, a buffalo, and the like, which are his own while he has possession of them, but as soon as his possession is lost, his property is gone, unless the animals, go animo revertendi." http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p100.htm

That would apply if I shot the falcon and stripped the flesh from her bones. As falconers, we preserve their souls, their bodies and their destiny. It is beyond ours.

[jfseaman]

That would apply if I shot the falcon and stripped the flesh from her bones. As falconers, we preserve their souls, their bodies and their destiny. It is beyond ours.

Umm, yeah. How much time did you spend with Timothy Leary?

[jfseaman]

That would apply if I shot the falcon and stripped the flesh from her bones. As falconers, we preserve their souls, their bodies and their destiny. It is beyond ours.

Umm, yeah. How much time did you spend with Timothy Leary? :D

That's a joke btw.

[mainefalconer]

Eric,

Pete J is "right on" with his commentary here. Your statement is purely emotional and simply an expression of your pursuit of our sport. I'm certainly not criticizing you for practicing falconry the way that you do, but it has little to do with the private property issue, which has become the meat and potatoes of this thread.

And Fred,.... seriously, just give the guy a call. And then enlighten us with your findings.

[Yeomanfalconer]

Eric,

Pete J is "right on" with his commentary here. Your statement is purely emotional and simply an expression of your pursuit of our sport. I'm certainly not criticizing you for practicing falconry the way that you do, but it has little to do with the private property issue, which has become the meat and potatoes of this thread.

And Fred,.... seriously, just give the guy a call. And then enlighten us with your findings.

Whose statement is purely emotional ? I don't want a passage falcon to be my property. plain and simple. I don't even want this gyr to be my property. She belongs to a man from Arabia. He trusts me to do right by her. Is he freaking out because she is not in his mews at the moment? No, he knows that this falcon belongs to the community of falconry. The fact that she catches a goose here in Idaho does not make her any less a falcon of the UAE sand. She may be there next fall, flying the shit out of their stuff. Is that relevant enough for you? I will gladly hand her over to that world, when the time has come. I will miss her, but I will ask for others to take her place, for awhile.

[mainefalconer]

I don't even know how to respond to that. You just confused the bajeezus out of me. My point was simply that folks here are trying to discuss the ins and outs of the "private property" issue from a legal standpoint, and you're chiming in with your feelings about how our birds are free spirits and belong to their native lands or mother earth or something. (I'm obviously paraphrasing) That's fine. I too hold raptors in high esteem and look upon them with much reverence, but I don't believe that those feelings have much of anything to do with where NAFA should draw the line on private property or how the USFWS should regulate captive raptors.

[PeteJ]

Whose statement is purely emotional ? I don't want a passage falcon to be my property. plain and simple. I don't even want this gyr to be my property. She belongs to a man from Arabia. He trusts me to do right by her. Is he freaking out because she is not in his mews at the moment? No, he knows that this falcon belongs to the community of falconry. The fact that she catches a goose here in Idaho does not make her any less a falcon of the UAE sand. She may be there next fall, flying the shit out of their stuff. Is that relevant enough for you? I will gladly hand her over to that world, when the time has come. I will miss her, but I will ask for others to take her place, for awhile.
The fact that you say 'She belongs to a man from Arabia' indicates that you recognize that she is the property of someone, 'he knows this falcon belongs to the community of falconry' also confirms that you understand that she is private property. While you may not 'want' this to be this way, the fact that it is this way is what allows you to have her at all and for him to have her back later. Thanks for illustrating the point so succinctly.

[jfseaman]

Whose statement is purely emotional ? I don't want a passage falcon to be my property. plain and simple. I don't even want this gyr to be my property. She belongs to a man from Arabia. He trusts me to do right by her. Is he freaking out because she is not in his mews at the moment? No, he knows that this falcon belongs to the community of falconry. The fact that she catches a goose here in Idaho does not make her any less a falcon of the UAE sand. She may be there next fall, flying the shit out of their stuff. Is that relevant enough for you? I will gladly hand her over to that world, when the time has come. I will miss her, but I will ask for others to take her place, for awhile.Hi Eric,

On a serious note. I support your right to believe in your philosophy, you can consider ownership of your raptors from any standard you find fulfilling.

Where we differ is you or NAFA forcing your version of falconry on me or anyone else. That's all I care about really. I own my raptors, period. I don't want to force you to examine your belief system, every time I've tried that, I win the argument but loose the war.

The collective doesn't care for them or feed them, I do. In fact the collective can be swayed by even nonsensical arguments that they are vermin and a danger to man kind and put a bounty on them.

Any mystic connection we have with a bird or birds is personal, please don't attempt to codify into regulations or laws your connection to raptors and force me to conform to that vision, I have my own connection to them.

Peace brother falconer.

[jfseaman]

...

And Fred,.... seriously, just give the guy a call. And then enlighten us with your findings.
I will.... eventually....

[wyodjm]

Not trying to stray from the thread topic.

However, I've thought for a long time that the safest place (legally) a person can keep a raptor is on a falconry permit. My passage male golden eagle is on my falconry permit. It's mine for as long as I want to keep it on my falconry permit. Safer than say an educational permit, rehabilitation permit, or scientific collecting permit.

I don't know what you call that. I feel safe that this eagle is on my falconry permit.

[Yeomanfalconer]

The fact that you say 'She belongs to a man from Arabia' indicates that you recognize that she is the property of someone, 'he knows this falcon belongs to the community of falconry' also confirms that you understand that she is private property. While you may not 'want' this to be this way, the fact that it is this way is what allows you to have her at all and for him to have her back later. Thanks for illustrating the point so succinctly.

Ameeriky is an F4 (I think, at least). Her mother came from northern Quebec, as did her father(Danny, where did your line originate?). Did I get this falcon from the rock ?, NO(I wish) Bob Berry did, if you look at it as far back as possible. I saw Bob, Jim W. and Frank Bond leave for Quebec in 1972, to get the grandmother of my falcon now. Does Bob have a say in her future. Not anymore (tho I wish he did). She may have even come from an eyrie that Luff Meredith knew. Or the falconers to Charlemagne or the Loo. How can we say that we are the origin of anything? This falcon belongs to the world. I am just very fortunate to be part of her reality.

[Big Foot]

Given the choice of a bureaucrat (as representative of government) owning the bird in my mews, or me owning it....I'd much prefer to own it myself.
Given the fact that we are moving in the direction that everything is owned, we should be able to own our Hawks. Otherwise one day you'll find out that the state sold the right of ownership of the peregrine falcon to Coca-Cola.
As outlandish as it seems these things have happened.. look at DeBeers as an example.

[Montucky]

I just feel it would be arrogant of me to assume that I "own" a creature as inherently free and wild as a passage falcon. More and more, I feel that way about even captive bred falcons, in spite of the domesticity factor. We have many years to go before we are akin to dogs and horses on this ownership issue. Some of my peers accuse me of loosing too many falcons. I look at it as enabling entitled liberty. I take Ed Pitcher's theories to extremes, and it is Ed's fault.
amennn

What is also hard to think about for such a intense community like falconers - it the big picture legal rammifications that private ownership of wildlife has on the commercialism of wildlife - the big picture. I used to believe in private ownership but there are too many problems bigger than falconry involved in the issue - that have changed my mind.

Wasnt there a divorce case where a judge ruled that a guy's gyr was his property and awarded it to the wife? I always figured that one would be used as a precident for ownership...

what bummes me out is to keep hearing this polical stuff about forcing someone's elses beliefs on you and messing with your rights...this is confusing personal liberties with your rights to use resources that are literally held in the public trust - the commons "owned" by everyone. doesnt matter what polical system you may believe in...once you start saying that you have a right to own public resources and native wildlife - there is a problem. One of the foundations of our wildlife management model is to disincentivize the privitization/commercialization of native wildlife. Money is always the ruin of our resources and if you take out as much of that financial incentive as you can - then you have gone a long way to conserving the resource for future generations. There is a long history of this model working well - with the exception of things like elk farming and other industries that are now a major problem and a threat to the wild resource.

and interestingly - another by product of private ownership is that it actualy devalues the animal. There is a huge exchange value associated with hunting elk in wild country and harvesting a big bull. This is reflected in guide fees, tags etc. To be able to buy a tag for a farmed elk in a canned hunt regulated by agricultural law, you have robbed a certain value from wild elk literally and figuratively. Raptors have this sort of pure value...i hope it stays that way

Althoug it may be maddening for some - i think it is a good, healthy, and important debate;)

[Black Gold]

I do not usually get involved with politically issue in Falconry, but this one gets my blood boiling.

I know first hand how a Judge views/interprets the birds you have in your mews and on your permit, whether it is propagation permit or a Falconry permit.

They are viewed as property by the private community and treated no different then a sofa, TV, a vehicle, or the pet Dog! Nothing to do with ownership by the Feds or State and certainly nothing to do with your views about how personal they are too you!stupd

The "Big" argument against "Private ownership" on putting it on the books with "our/their" birds is that it would have effected wild take of Raptors. Another load of garbage that the old guard thinks they need to control.frus)

Time to do away with even more of the lame laws regarding Falconry. The old guard thought they wanted to see Falconry "controlled" to make sure the welfare of the Raptors were preserved and carefully controlled. confusedd

That's all great, but you can not control how somebody is going to take care of a Raptor-plain and simple-news flash.fishslap
Some of our locals "oldies" have never had a weathering area, but help with Mews inspections for the State! Some of these "oldies" have directly lost Raptors to having birds perched out without a weathering area, but somehow they think they are exempted. crazyy

Time to give us the right of ownership on the books! The rest of the World thinks we own them! We are not going to loose wild take of Raptors. The impact of taking wild Raptors for Falconry has no impact on them, even the Feds and States are aware of this...amennn

[FredFogg]

Whose statement is purely emotional ? I don't want a passage falcon to be my property. plain and simple. I don't even want this gyr to be my property. She belongs to a man from Arabia. He trusts me to do right by her. Is he freaking out because she is not in his mews at the moment? No, he knows that this falcon belongs to the community of falconry. The fact that she catches a goose here in Idaho does not make her any less a falcon of the UAE sand. She may be there next fall, flying the shit out of their stuff. Is that relevant enough for you? I will gladly hand her over to that world, when the time has come. I will miss her, but I will ask for others to take her place, for awhile.

Eric, the above post is just about the stupid thing I have ever seen written on this forum. You keep talking about this has nothing to do with emotions but everything you are posting is your emotions and not science or law. The plain fact is if we have a vaild permit to take a bird from the wild (which we do), then once that bird comes into our possesion, it is our property. After that, how the bird is taken care of is covered by animal cruelity laws, not falconry laws. All the stupid regulations of what kind of anklets we have to put on them, having a bath pan available, etc. shouldn't even be in existance. Sure, they are there for the protection of the birds but we already have animal cruelty laws, we don't need something seperate. I don't have a special Federal law saying I have to have a water bowl for my dog, it is the same thing. And get off this kick about how free our birds are and that they are the property of the falconry community. You and no one else owns my birds, I DO! PERIOD! And I am sure if a falconer showed up on your property and said you posted on a forum that all falconry birds are the falconry communities and I am part of that community and I want to take your falcon, you would meet him with a double barreled shotgun! LOL Quit using your emotions and feelings about raptors and use common sesne, science, and the law!

[Yeomanfalconer]

Eric, the above post is just about the stupid thing I have ever seen written on this forum. You keep talking about this has nothing to do with emotions but everything you are posting is your emotions and not science or law. The plain fact is if we have a vaild permit to take a bird from the wild (which we do), then once that bird comes into our possesion, it is our property. After that, how the bird is taken care of is covered by animal cruelity laws, not falconry laws. All the stupid regulations of what kind of anklets we have to put on them, having a bath pan available, etc. shouldn't even be in existance. Sure, they are there for the protection of the birds but we already have animal cruelty laws, we don't need something seperate. I don't have a special Federal law saying I have to have a water bowl for my dog, it is the same thing. And get off this kick about how free our birds are and that they are the property of the falconry community. You and no one else owns my birds, I DO! PERIOD! And I am sure if a falconer showed up on your property and said you posted on a forum that all falconry birds are the falconry communities and I am part of that community and I want to take your falcon, you would meet him with a double barreled shotgun! LOL Quit using your emotions and feelings about raptors and use common sesne, science, and the law!

You must be joking. My emotions are what makes me-me.

[Yeomanfalconer]

The fact that you say 'She belongs to a man from Arabia' indicates that you recognize that she is the property of someone, 'he knows this falcon belongs to the community of falconry' also confirms that you understand that she is private property. While you may not 'want' this to be this way, the fact that it is this way is what allows you to have her at all and for him to have her back later. Thanks for illustrating the point so succinctly.

Your welcome.

[Richard F, Hoyer]

Eric:
I understand your position from a philosophical perspective that all wildlife essentially belongs to nature and not to be considered as a personal possession. But the issue is one of legalities, that is, individual ownership versus public (governmental) ownership.

I cannot understand why you or anyone else would believe the impersonal government would be better suited to legally own your falcon than you. If there was a huge lesson to be learned from 'Operation Falcon', it was how crass, insensitive, and uncaring were the federal bureaucrats who killed many of the falcons they seized in the name of protecting such falcons.

If you truly "---feel it would be arrogant of me to assume that I "own" a creature as inherently free and wild as a passage falcon.", then wouldn't if be just as arrogant for either the state or federal government (their public servants) to "---- "own" a creature as inherently free and wild as a passage falcon." That is, unless you truly believe that federal or state bureaucrats are far better at ownership than the individual falconer.

Later you then mentioned, "I don't want a passage falcon to be my property. plain and simple." Then again I would ask, what is your rational for wishing to have the government be the legal owner of a passage falcon in your possession? Is the government or some governmental employee better suited and equipped to own the falcon than yourself? And I am speaking from a legal and not a philosophical perspective.

And the idea that captive bred raptors are somehow far better off being under the ownership of the government rather than the individual falconer defies any rational explanation from my point of view.

Richard F. Hoyer

[Richard F, Hoyer]

When in 2008, I took 5 months to investigate, and ascertain the facts involved with the controversy surrounding the 'private property' issue, on about October 3, 2008, I communicated a summary of my findings to falconers that belong to the Oregon Falconer's Assn. web site, to the falconers that then were members of this ANNEX forum, to then NAVA president Dan Cecchini, and all NAVA board members as of that date.

It is clear that those findings, which included a copy of Dr. George Allen's email message to Dan Cecchini, were not widely disseminated throughout the falconry community as it would seem that many falconers are still under the misconception that the government possesses legal ownership of all falconry birds.

In January, I was in contact with a falconer in the Mid West that seem to have misconception about this very issue. I provided him with a lengthy explanation that for whatever it may be worth, I have copied below. I did not bother to go back and look at all of my 2008 records so what is mentioned below is from memory. I have only altered a couple of points to hopefully make that message more accurate.

Richard F. Hoyer

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++
K---------:
As for your statement about most (falconers) being torn on the issue of 'private property', let me give you only a partial, though somewhat lengthy recapitulation of what I learned so that you might better understand some of what transpired during 2008 within NAFA and the falconry community at large.

It seems that the controversy over recognition of falconry raptors being considered as private property started sometime in mid to late 2007. I was not privy to what exactly transpired as I didn't become aware of this issue until mid April, 2008 when Dan Ertsgaard of Prineville, Oregon posted a somewhat negative message in the Oregon Falconer's Assn. web site.
And I did not try and determine just what transpired from late 2007 to April of 2008.

But from posts on the OFA web site by Ertsgaard and others, it was clear that two opposing views were held by different falconers in Oregon. Soon afterwards, I learned that elsewhere in the U.S. falconry community, it had already gotten pretty ugly with some uncivil communications having been exchanged. That didn't happen in Oregon as to up to that time, individuals in Oregon had expressed their points of view in a civil manner.

At any rate, I am not able to relate to the position held by some falconers of desiring that all falconry birds should belong to the public at large (the government). To put it in another light, would you wish or actively seek to have the state own any native reptile you lawfully collected or purchased at a pet shop? But in essence, that is exactly what was involved in the issue of 'private property' not just of raptors but basically pertained to all wildlife.

From the information at my disposal, it is my view that the 'seeds' for the above position most likely originated with Dick Musser of Burns, Oregon. From about late April, 2008 on, I exchanged a number of posts with Dick via the Ore. Fal. Assn. web site and in private email messages as well. Dick argued that ALL wildlife belonged to government (the pubic). And he cited sources for taking that position.

In addition, he claimed that his position was widely accepted and supported by many or all conservation organizations and all state wildlife agencies. And he went further by saying 1) that if such wildlife were to become the private property of individuals, that we (in N. Am.) would end up with the system that exists in the U.K. and Europe. And 2) he also made the claim that the recognition of wildlife as private property would lead to the unrestricted commercialization of ALL wildlife and that in turn would overturning the system of wildlife management as it presently exists within the U.S.

There is no doubt in my mind that his lack of background and basic understanding in the realm of wildlife management let him down. The positions he adopted and statements he made fly in the face of the manner in which all wildlife, commercial, game, and non-game species, are managed by the individuals states. And his positions were inconsistent with a considerable amount of legal precedence.

At the time, it appeared that Musser's position had been adopted hook, line, and sinker by NAFA president Dan Cecchini (of Bend, Oregon), board members Ralph Rogers, Mark Williams, Lance Christensen, 3 other NAFA board members, and perhaps many others in the falconry community. The resolution that Dick proposed and that the NAFA board then adopted is a classical case of individuals not understanding and misinterpreting matters dealing with wildlife management. As I mentioned, my undergraduate degree is in Wildlife Science and none of the above positions vigorously espoused by Dick Musser (and other falconers) jived with my understanding of those issues. From my perspective, those positions were quite irrational.

Dick can be very convincing and persuasive given the fact he once had been a NAFA board member from Alaska. And it was clear to me that he was totally sincere. He comes across as being very credible because he does incorporate some factual information / statements in his arguments. The two of us exchanged a good number of message in 2008 (and some since then). However, despite the facts and evidence I was able to acquire that pointed in the opposite direction from his mantra, he continued to remained unconvinced even into 2009.

Dick was correct that in that the system that evolved within the U.S. is quite different from Europe. That is, instead of wildlife being own by landowners, within the U.S., all wildlife is in public ownership (in the public trust). As such, the states (their wildlife agencies) are custodians of that wildlife. But the key element that he and others failed to understand is that the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, sometimes erroneously referred to as the 'Public Trust Doctrine', pertains only to free roaming wildlife and not after wildlife has been
lawfully taken into possession by individuals.

By statutes / regulations, states have been empowered to grant permits, licenses, or other provisions whereby under certain conditions and restrictions, individuals can lawfully remove
wildlife from their wild existence and convert such wildlife to private ownership. With their misconstruing or misinterpretation of the N. Am. Model of Wildlife Conservation, Dick Musser (and others) failed to grasp that critical distinction. It seem clear to me that Musser (Cecchini, Rogers, Williams, Christensen, etc.) erroneously interpreted the 'public trust' in wildlife to mean that wildlife remained the property of the public (government) in perpetuity.

When a person has a hunting or fishing, license and harvest species of wildlife, in most if not all states, there are provisions that indicates that such wildlife cannot be sold or bartered. But such lawfully taken wildlife is converted from public ownership to the private ownership. When I pointed this out to Musser, his stance appeared to change whereby he indicated that only 'LIVE' wildlife remained (indefinitely) in public ownership. So in essence, he held the notion that ALL LIVE wildlife forever remained in public ownership regardless of circumstances that included the lawful capture and possession of said wildlife by private individuals.

So you go to the local pet shop and purchase a Sonoran Mt. Kingsnake or Corn Snake. Thus, if Dick Musser's view of the ownership of live wildlife were to be correct, you are purchasing something that did not belong to the seller and now does not belong to you. It still remains the property of whatever state in which the snake originated or if captive bred, to the state or states from which the parent snakes had been captured.

To put it in a different context, consider the following: Similar to commercial fishing, there are some states that allow the commercial harvest of various species of amphibians and reptiles. Say a licensed commercial collector captures a number of Corn Snakes and sells them to a wholesaler at a price that covers his collecting costs and provides some profit. The wholesaler sells the Corn Snakes to a number of pet shops at a price that allows him to cover his overhead and make a profit. Then the pet shops sell the Corn Snakes to members of the public at a price that covers their overhead and produces a profit.

So if you adopt the position that the public owns all live wildlife, the collector, wholesaler, and pet shops are selling and realizing profits on property they never owned but actually was the property the state (the public). So they are making profits at the expense of the public who then must be getting ripped-off all along the way.

Of course, that didn't make sense to me. Although I was immediately skeptical of Musser's positions, without having factual proof that I could cite, I basically remained objective until during my research into the various issues, I gathered sufficient factual information that countered Dick Musser's positions.

Most states allow recreation (sports) take of amphibians and reptiles (some don't like Washington), while a few, such as Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Nevada and others, also have commercial take of various herp species. Knowing that Louisiana and Florida in particular, have had commercial collecting of herpes for many decades, I attempted to obtain input from Dr. Jeff Boundy of Louisiana and Kevin Inge of Florida, both biologists for their respective state wildlife agencies. I wished to ask them about the legal aspects of ownership with respect to both commercial harvest and recreational take of wildlife including raptors. Jeff is a herpetologist and I believe is in charge of managing all of his state's commercial and non-game species of wildlife in Louisiana.

I found that Kevin Inge was away but Jeff Boundy got back to me quite soon. He mentioned he could not give me an answer about raptors (birds) and would have to consult with others in his agency on that aspect. But as far as the take of other live wildlife in Louisiana, be it commercial harvest or recreational take of non-game species, once a person lawfully takes possession of said wildlife, Jeff said that the ownership is transferred from the state to the individual.

I also accessed the statutes / regulations of a number of states that dealt with the take of live wildlife. You pretty much have to be an attorney to decipher some of those regulations as there is much ambiguity. But the one state in which the regulations are clear-cut are those of Wisconsin. Wisconsin's regs. dealing with the capture and possession of live wildlife
essentially specify the same input I received from Jeff Boundy, that is, lawfully acquired live wildlife becomes the private property of the individual.

Dick Musser had indicated that no state regulations existed whereby live wildlife taken into possession by individuals becomes private property. When I quoted the Wisconsin regs and provided the link so he (and others) could view the regulation for himself, I was met with silence.

I have retained all of the email and web site messages that were exchanged by myself with Dick Musser, Dan Cecchini, and many others during that period of time in 2008 so can go back to verify / clarify the above if necessary. Being a field biologists and involved in research endeavors, I try to leave no stone unturned. It pays to be very thorough when conducting research and I operated in that same manner when I conducted my investigation into the 'private property' issue.

Some of the most disappointing aspects of the 'Private Property' controversy are as follows: It appear at that period of time, no one in the leadership of NAFA made any effort to ascertain the facts as I did. One of the more galling aspects of that controversy was that some NAFA board members and others in the falconry community belittled, castigated,and demonized the leadership of the Wild Raptor Take Conservancy organization for hiring an attorney to research the legal aspects of the 'private property' issue. They did the same thing to some of their fellow NAFA board members.

And some of those same individuals even demeaned the attorney, William Horn, hired by the WRTC leadership. If you wish to view Mr. Horn's credentials, you can enter his name on Google. Mr. Horn is one of the top authorities on laws that pertain to wildlife matters. In a private message, one of the questions I asked Dan Cecchini was whether or not he and the NAFA board had sought legal opinion (from Frank Bond or others) on the issue of private property of raptors. He never responded so I am left with the impression that they failed to do so. Not very bright to my way of thinking whereas the hiring of Mr. Horn by the WRTC leadership was a very intelligent move. To this day, I continue to be astounded as to how many individuals failed to questions Dick Musser's assertions but instead considered his views to be totally credible and reliable.

And another aspect of this dark episode in U.S. falconry annals is that all individuals in NAFA leadership positions that had adopted and vigorously defended the incorrect position, to my knowledge, have never publically admitted to their errors nor have they apologized to the falconry community or to those they besmirched along the way. Had I been any of those individuals, when reality was revealed, that would have been the first thing I would have done, own up to my mistakes and make a public apology.

As I mentioned, Dick Musser clearly was sincere in his beliefs at the time. Since then, he has come across as a very thoughtful individual and made some very worthwhile input on the Oregon Falconer's Assn. web site including within the past few weeks. He just happened to adopt an incorrect position due to his not fully understanding certain aspects of our wildlife management system. And I venture to say, to this day he has some company even amongst the ranks of wildlife biologists.

After the issue had been settled, in Nov. 2008 I got a response from Larry Cooper who is second in command of the Wildlife Division of ODFW. I had asked him the same questions I had asked Jeff Boundy. Larry implied that he and obtained legal input from within ODFW. With respect to the ownership of falconry birds, he said that if you went out and trapped a Cooper's Hawk, it was yours.

Again, I hope I haven't come across as being too offensive as my intent is only to inform..

Richard F. Hoyer

[STait]

Thank you Richard for taking the time and effort to gather and keep all of this information. I can tell you if for some reason the USFWS tried to take my personal property from me, I will take them to court and you and Mr. Horn will be contacted immediately.

NAFA also belittled me and the Millers (Attorneys) for suing the state of UT over the peregrine falcon take in 2001, even though we won our case and now, as far as I know, Utah offers the highest number of peregrine take permits in the lower 48, at least for anatums.

Thanks again,

[Richard F, Hoyer]

John:
I would seem you have been exposed to the arguments that were publically championed by Dick Musser in 2008 (perhaps as early as 2007), then adopted and passed on by other falconers. If one examines the realities of his positions, they simply don't stand up.

It would seem that yourself and others are not aware that commerce in wildlife has been ongoing for hundreds of years in the U.S. Because indisputable evidence was revealed that some wildlife resources were diminishing due to over harvesting (market hunting), state wildlife agencies were created with the goal of managing such wildlife resources to prevent such harvesting (demand) exceeding annual supply for such renewable resources.

As for the history of commercialization of wildlife, think of the commercial fish and shell fish industries, trapping and fur farming, parrots and other species of birds sold as pets, private game farms (ducks, pheasants, etc.), wild and captive breed amphibians and reptiles that you can view in almost any pet shop, fish farming, alligator ranching, and the list goes on and on. Explain to me just how the recognition of falconry birds as private property could possibly lead to the wholesale commercialization of wildlife when such commercialization has already been in existence for hundreds of years in the United States?

In addition, for some time now, laws have allowed the captive breeding and sale of captive bred raptors. So the argument that Dick (and perhaps others) put forth that recognizing falconry birds as private property would lead to the wholesale commercialization of all wildlife is about as irrational as one can get given the above facts.

If what I mention here and my two preceding posts raise questions, you can contact me privately at charinabottae@earthlink.net Seems to me you did that once before and may be moving to the greater Portland area as some point. Hope the above provides you with a somewhat different and new perspective.

Richard F. Hoyer

[FredFogg]

You must be joking. My emotions are what makes me-me.

And folks, there is the answer to the problem! LOL toungeout :D

[Richard F, Hoyer]

Steve:
The circumstances you mention rings a bell. My youngest son Ryan lives in Clearfield and once was in falconry when young and lived with his mother in Oregon. Ryan and myself had a dispute with the Utah wildlife agency and he pointed out how a falconer in Utah challenged and won a court case again the Utah DWR.

Seems to me Ryan mentioned that the falconer in Utah was also an attorney--but I could be totally wrong on that point. Any way, small world and take care.

Richard F. Hoyer

[STait]

Lorenzo and Lohra Miller are both attorneys and were previously my apprentices. Lohra Miller was recently District Attorney here in Salt Lake county. Arizona had allowed 3 peregrine permits and we wanted the same but the person in charge of non-game arbitrarily and capriciously decided that we could not have them. The judge saw it differently and UT falconers were awarded 12 permits that year which was 5% of productivity. We took a lot of flack from local falconers as well, until they decided the sky wasn't really falling. I'm sure some falconers still resent our lawsuit though.

[Montucky]

John:

It would seem that yourself and others are not aware that commerce in wildlife has been ongoing for hundreds of years in the U.S. Because indisputable evidence was revealed that some wildlife resources were diminishing due to over harvesting (market hunting), state wildlife agencies were created with the goal of managing such wildlife resources to prevent such harvesting (demand) exceeding annual supply for such renewable resources.

As for the history of commercialization of wildlife, think of the commercial fish and shell fish industries, trapping and fur farming, parrots and other species of birds sold as pets, private game farms (ducks, pheasants, etc.), wild and captive breed amphibians and reptiles that you can view in almost any pet shop, fish farming, alligator ranching, and the list goes on and on. Explain to me just how the recognition of falconry birds as private property could possibly lead to the wholesale commercialization of wildlife when such commercialization has already been in existence for hundreds of years in the United States? Richard F. Hoyer

By profession, I am intimately familiar with the history if wildlife in north american and that sordid history (1492 -twentieth century) is the primary reason why NA adopted the model we have now...the resources that are not under the influence of that model have generally suffered greatly in more recent times...i could pick generously from your list but it would turn into a book. Obviously some things are going to have a commercial component due to historic use and battles to make it so. I simply have a sense of caution in regards to this issue because you might not like the end result - and I and am sypathetic to those "old guard" that carefully and thoughtfully navigated a very difficult landscape in order to build a consensus and provide us with a very unique access to wild birds. I am very grateful to them as i know from professional experience how important knowledge, tact and comprimise is to succesfull communication with various groups, agencies, and others when it comes to advocating for a small group. Anyway, I have a broader interest in the issue as a professional...and that sometime is in conflict with my gut feelings about it as a falconer. As for the legal battle over peregrines in utah...the only reason they have the highest take is because they have such a huge population on public land, with with public access (the court case had nothing to do with harvest rates)...the number of peregrines in southern Utah is another example of the benefit we reap from our Wildlife Conservation Model based on the Public Trust Doctrine.

Anyway its an interesting debate because falconry really doesnt fit neatly into any category and no one really anticipated it when they drafted many of our formative wildlife policies

[mainefalconer]

Richard,

Thank you so much for your lengthy post. I'm sitting here at breakfast, having just read through the research that you presented, and I'm left feeling that it was a great "education." This is certainly an interesting topic. Thanks for shedding some light on it, and furthermore, for having the interest originally and for devoting the time to it that you did.

[Tanner]

the number of peregrines in southern Utah is another example of the benefit we reap from our Wildlife Conservation Model based on the Public Trust Doctrine.


John - I strongly agree with the premise and application of the public trust pholosophy behind US wildlife management policy. When game belongs to the landowner, as in Europe, only the wealthy are hunters. However, elk meat procured through a permitted legal take, for example, is no longer property of the public trust - it is property of the harvester. Same thing with raptors, except that you don't have to kill them to harvest them. Does that not make sense? I don't really see where the big disconnect is here, personally.

[Black Gold]

Wild take Raptors has been in existent since I started Falconry in 1968. Our State had it on the books for wild take way before this. In fact before this my two older Brothers had trapped a Coopers hawk around the time I was born and they contacted the Game Dept. and at the time and they were told there were vermin.

The current model in place is the US has a way of discouraging the youth to get involved in Falconry. When the first major laws were put into place in 1977-1984 by the old guard there was instantly a reduction of potential Falconers and interest in Falconry. Why? The regulations now had a test, apprenticeship program, etc... to become a Falconer. For the current youth and short term practicing Falconer do not know any difference, but for us older folk I ask what has this done for Falconry? Does it make you feel good that all the Raptors are in perfect hands and being care for the way you take care of your own? We all know better then this....You go to a meet and almost all you see is Grey hair and just a few younger Falconers. When I was a Kid it was the other way around, all youth and just a few Grey haired men. Falconry has been scarified for for the simple sake of Falconers feeling good that the "Model" is protecting Raptors in other Falconers hands. As before you can not "control" other Falconers how they are going to care for their Raptors. You can have them tested, schooled, and tutored and having all the equipment and basic knowledge guided by the laws in place, but this no guarantee they are going to turn out to be good Falconers or keep their birds healthy. If you have the desire to be a Falconer you will learn from others that have the experience and success in Falconry. I see this first hand in the Middle East. The one's that want to become good, hang out with the ones that are good Falconers. To make up a bunch of laws to govern Falconry is no way to encourage new Falconers. Our "Model" has done a wonderful job on making the older guard feel they are special!


There is a large separation between over control of Falconry and wild take of Raptors and commercialization of Raptors. Captive breeding is here to stay and as the Feds have acknowledge they are wanting a reduction in the laws and also the paperwork. Tracking each and every Falcon is becoming a Nightmare for them with their limited Budget and resources. Do they need this to sleep at night or do some of the Falconers?confusedd

Wild take is not going anywhere. In our State the wild Peregrine permits are only used by a handful of Falconers and just a few years ago the Falconry administrator was calling all of us asking why nobody wanted the permits?!

Farm reared Falcons and Hawks are here on a wholesale level. Whether you like that or not this is the case and the reason for over regulation or no private ownership is...?crazyy

[AK Rev]

Interesting post Brian. I don't have the experience to answer your questions but they still seem obvious (even rhetorical) to me. Thanks for posting.

[jfseaman]

I think this discussion is going very well. As a result of it I think I may have something useful, at least to me.

Eric Tabb and others like him seem to have a moral and philosophical point of view similar to the 'North American Natives' that believed no one 'owns' the land or resources on it. But what they failed to follow is that a 'Native Americans' made use of the resources and consumed them same as we do today and possessed or 'owned' the results and of course the 'Native Americans' have evolved and understand the difference between 'mans' definition of ownership from a 'legal' standpoint and reality that all of us are transient on this earth.

But while I'm here living and healthy on this earth, my rights to my raptors conforms to the legal definition of 'ownership'. There may be restrictions that govern the health and welfare of a living thing that I own but they are mine and not something I hold in trust on behalf of the state (government, or collective). If I catch a trout under legal license and hold it in a live tank, it's my trout.

Mixing moral and philosophical points of view and laws or regulations is bad, very very bad. People have been and will continue to be killed over such things. We don't need this in our falconry community family. Each of us can hold our own moral and philosophical position with out it being in the regulations. Only the legal definition should be in the regulations.

[MadAustringer]

I think this discussion is going very well. As a result of it I think I may have something useful, at least to me.

Eric Tabb and others like him seem to have a moral and philosophical point of view similar to the 'North American Natives' that believed no one 'owns' the land or resources on it. But what they failed to follow is that a 'Native Americans' made use of the resources and consumed them same as we do today and possessed or 'owned' the results and of course the 'Native Americans' have evolved and understand the difference between 'mans' definition of ownership from a 'legal' standpoint and reality that all of us are transient on this earth.

But while I'm here living and healthy on this earth, my rights to my raptors conforms to the legal definition of 'ownership'. There may be restrictions that govern the health and welfare of a living thing that I own but they are mine and not something I hold in trust on behalf of the state (government, or collective). If I catch a trout under legal license and hold it in a live tank, it's my trout.

Mixing moral and philosophical points of view and laws or regulations is bad, very very bad. People have been and will continue to be killed over such things. We don't need this in our falconry community family. Each of us can hold our own moral and philosophical position with out it being in the regulations. Only the legal definition should be in the regulations.

clapp Right on.

[Montucky]

I think this discussion is going very well. As a result of it I think I may have something useful, at least to me.

Eric Tabb and others like him seem to have a moral and philosophical point of view similar to the 'North American Natives' that believed no one 'owns' the land or resources on it. But what they failed to follow is that a 'Native Americans' made use of the resources and consumed them same as we do today and possessed or 'owned' the results and of course the 'Native Americans' have evolved and understand the difference between 'mans' definition of ownership from a 'legal' standpoint and reality that all of us are transient on this earth.

But while I'm here living and healthy on this earth, my rights to my raptors conforms to the legal definition of 'ownership'. There may be restrictions that govern the health and welfare of a living thing that I own but they are mine and not something I hold in trust on behalf of the state (government, or collective). If I catch a trout under legal license and hold it in a live tank, it's my trout.

Mixing moral and philosophical points of view and laws or regulations is bad, very very bad. People have been and will continue to be killed over such things. We don't need this in our falconry community family. Each of us can hold our own moral and philosophical position with out it being in the regulations. Only the legal definition should be in the regulations.

I hear you...but laws are still based upon excepted moral/ethical standards - that isnt bad at all. And the accepted standards concerning our wildlife resources are to a degree based on a distinct american philosophy about our natural resources - a philosophy that sets the public as the owners of the public resources and the government is mandated to hold these resources in trust for the benfit of the current and future generations. A philosophy that tried to inject equality into acces to resources instead of limiting access to wealthy or commercial interests...I could go on...I dont think there is anything out of step with argueing for or against policies based on a moral/ethical platform because our most cherished american laws are derived from exactly that. It may not meet with a consensus, and may not survive a democratic poll, but thats ok, i call it leadership.

I think eric was just expressing his feelings not saying anything else but just being true to himself. Also should be ok.

As far as arguements about private ownership...i think it isnt so cut and dry if you step back and look at the bigger landscape of wildlife law, threats to various conservation priorities, and the track record of various special interests encroaching on natural resources we share.

I think what is hard to convey is that the concern really isnt about falconry or serious falconers, or any desire to regulate falconers, or any concern that 98% of the community may be a threat to anything. there are not. However every exception to public trust ownership of native wildife has been problematic...so my take on it...is that NAFA leaders of the past made some choices they thought would best preserve the most latitudes for practicing falconers...namely that no other groups could succesffully challenge our ability to take wild birds then, now or in the future.
Maybe it was unecessary...but because the forefathers of NA falconery were all firmly entrenched in the conservation commumity, they wanted to do things that supported our conservation model...vs, a group that might have confrontationally advocated for property rights or personal rights and potentially alienated important partners or supporters of falconry....

[Black Gold]

How one views wildlife or nature is really down to a personal issue and I understand how precious the Raptors are to all of us. This is deep seated in our make up and becomes deeper with most of us as we age.

To me public ownership is a double edge sword when it is comes to wildlife or even land. Most of know that the public lands we own are leased to many a farmer, rancher, and also mining and energy companies. This really comes down to money or what can be made by some of its use, so the real morals and issues of the the land is not what we think is best done with the land, but by people that once again are in control.

Take just one trip to Montana and look and see what the blocks of State land look like. They are grazed down to something that looks like a parking lot! The surrounding land that that is private is usually managed to some degree, while the public owned land is degraded!

NAFA views itself as a conservation group and that is fine, but only groups like Ducks Unlimited and the Nature Conservancy put their resources and efforts into land conservation. Where does NAFA put any resources into conservation in Wildlife or land? I have been a member since the 70's, but I am not aware of and conservation that is being done and as far as promoting Falconry I have my doubts, as most of us in our older age do not care about promoting Falconry, only about our next flight!

[MadAustringer]

I hear you...but laws are still based upon excepted moral/ethical standards - that isnt bad at all. And the accepted standards concerning our wildlife resources are to a degree based on a distinct american philosophy about our natural resources - a philosophy that sets the public as the owners of the public resources and the government is mandated to hold these resources in trust for the benfit of the current and future generations. A philosophy that tried to inject equality into acces to resources instead of limiting access to wealthy or commercial interests...I could go on...I dont think there is anything out of step with argueing for or against policies based on a moral/ethical platform because our most cherished american laws are derived from exactly that. It may not meet with a consensus, and may not survive a democratic poll, but thats ok, i call it leadership.

I think eric was just expressing his feelings not saying anything else but just being true to himself. Also should be ok.

As far as arguements about private ownership...i think it isnt so cut and dry if you step back and look at the bigger landscape of wildlife law, threats to various conservation priorities, and the track record of various special interests encroaching on natural resources we share.

I think what is hard to convey is that the concern really isnt about falconry or serious falconers, or any desire to regulate falconers, or any concern that 98% of the community may be a threat to anything. there are not. However every exception to public trust ownership of native wildife has been problematic...so my take on it...is that NAFA leaders of the past made some choices they thought would best preserve the most latitudes for practicing falconers...namely that no other groups could succesffully challenge our ability to take wild birds then, now or in the future.
Maybe it was unecessary...but because the forefathers of NA falconery were all firmly entrenched in the conservation commumity, they wanted to do things that supported our conservation model...vs, a group that might have confrontationally advocated for property rights or personal rights and potentially alienated important partners or supporters of falconry....

Answer me this. If I shoot a duck, does the public still own that duck, or have I now taken that duck out of communal public ownership by the act of shooting it? What about reptiles? if i collect a couple of snakes with a herp permit, are those snakes still wildlife in public trust or are they now owned by me? what about Mustang horses. If i adopt a mustang from the BLM, who owns it after the adoption is finalized? Why the hell should/would raptors be any different? it seems to me that existing wildlife law point towards private ownership of wildlife once one takes individual possession of an individual animal.

[Richard F, Hoyer]

John:
To my knowledge, no one has openly challenged the validity of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation which in essence, states that all free roaming wildlife belongs to the public at large and government acts as custodians of said free roaming wildlife. The issue is whether or not the pubic retains ownership once live (and / or dead) wildlife is lawfully taken into possession by the individual.

You write in such a fashion that I am unable discern your position with respect to ownership of live wildlife, including falconry birds. The two choices are:
A) Live wildlife, including falconry birds, become the private property of individuals who have lawfully taken possession of said wildlife.
B) Live wildlife, including falconry birds, remain the property of the public (government) irrespective of having been lawfully acquired by individuals.

So which is your position, A or B? You already should know my position (which is A) as I took 5 month in mid 2008 to research this very issue.

Richard F. Hoyer

[wyodjm]

Have there been any studies done to see if the states have voiced their opinion on whether falconers own their birds? In Wyoming, both residents and nonresidents have to purchase a capture license before they may take a bird for falconry purposes. It’s similar to a hunting license. Who owns the bird after a capture license was purchased and the bird was legally harvested? It’s not a bad question.

Perhaps it is something each state would want to look into. Perhaps that is where it should start. Wyoming also has a statute that states that it has management authority over wildlife within its borders. I would think Wyoming could care less if I owned my bird or not. Because I legally captured the bird, they probably already consider it my property. I don’t know about the feds.

Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are going to war with the feds over wolves at this moment, saying enough is enough with the Endangered Species Act. Wolves are not even close to being biologically endangered. Yet they are still listed. There is enough heat over wolves that Congress is considering delisting them, not the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

I think more and more states (and individuals) are getting tired of the feds micromanaging every detail of a “federally” protected species. I think the feds are getting nervous. Timing is everything. The political winds are shifting.

[Montucky]

Answer me this. If I shoot a duck, does the public still own that duck, or have I now taken that duck out of communal public ownership by the act of shooting it? What about reptiles? if i collect a couple of snakes with a herp permit, are those snakes still wildlife in public trust or are they now owned by me? what about Mustang horses. If i adopt a mustang from the BLM, who owns it after the adoption is finalized? Why the hell should/would raptors be any different? it seems to me that existing wildlife law point towards private ownership of wildlife once one takes individual possession of an individual animal.

if you shoot a duck...you still cannot go to a restaurant and sell the duck or pluck its feathers and sell those and those possession restrictions are important and more formalized private ownership of raptors may lead to more legal challenges to these possession restrictions ...and in many cases private interests have been able to undermine these limits for various NATIVE species and time and time again the problems reveal that deregulation of native wildlife is a bad idea....not good for anyone but the private interests. My perspective is that falconers will turn out to be their own worst enemies. I think the trend is going to go in a direction that some might regret with unintended consequences to the sport. it is an emmotional issue... anyway good discussion....

[sharptail]

Have there been any studies done to see if the states have voiced their opinion on whether falconers own their birds? In Wyoming, both residents and nonresidents have to purchase a capture license before they may take a bird for falconry purposes. It’s similar to a hunting license. Who owns the bird after a capture license was purchased and the bird was legally harvested? It’s not a bad question.

Perhaps it is something each state would want to look into. Perhaps that is where it should start. Wyoming also has a statute that states that it has management authority over wildlife within its borders. I would think Wyoming could care less if I owned my bird or not. Because I legally captured the bird, they probably already consider it my property. I don’t know about the feds.In a conversation with Kenny or Steve over the subject of falconry birds being private property in Wyoming, Carol Havlik told them that Wyoming Game and Fish considers them to be owned by the state, a stance that I strongly disagree with.

The main reason that I believe that the states want to retain ownership is so they have a reason to inspect your private property or home, without being in violation of the 4 amendment. I believe the purpose is mainly to erode our personal liberties.

When Kenny brought up the subject of falconers doing facilities inspections, Carol stated that Wyoming LE wanted to keep doing inspections for law enforcement purposes, ie looking for violations and not needing a warrent to search facilities(your home).

[Jimmy]

My perspective is that falconers will turn out to be their own worst enemies.....


Where have you been hiding? Falconers have been our worst enemy from the beginning.......

[jfseaman]

I was watching 'Sons of Guns' and I realized that commercialized harvest of resources is in complete contradiction to the 'Public Trust' religion of some falconers.

Non-ownership codified in regulations is purely and simply a way to manipulate falconers who's desire exceeds common sense. We are compelled to practice falconry and raptor husbandry. Signing a 'form' that throws away our 4th Amendment rights seems a small price to some but not to me.

Those of us with 'moral and philosophical' views of ownership actually encourage Law Enforcement and Regulators to desire more regulation, as they (and I if uneducated on falconry) would think that those falconers who don't want it are trying to hide something.

[Black Gold]

In life it is hard to give up control of anything.

I do not think the States or Feds are going to ever allow sale of wild taken Raptors that have been taken out of the wild gene pool, even though some States sell permits for a wild take. Our State (WA) does not want to see progeny sold from wild taken birds and States like Alaska make the breeder at least breed to F2 to be able to "Commercialize" from the young.

So, I think the wild take is here to stay regardless what some Falconers think. There is just not a large demand for wild Raptors by Falconers here in the US.

Certainly you can not sell a Duck or Fish you shoot or catch, but what about trophy Deer mounts? I see a lot of furniture being made from Deer and Elk horns and I am sure they are not all coming from "Captive Bred Deer and Elk? The Feds and State have in place regulations and control of the wild Wildlife.

Where do we separate wild Raptors from ones that have been bred Captive bred for generations?

Managing Nature by emotions and not sound understanding is never going to work for us or the benefit of Nature. There is a fine line making a stance in whatever direction you take on this Topic of Private ownership. On the far left you are going to look like you should get rid of Raptors and think about taking up Buddhism and harm nothing in the World and siding with law enforcement to harass Falconers. On the far right it is going to look like you just want to Rape Nature and take and destroy all it has to offer.

As Falconers we might be better off taking the Middle Ground as we fall into both categories!

[STait]

Very well said Brian.

[PeteJ]

I would agree somewhat with Brian on his stance, which is why I said earlier that just because they gave it to us does not mean that we have to change how we feel about the birds at all! It is merely a recognition by the feds that, we pay for a permit, part of that permit allows us to take something, from that point on we invest time and money, it is only natural that anyone would consider that it belongs to us.
To give an extreme example, let's say you are out flying a bird (captive produced, wild taken, intermewed, whatever) and a hunter shoots it right in front you. Is your first reaction to go over there say "You just shot a raptor which is covered by the MBTA, owned by the public, blah blah blah"? Or do you go over and say "YOU $#&%*@, you just shot MY bird and a world of law enforcement is about to rain down upon your ignorant rump! Get ready for shock and awe!" It is only natural for you to feel the latter. Someone, from the public, just took from you, permanently. Now, are we supposed to say "That's okay, you're the public and you're just as entitled to that bird as I am?" Not exactly, he may (or may not) have a hunting license, but for sure there is no legal definition of 'take' with a firearm of raptors..yours or the wild ones.
So, is it wrong for you to want to get restitution for the loss of your time and expenses for something that was taken from you? I don't think so. I'm pretty sure that the courts will feel the same way....as a matter of fact I'm positive they would because I have a friend whose bird got shot by a hunter and caught in the act, and one of the stipulations by the court was monetary damages for the cost of the bird, plus its potential as a breeding bird (what it might have been able to produce conservatively), not to mention the fines for the unlawful act (took his truck, gun, etc.). So, as far as the court was concerned, the bird had value as property of the falconer and as a member of a protected (MBTA) species.
I really don't think we need or should try to define this level of ownership too much in depth. I think it is enough to know that, for legal reasons, we have ownership. For me, every little bit helps to lay a foundation to protect our ability to continue practicing falconry while at the same time keeping those that want to destroy us at arm's length indefinitely. So I'll take private ownership, cultural heritage, right to hunt, whatever they want to give us to protect ourselves and our art for future generations of falconers and others that appreciate raptors for what they are.

[Yeomanfalconer]

Those of us with 'moral and philosophical' views of ownership actually encourage Law Enforcement and Regulators to desire more regulation, as they (and I if uneducated on falconry) would think that those falconers who don't want it are trying to hide something.

I don't know if my position on this subject is moral or not, philosophical, yes. To be quite honest, I can live with either alternative. I have more pressing issues of morality to deal with than whether I own my falcons or someone else. An analogy that boils it down, is why I live in Idaho, with it's abundant public land, as opposed to Texas, etc. where the BLM is a non issue. Some people just feel more secure with the concept of something, be it wildlife or land, that belongs, and can be capitalized upon, to an individual. Personally, I will trade the fact that I can trespass on this land any time I damn well please, compared to paying someone to let me out there for possibly more game. There is also freedom in non ownership. I have nothing to hide by letting F & G officials to come in through my back gate. I used to, once upon a time when I was up to other stuff. Now, all I worry about is what others may think of my "wildlife sanctuary" of a yard. Not quite what the rest of the world considers a sane living space. Property values be damned.

[Richard F, Hoyer]

Tom:
The courts have long held that lawfully taken (killed) wildlife belongs to the individual. States have attached their own particular restrictions such that game species or parts thereof, cannot be sold or bartered. On the other hand, that does not apply to some species of lawfully taken wildlife such as fur bearers. In the case of native birds, the Migratory Bird Treat Act also involves the federal government and similar restrictions pertain to lawfully killed waterfowl, grouse, etc.

But what some individuals do not realize is that the courts have long held that lawfully taken LIVE wildlife also becomes converted to private ownership. For many decades, Florida and Louisiana have had commercial take of many species of amphibians and reptiles which thus such live wildlife can be sold and bartered. It all depends on the specific regulations of the individuals states.

Richard F. Hoyer

[Montucky]

I don't know if my position on this subject is moral or not, philosophical, yes. To be quite honest, I can live with either alternative. I have more pressing issues of morality to deal with than whether I own my falcons or someone else. An analogy that boils it down, is why I live in Idaho, with it's abundant public land, as opposed to Texas, etc. where the BLM is a non issue. Some people just feel more secure with the concept of something, be it wildlife or land, that belongs, and can be capitalized upon, to an individual. Personally, I will trade the fact that I can trespass on this land any time I damn well please, compared to paying someone to let me out there for possibly more game. There is also freedom in non ownership. I have nothing to hide by letting F & G officials to come in through my back gate. I used to, once upon a time when I was up to other stuff. Now, all I worry about is what others may think of my "wildlife sanctuary" of a yard. Not quite what the rest of the world considers a sane living space. Property values be damned.
amennn
and i would encourage folks to consider the moral and philosophical basis for our consitution and various admendments and Acts that are the pillars of our system. Although it is constantly being eroded, our wildlife model and associated regulations stem from american beliefs about land and resources that is in stark contrast to England, Europe, and others, were policies are built around a philosophy of commodity value and belief in restricted access to privaleged few. We havnt got it all right for sure...and public land mangement agencies dont do a good job stewarding the resource many times...but such failures always stem from the influence of commercial interests on our political system that have a TOTALLY different philisophical platform...that land and wildlife is to be used as a commodity for their benefit - winner takes all. Being able to sell captive bred birds to other permited falconers is a very unique asterisk to the broader framework of wildlife law. Maybe ownership it is not a threat in the long run, by I would bet that by formalizing ownership/property for native birds of prey....the ability of wildlife agencies to define the sideboards of what falconers can and cannot do with said property will be eroded in court battles to allow anyone to use these birds how they see fit for their commercial gain in step with other wildlife "farming" that is regulated instead by agricultural law....this is a HUGE shift and completely about the moral and philisophical underpinnings of how we value the resource. In agriculture wanton waste and destruction is fine. In agriculture, the operators interests gain precident over the resource interests. Etc.

[Richard F, Hoyer]

John:
It is my view that in 2007- 2008, Dick Musser (and those that supported his position), believed that the recognition of falconry birds as private property was a totally new development, that it was challenging and changing the status quo. However, that was not the case as in reality, falconry birds had been private property all along

Private ownership had been established law at least since (and probably before) the federal government became involved with regulating falconry in the 1970's. I believe the issue of migratory birds being recognized as private property may have been established in pivotal court decisions involving captive pen-reared ducks that had some of their linage with Mallards.

And since private property of falconry birds had been establish law for a considerable length of time, any 'unintended consequences' would have taken place long ago. The notion of threats or 'unintended consequences' to falconry by having falconry birds recognized as private property was promoted by Dick Musser in the 2007 - 2008 era. Such a position was simply a product of his fertile imagination supported by his misunderstanding / misinterpretation of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.

The pubic trust in wildlife only pertains to free roaming wildlife. As a matter of fact, I believe the courts have indicated no one, not even the government, really own wildlife that is in fact free. Ownership only comes when possession occurs. I believe the courts thus held that all free roaming wildlife is held in trust for the pubic and the government act as custodians of said wildlife until such time lawful possession occurs. Now I am paraphrasing what I have read so one would need to look up the exact language of the court precedents or legal opinions.

As a matter of fact, if you go back and read my lengthy explanation of what transpired during 2008, you will note Dick Musser made a number of other imagined outcomes that would
transpire if falconry birds were recognized as private property. And of course, all of his imagined concerns have not become reality. Clearly he believed that such recognition was something new and was not already established legal precedence.

The controversy actually began fairly recently when USF&WS biologist Dr. George Allen drafted new regulation pertaining to the captive propagation of raptors and inserted language that indicated captive bred raptors remained property of the government. That aspect of his draft regulations was contrary to the understanding of some WRTC members and thus was challenged by that organization through their attorney William Horn.

Dr. Allen subsequently changed his draft to conform with long establish legal precedence, that is, lawfully acquired raptors are private property. If you go back and read his message to Dan Cecchini (which I copied in a prior posts), you will note where Dr. Allen mentions, "In short, I've been corrected - and we won't say falconry raptors are not private property."

And form my point of view, the true danger of 'unintended consequence' lies in the exact opposite direction. During my 5 + months search for the facts surrounding the 'private property' issue, I found two factions that are trying to apply the 'Pubic Trust Doctrine' (that primarily pertains to public lands), to all wildlife so that all wildlife remains public property indefinitely regardless of possession. I found some Animal-rights and Anti-hunting organizations were pushing for perpetual governmental ownership of wildlife as such a
scenario would allow them to be in a better position to push legislation at the statelevel that would limit, restrict, and eventually eliminate hunting and the rights of individuals to own pets.

I pointed this out to Dick Musser and others that were in support his position. I asked why were they supporting the very same goals being advocated by some anti-hunting and animal-rights organizations? If my memory serves me correctly, there was only silence.

I offer the above as something to consider in evaluating your current position.

Richard F. Hoyer

P.S. I see I have copied links as attachments of the 2007 letter by attorney William Horn to the Solicitor General (attorney) for the Dept. of Interior. That letter is a thorough review of legal precedents and Mr. Horn's arguments pertaining to the issue of private property of live wildlife. I found I can't copy that letter but can send it as an attachment. If you or other wish to have me send that attachment, I can be reached at charinabottae@eathlink.net RFH

[PeteJ]

Richard wrote:
"And from my point of view, the true danger of 'unintended consequence' lies in the exact opposite direction. During my 5 + months search for the facts surrounding the 'private property' issue, I found two factions that are trying to apply the 'Pubic Trust Doctrine' (that primarily pertains to public lands), to all wildlife so that all wildlife remains public property indefinitely regardless of possession. I found some Animal-rights and Anti-hunting organizations were pushing for perpetual governmental ownership of wildlife as such a
scenario would allow them to be in a better position to push legislation at the statelevel that would limit, restrict, and eventually eliminate hunting and the rights of individuals to own pets."
Exactly, and this is why I say, take what they have given, it's a gift, protect your interest in the birds while having the protection of the wild birds at the same time. Win win situation. Thanks Richard for doing the legwork and also pointing out the conflict in processing the value of the decision such as the above.

[FredFogg]

There is just not a large demand for wild Raptors by Falconers here in the US.



I wonder what the ratio is of falconers that fly captive bred birds versus wild caught birds? I know there will be less wild caught birds now that some states are letting apprentices fly whatever they want. But personally, I will always have a wild caught raptor in my mews. Some of us are too poor to go out and buy a new raptor every few years. And with the availablility of all the great raptors we have here in the U.S., why wouldn't anyone take advantage of them? I know I sure will. Brian, you breed beautiful birds, but they are way out of my price range.

[Black Gold]

I wonder what the ratio is of falconers that fly captive bred birds versus wild caught birds? I know there will be less wild caught birds now that some states are letting apprentices fly whatever they want. But personally, I will always have a wild caught raptor in my mews. Some of us are too poor to go out and buy a new raptor every few years. And with the availablility of all the great raptors we have here in the U.S., why wouldn't anyone take advantage of them? I know I sure will. Brian, you breed beautiful birds, but they are way out of my price range.


Fred,

What do you mean? I gave away a started Gyrkin to a friend for a few hoods a couple of months ago. Sold some producing Peregrines this Fall to two different parties for a penny on the Dollar and gave a Tiercel Peale's to a Falconer friend here in Spokane. Its not always about money, as I hate to see anyone that does not have the cash that is my friend not be able to get a bird to fly.confusedd

The American market is way down and there should be many breeders here with reasonable priced birds this season. I think the demand is way lower then the amount of birds that will be produced this season?

Wild birds are great and have enjoyed flying them. If I did not breed Falcons I would for sure fly passage Prairie's, Gyrfalcons, and Peregrines when and if I could get a permit.

[hawking]

Something to think about from a Canadian point of view. As a falconer in Ontario, I am spoiled, I can own pretty much any raptor with falconry potential, from Bald Eagles to Snowy Owls, we are spoiled. Our right to hunt with Non indigenous birds is also protected in our falconry laws. I can own as many or few as I desire.

However,

I can't go and trap a bird to hunt with for the season. Despite a large and healthy population of most Birds of Prey, we have no right too use wild birds. Permanently releasing any of my captive bred birds without government permission is a crime.

A Redtail sells for $1200 to $1800 CAD. For $10,000 you can fly pretty much any bird you wish. Eagle to Kestrel, no problems if you have the cash.

Unfortunately, this system is leading to many problems. For one we don't have the pleasure of letting them go and enjoying the process all over again next season. Because they are so expensive, they become a long term commitment, like it or not.

Yes this has it's up side, like drumming the less serious out but also it's down side, because of the monetary value, more birds sit in the mews when the owners life interferes with sport. Less face it, life changes, and one of the great things about wild caught is that you can return them if the need arises, the other option for our privately owned birds is to put them into a "breeding program". Rest assured we are headed for the same problems the UK now faces.

On top of that, money, a falconer does not make. Truth be told, I would have to hang up my glove, if it was not for my VERY loving and patient wife, who allows me to spend so much money on my obsession. The fact of the matter is, I actually could not afford this lifestyle without the sacrifices my wife makes for me. Even as I right this, I ponder my falconry future. I have over $10,000 sitting in my mews and I would consider my team relatively basic. I am not sure I can continue to justify the expense but the day I hang up my glove for the sake of $$$$ will be the day I hang my head in shame.

All the best.

[goshawks00]

I fianlly sat down and read through this thread... It seems to be a rehash of the same issue/thoughts form a year or two ago.

I just want some comments on what happens when your 'private property' eagle/falcon/hawk grabs some one and does bodily harm to them. Are you leagally responsible to compensate for damages done?
Just curious,

[FredFogg]

Fred,

What do you mean? I gave away a started Gyrkin to a friend for a few hoods a couple of months ago. Sold some producing Peregrines this Fall to two different parties for a penny on the Dollar and gave a Tiercel Peale's to a Falconer friend here in Spokane. Its not always about money, as I hate to see anyone that does not have the cash that is my friend not be able to get a bird to fly.confusedd

The American market is way down and there should be many breeders here with reasonable priced birds this season. I think the demand is way lower then the amount of birds that will be produced this season?

Wild birds are great and have enjoyed flying them. If I did not breed Falcons I would for sure fly passage Prairie's, Gyrfalcons, and Peregrines when and if I could get a permit.

That's all and good Brian, but that still doesn't change the fact that I can't afford to buy one of your birds, nor anyone elses. I am not pointing you out in particular, just the fact that a lot of folks can't afford to drop $300 to (put whatever you want in here). And with wild take available, why would I want to buy a bird when what we have here does the job just as well as a captive bred one. Sure, I would love to fly a spar someday, but until the screwed up laws we have getting them in here so folks can produce them and not charge so much get changed, I will just stick to the accipiters we have. Now if you want to produce me a female pere/saker that I have been wanting for a long time and sell it to me at that penny on the dollar thing, I could be persuaded to start buying birds! LOL :D

[mainefalconer]

Barry,

I would guess that if you (or anyone) was out hawking with some crazy imprint or marhawk that grabbed and injured somebody, and their lawyer built a case against you and said bird, it wouldn't make one bit of difference whether or not the bird was legally considered your property or the governments.

[wyodjm]

In life it is hard to give up control of anything.
So, I think the wild take is here to stay regardless what some Falconers think.

There is just not a large demand for wild Raptors by Falconers here in the US.

Hi Brian:

I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from with your above statements.

[hawking]

I fianlly sat down and read through this thread... It seems to be a rehash of the same issue/thoughts form a year or two ago.

I just want some comments on what happens when your 'private property' eagle/falcon/hawk grabs some one and does bodily harm to them. Are you leagally responsible to compensate for damages done?
Just curious,


We are legally liable for the actions of our animals in this province, as for me, I carry 2 million in liability insurance on my animals, not sure what others are doing in this regard.

[Black Gold]

Hi Brian:

I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from with your above statements.

Hi Dan,

That was the big talk by Falconer that were opposing, when Falconers were pushing for private ownership. Somehow they were saying that we could/would loose the ability to trap wild Raptors for pushing for this....

One trip to a Falconry meet and you will the ratio of Captive bred Raptors to wild one's that are being flown, unless it is Merlin meet.

[FredFogg]

One trip to a Falconry meet and you will the ratio of Captive bred Raptors to wild one's that are being flown, unless it is Merlin meet.

Not a good way to do the count, in my opinion. Most of the folks that don't go to the NAFA meets don't go because they can't afford it and these are the same folks that can't afford to buy birds. So I would say the majority of the folks at the meets are the richer ones that can afford to buy birds and travel to the meet. And don't get me wrong, there are plenty of folks at those meets that aren't walking around with money falling out of their pockets, I have been to my share of meets, but the majority there have captive bred birds because they can afford to buy them.

[Black Gold]

That's all and good Brian, but that still doesn't change the fact that I can't afford to buy one of your birds, nor anyone elses. I am not pointing you out in particular, just the fact that a lot of folks can't afford to drop $300 to (put whatever you want in here). And with wild take available, why would I want to buy a bird when what we have here does the job just as well as a captive bred one. Sure, I would love to fly a spar someday, but until the screwed up laws we have getting them in here so folks can produce them and not charge so much get changed, I will just stick to the accipiters we have. Now if you want to produce me a female pere/saker that I have been wanting for a long time and sell it to me at that penny on the dollar thing, I could be persuaded to start buying birds! LOL :D

No Sakers here as I do not like them, but I do understand the desire to trap wild Raptors and I will be very excited when they open up Passage Peregrines, as I have know where to go and the right time of year to get a nice one, but for now I will fly my Captive bred birds until then or when a passage Jerkin falls in my lap!

I have enjoyed enough passage birds to like them and all you have to do is get them manned with a little rewiring and they will do the rest.

I am afraid that going and trapping birds is going to become very expensive with Fuel prices on the rise and the cost of a low end Captive bird might be even lower to get ahold of in the future.

I have some of the big white Russian Goshawks and hope to produce some in the near future, but will not ask the outrages prices that they go for now here.

[FredFogg]

No Sakers here as I do not like them, but I do understand the desire to trap wild Raptors and I will be very excited when they open up Passage Peregrines, as I have know where to go and the right time of year to get a nice one, but for now I will fly my Captive bred birds until then or when a passage Jerkin falls in my lap!

I have enjoyed enough passage birds to like them and all you have to do is get them manned with a little rewiring and they will do the rest.

I am afraid that going and trapping birds is going to become very expensive with Fuel prices on the rise and the cost of a low end Captive bird might be even lower to get ahold of in the future.

I have some of the big white Russian Goshawks and hope to produce some in the near future, but will not ask the outrages prices that they go for now here.

Don't get me wrong Brian, I have nothing against captive bred birds. I have flown a few hand me ups but I never paid for one. LOL And if I am lucky and am able to AI my prairie, I will be flying a gyr/prairie this fall. But I love wild birds and as I said before, I will always have one in my mews. And I understand the fuel cost for trapping, I have put many, many miles on my vehicles trapping. Heck, I made 2 trips to Kansas to trap a prairie and wasn't even successful. So yeah, I could have bought one for what I spent trying to trap one but it just wouldn't have been what I wanted, if you get my drift. :D

[goshawks00]

Barry,

I would guess that if you (or anyone) was out hawking with some crazy imprint or marhawk that grabbed and injured somebody, and their lawyer built a case against you and said bird, it wouldn't make one bit of difference whether or not the bird was legally considered your property or the governments.

What if it was your prized passage hawk that did in someone, or it's pet parakeet? Or does it have to be some sort of imprint /marhawk:eek:

[goshawks00]

We are legally liable for the actions of our animals in this province, as for me, I carry 2 million in liability insurance on my animals, not sure what others are doing in this regard.

I'm betting most (99%+) have never even considered it, let alone taken steps for just such an incident. Of course that is here in the US. In fact many will claim they have let it lay lawstoungeout

[wyodjm]

What if it was your prized passage hawk that did in someone, or it's pet parakeet? Or does it have to be some sort of imprint /marhawk:eek:

What happened to this thread? It’s going nowhere real fast.

[goshawks00]

C'mon Dan it's a dead thread with just a bunch of wing flapping...

[jfseaman]

I fianlly sat down and read through this thread... It seems to be a rehash of the same issue/thoughts form a year or two ago.

I just want some comments on what happens when your 'private property' eagle/falcon/hawk grabs some one and does bodily harm to them. Are you leagally responsible to compensate for damages done?
Just curious,
I live in California, I am legally responsible, same as my dog.

Of course it's a rehash, NAFA let Guinn put in 'The Journal' that we don't own our wild taken raptors.

I think to many in NAFA 'higher ups' don't really understand the law. Ownership does not imply unlimited rights on anything, not your car, not your house, not your gun. All these and more come with caveats, provisos and responsibilities.

[Montucky]

John:

The pubic trust in wildlife only pertains to free roaming wildlife. As a matter of fact, I believe the courts have indicated no one, not even the government, really own wildlife that is in fact free. Ownership only comes when possession occurs. I believe the courts thus held that all free roaming wildlife is held in trust for the pubic and the government act as custodians of said wildlife until such time lawful possession occurs. Now I am paraphrasing what I have read so one would need to look up the exact language of the court precedents or legal opinions.


And form my point of view, the true danger of 'unintended consequence' lies in the exact opposite direction. During my 5 + months search for the facts surrounding the 'private property' issue, I found two factions that are trying to apply the 'Pubic Trust Doctrine' (that primarily pertains to public lands), to all wildlife so that all wildlife remains public property indefinitely regardless of possession. I found some Animal-rights and Anti-hunting organizations were pushing for perpetual governmental ownership of wildlife as such a scenario would allow them to be in a better position to push legislation at the statelevel that would limit, restrict, and eventually eliminate hunting and the rights of individuals to own pets.

I pointed this out to Dick Musser and others that were in support his position. I asked why were they supporting the very same goals being advocated by some anti-hunting and animal-rights organizations? If my memory serves me correctly, there was only silence.

I offer the above as something to consider in evaluating your current position.

Richard F. Hoyer


I understand you have looked into this subject with serious interest, however it seems that you are still just making your interpretation based on your beliefs and representing it as a concluded fact. Yes gov does not "own" wildlife but are entrusted to steward for the public....we all own the resource. The public trust issue and the associated wildlife laws do not support a concept that only free-roaming wildlife are under its sphere - but rather all "wildlife". Clearly, one of the cornerstones is preventing commercial wildlife markets...all which have to do with what happens after wildlife is harvested and in possession by a private individual. In order to argue private property under this framework farmed elk were no longer defined as "wildlife" but "domestic livestock". This has been a growing trend undermining our NA model and is intimately tied to private ownership/property innitiatives by various groups and I think NAFA leadership didnt want to go down that road and rightly so.

Most credible hunting advocacy groups are against industries like game farming(synonymous with private ownership), who have fought for private ownership of wildlife and therefore are now regulated under agricultural law for the most part. Yes they still have restrictions on what they can do, but on a wholy different planet of deregulation to put it mildly

You may say that all this has nothing to do with falconry, but when you let your imagination work, one can come up with some disturbing scenarios.

And to say that in fact Public Trust philosophy is somehow favorable to anti-hunting group agendas and a threat to pet owners is really an amazing and sort of confusing leap. The Public Trust framework is literally the most entrenched framework we have supporting the sportsman and those resources used by the sportsman. Private owership of wildlife is the end of hunting for the public (except the fortunate few). Like Dick, I would have been speechless too;)

Here are some links worth checking out for those interested
http://www.huntright.org/where-we-stand/public-trust

http://www.huntright.org/where-we-stand/north-american-model-of-wildlife-conservation

http://joomla.wildlife.org/documents/positionstatements/41-NAModel%20Position%20Statementfinal.pdf

[steve watson]

George knows the laws and was correct concering the private property issue. There is no issue of being for or against it. It is the law and has been since the founding of our country. This is one more example of the misguided and uninformed half baked opinions handed out to the unkowning nafa members.
Once again the Board through the news letter, is attempting to lead the falconers of the US down a road no one can go. What a crock! You would think that if an author writes on a national level, they would at least do their home work before they printed worthless content. The author should retract the statement because he has no idea what he is talking about and never bothered to look up the history of private property and wildlife dead or alive. About normal for a nafa author. This is just more proof that the nafa news letter is only good for one use. Just remember that the pages are kind of stiff and will scratch your back side if you fold them before use.

Steve Watson, Ca.

[Saluqi]

I live in California, I am legally responsible, same as my dog.

Of course it's a rehash, NAFA let Guinn put in 'The Journal' that we don't own our wild taken raptors.

I think to many in NAFA 'higher ups' don't really understand the law. Ownership does not imply unlimited rights on anything, not your car, not your house, not your gun. All these and more come with caveats, provisos and responsibilities.

Fred I strongly suggest that you get on the telephone and discuss this issue with Larry Dickerson, or other NAFA "higher ups" rather than speculate on what they are thinking. Have you called the author yet? Jeremy Guinn? I'm guessing not, so again rather than go to the source it's much easier to start this little discussion and smear the author and NAFA.

[Jimmy]

I just want some comments on what happens when your 'private property' eagle/falcon/hawk grabs some one and does bodily harm to them. Are you leagally responsible to compensate for damages done?



The same thing that happens when your non private property hawk does it..........

[jfseaman]

Fred I strongly suggest that you get on the telephone and discuss this issue with Larry Dickerson, or other NAFA "higher ups" rather than speculate on what they are thinking. Have you called the author yet? Jeremy Guinn? I'm guessing not, so again rather than go to the source it's much easier to start this little discussion and smear the author and NAFA.
Please don't put words in my mouth, I'm not 'smearing' anyone or organization. This thread started with a simple question and has taken on a life of it's own.

Obviously the topic of ownership is still a huge lightning rod in the falconry community, NAFA members or not.

It is important to me as it impacted my performance or lack there of on the SA project. Of course there is an over reaching statement by the chair that impacts this as well but that's for a separate private discussion.

I have not contacted the author as I am not yet ready. I may never contact the author as I believe I am discovering what I want to know without doing so.

I am in a 'discussion' with Larry Dickerson, president NAFA.

I was not aware that the NAFA code of Ethics had been updated. Last time I looked and it wasn't that long ago, professional raptor handlers and to a certain extent breeders were not 'ethical'. That has all changed. The new ethics code has an ownership section, it is very politically correct and obviously an attempt to move into the 21st century.

I was directed by Larry to NAFA general councel, from James it got the standard "it depends on what your definition if 'is' is" type answer.

Fred Fogg, when did the new ethics page go up on the web site?

[Jimmy]

I just had a glance at their new ethics. I found it kinda funny they felt the need to single out squirrel hawking in them. It's okay for your bird to have the shit kicked out of it by a jackrabbit, but you'd better mitigate the chance of a squirrel bite or you're not being ethical..... What a joke.

[toneill100]

I am a neophyte here, so please forgive me. I have read this thread and am struggling to understand what difference the status of "private proprerty" makes? Governments take private property all the time. Sometimes it requires compensation, such as eminent domain. Most times it requires a violation of the law and the property is considerd forfeit, such a forfeiture pursuant to drug trafficking.

When I was a U.S. Magistrates's law clerk we had the "duck docket" about every six weeks. This involved violations of law on federal lands. I can recall a case where two gentleman strayed from state lands onto federal lands in the loxahatchee national wildlife refuge. They were hunters, but they had their guns in the rack (hadn't been shooting at anything) and made a wrong turn in the truck when they were pulled over. They came to court and were ordered to forfeit their guns which were valued right around 4k. Could they have fought it? Yes. If they chose to go with lawyers it would have cost them in excess of ten times the value of those guns. In my experience not too many pro se litigants won against the U.S. attorneys. I am not saying the birds are not private property. What I am saying is that I think perhaps too much emphasis is being placed on common law property rights, and not enough on the federal statutes. (which supersede common law and state law to the extent they conflict: which is provided for in the supremecy clause)

The difference here is you require a permit to posess the "private property." No permit, no posession. If you lose your driver's license, you might own a car but you cannot drive it. Licensure is generally viewed by the law as a privilege rather than a vested right. Just my two cents, I could be wrong.

P.S. Here is Kennedy's law review article on the subject: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1222&context=pelr&sei-redir=1#search="property+rights+in+raptors""

[Dutch]

Great comments Tim! I agree.


Part of this discussion is based on the problem of federal agents confiscating falconry raptors and having the majority of the raptors confiscated die while in care of the feds. The falconry community has lived with this for almost four decades. In those cases where the permittee was not convicted, their raptor or raptors were still dead. As you point out taking a case to a federal court is far more costly than debating a traffic violation.


J. Stoddart

[afranke]

I am a neophyte here, so please forgive me. I have read this thread and am struggling to understand what difference the status of "private property" makes?

<clip>

P.S. Here is Kennedy's law review article on the subject: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1222&context=pelr&sei-redir=1#search="property+rights+in+raptors" (http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1222&context=pelr&sei-redir=1#search=%22property+rights+in+raptors%22)"

Timothy,

I too have read this thread with great interest, and have the same question.

Thanks for the Kennedy article...interesting read!

Alastair

[frootdog]

Of course it's a rehash, NAFA let Guinn put in 'The Journal' that we don't own our wild taken raptors.

If "NAFA" or the higher ups had to agree on everything put in the Journal or HC then nothing would get published.

[Montucky]

I am a neophyte here, so please forgive me. I have read this thread and am struggling to understand what difference the status of "private proprerty" makes? Governments take private property all the time. Sometimes it requires compensation, such as eminent domain. Most times it requires a violation of the law and the property is considerd forfeit, such a forfeiture pursuant to drug trafficking.

When I was a U.S. Magistrates's law clerk we had the "duck docket" about every six weeks. This involved violations of law on federal lands. I can recall a case where two gentleman strayed from state lands onto federal lands in the loxahatchee national wildlife refuge. They were hunters, but they had their guns in the rack (hadn't been shooting at anything) and made a wrong turn in the truck when they were pulled over. They came to court and were ordered to forfeit their guns which were valued right around 4k. Could they have fought it? Yes. If they chose to go with lawyers it would have cost them in excess of ten times the value of those guns. In my experience not too many pro se litigants won against the U.S. attorneys. I am not saying the birds are not private property. What I am saying is that I think perhaps too much emphasis is being placed on common law property rights, and not enough on the federal statutes. (which supersede common law and state law to the extent they conflict: which is provided for in the supremecy clause)

The difference here is you require a permit to posess the "private property." No permit, no posession. If you lose your driver's license, you might own a car but you cannot drive it. Licensure is generally viewed by the law as a privilege rather than a vested right. Just my two cents, I could be wrong.

P.S. Here is Kennedy's law review article on the subject: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1222&context=pelr&sei-redir=1#search="property+rights+in+raptors""

Good points. I think this thread has diverged into several aspects. One that raptors are recognized as private property but as many have mentioned its a win win and everything is good...a sort of nothing has changed arguement that is kind of confusing in some ways as obviously it has owership status has implications. the other i think is a broader philosophical arguement about government overreach and how many in our community perceive wildlife regulation vs. individual liberties, and finally I think a large aspect of the thread is a long-standing resentment dating to operation falcon and a sense that we need to further protect our mews in our backyard.

[Richard F, Hoyer]

Fred S.
To alleviate some of your concerns, at the outset of this thread I should have mentioned that the email I received from Jeremy Quinn indicated that his article in the NAFA Journal was an attempt to show how falconry fits well with the North American Model of Wildlife Conservations. .

He mentioned and quote, "The ultimate decision whether to publish was that I do strongly believe that the NA Model will be used in the future by some groups to attack falconry."

Richard F. Hoyer

[jfseaman]

If "NAFA" or the higher ups had to agree on everything put in the Journal or HC then nothing would get published.
Yup.

[outhawkn]

I live in California, I am legally responsible, same as my dog.

Of course it's a rehash, NAFA let Guinn put in 'The Journal' that we don't own our wild taken raptors.

I think to many in NAFA 'higher ups' don't really understand the law. Ownership does not imply unlimited rights on anything, not your car, not your house, not your gun. All these and more come with caveats, provisos and responsibilities.

Exactly. Stop paying taxes on that property you own with a clear title and see how long before you lose "your" property....

[gratefool1]

Good point Bill

[Rachael]

Way off topic, but I just wanted to say that missed everyone :)

& this was the first topic I saw that alot of people actively posted in.




THERE I SAID IT:D

[redbird1]

I will weigh in on this - with a vengeance. There is a worldwide movement afoot to elevate the status of animals. In the minds of many, animals are considered equal to humans (too foolish to even dignify with a comment; if you agree with these thoughts, please give me permission to skin your infant child to make myself a new pair of tennis shoes). PETA seminars advocate against animal ownership - preferring to call dogs and cats "companion animals" instead of pets - to deny their status as property, which they are under the law. Once given away to governmental bodies, rights are rarely recovered. The fundamental right of ownership to animals is the issue at risk. I respect the right of any "new-agey" itype to commune with his hawk on a mountain-top and attempt to communicate with it through psychic telepathy (by the way, PETA conferences teach classes on this practice, believe it or not) but I absolutely OPPOSE any effort by any of these nuts to represent ME, my views, or the falconry body at large. Be nutty if you want, eat granola and wear earth shoes, lose your hawks on a daily basis and teach your imprints to be vegans if you want - but do NOT attempt to represent me. I agree with the concept of responsible stewardship of my property, to include a requirement to treat all the animals I own with proper care. But I will fight to retain ownership of my own animals. The distinction of value between falcons, cows, and largemouth bass is a philosophical one - based upon esthetics and personal preferences. Personally, I DO put more value on a raptor than squirrel based upon personal esthetic appeal to ME. To confer or remove basic rights of ownership based upon such personal perceptions is to limit others based upon OUR OWN perceptions - not cool in this country. Final word - I own my birds. If you don't want to own yours (as apparently eveidenced by an inability to retain them) - so be it. But DO NOT propose to speak for me or limit my rights - as a representative of an organization I have given money to under the belief that they would support my rights.

Mike

[Richard F, Hoyer]

I understand you have looked into this subject with serious interest, however it seems that you are still just making your interpretation based on your beliefs and representing it as a concluded fact. Yes gov does not "own" wildlife but are entrusted to steward for the public....we all own the resource. The public trust issue and the associated wildlife laws do not support a concept that only free-roaming wildlife are under its sphere - but rather all "wildlife". Clearly, one of the cornerstones is preventing commercial wildlife markets...all which have to do with what happens after wildlife is harvested and in possession by a private individual. In order to argue private property under this framework farmed elk were no longer defined as "wildlife" but "domestic livestock". This has been a growing trend undermining our NA model and is intimately tied to private ownership/property innitiatives by various groups and I think NAFA leadership didnt want to go down that road and rightly so.

Most credible hunting advocacy groups are against industries like game farming(synonymous with private ownership), who have fought for private ownership of wildlife and therefore are now regulated under agricultural law for the most part. Yes they still have restrictions on what they can do, but on a wholy different planet of deregulation to put it mildly

You may say that all this has nothing to do with falconry, but when you let your imagination work, one can come up with some disturbing scenarios.

And to say that in fact Public Trust philosophy is somehow favorable to anti-hunting group agendas and a threat to pet owners is really an amazing and sort of confusing leap. The Public Trust framework is literally the most entrenched framework we have supporting the sportsman and those resources used by the sportsman. Private owership of wildlife is the end of hunting for the public (except the fortunate few). Like Dick, I would have been speechless too;)

Here are some links worth checking out for those interested
http://www.huntright.org/where-we-stand/public-trust

http://www.huntright.org/where-we-stand/north-american-model-of-wildlife-conservation

http://joomla.wildlife.org/documents/positionstatements/41-NAModel%20Position%20Statementfinal.pdf

================================================== ================

I understand you have looked into this subject with serious interest, however it seems that you are still just making your interpretation based on your beliefs and representing it as a concluded fact. Yes gov does not "own" wildlife but are entrusted to steward for the public....we all own the resource. The public trust issue and the associated wildlife laws do not support a concept that only free-roaming wildlife are under its sphere - but rather all "wildlife". Clearly, one of the cornerstones is preventing commercial wildlife markets...all which have to do with what happens after wildlife is harvested and in possession by a private individual. In order to argue private property under this framework farmed elk were no longer defined as "wildlife" but "domestic livestock". This has been a growing trend undermining our NA model and is intimately tied to private ownership/property innitiatives by various groups and I think NAFA leadership didnt want to go down that road and rightly so.

Most credible hunting advocacy groups are against industries like game farming(synonymous with private ownership), who have fought for private ownership of wildlife and therefore are now regulated under agricultural law for the most part. Yes they still have restrictions on what they can do, but on a wholy different planet of deregulation to put it mildly

You may say that all this has nothing to do with falconry, but when you let your imagination work, one can come up with some disturbing scenarios.

And to say that in fact Public Trust philosophy is somehow favorable to anti-hunting group agendas and a threat to pet owners is really an amazing and sort of confusing leap. The Public Trust framework is literally the most entrenched framework we have supporting the sportsman and those resources used by the sportsman. Private owership of wildlife is the end of hunting for the public (except the fortunate few). Like Dick, I would have been speechless too

Here are some links worth checking out for those interested
http://www.huntright.org/where-we-stand/public-trust

http://www.huntright.org/where-we-st...e-conservation

http://joomla.wildlife.org/documents...ementfinal.pdf
__________________
take a kid hunting,
-john
====================================

John:
Although several issues emerged during the controversy involving ownership of falconry birds, the 'Public Trust Doctrine' and the 'ownership of live wildlife' were the most relevant
and contentious.

We are dealing with legal issues. Consequently, any legitimate research into both issues by necessity, needs to delve into past court decisions that established legal precedents. Unfortunately, the three sources you cite are virtually worthless as they do not represent either a scholarly or technical analysis. As a matter of fact, Dick Musser also cited two of your sources in support of his position and as such, I examined both sources (your links #2 and #3). And as a matter of fact, I agree with some or even most of the contents but
because those sources merely contain points of view, they have no legal standing.

Because most legal issues can have rational arguments representing opposing views, any objective analysis requires an examination of the arguments and facts that support
both sides. And that is the process I followed during my 5+ month examination of those issues.

In your 6:02 AM post of 3/18, you mention: "The public trust issue and the associated wildlife laws do not support a concept that only free-roaming wildlife are under its sphere - but rather all "wildlife". This told me two things. 1) Similar to Dick Musser, you embrace the notion that all 'wildlife', even though lawfully possessed by individuals, forever remains in public ownership. Secondly it tells me it is highly unlikely that you performed a comprehensive search of court decisions pertaining to the 'ownership' issue.

Below I have listed the sources I found to be the most credible and thus the most compelling with respect to the 'Public Trust Doctrine' (not the same as the public trust in wildlife) and the 'ownership of wildlife' issues. Based on these sources, I found that Dick Musser, and those that followed his lead, were in error. I offer them here so you (or anyone else) can review these sources and evaluate their merits.

Re: Public Trust Doctrine:

1) 1842 Supreme Count decision in Martin vs.Waddell (The major crux of that decision dealt with the ownership of land, specifically who owned the land beneath the high water mark in estuaries, bays, rivers, etc. The related secondary issue involved who was then entitled to harvest shellfish on that submerged land. (Can be found on Google) There are a number of subsequent court decision that pertain to the PTD that are cited in the coverage of the subject in points #3 and #4 below.

2) Attorney William Horn's analysis of the Pubic Trust Doctrine in relation to land and wildlife "The Public Trust Doctrine gets to be a murky area and the term gets used with great imprecision by a lot of folks." (Attorney William Horn, NAFA web site, 8/6/08) (Can provide full text of Mr. Horn's message. Contact charinabottae@earthlink.net)

"Hence wildlife is “owned” by the public and is supposed to be managed for broader public good. These concepts and language look a lot like PTD but in a precise legal context are not the same." (Attorney William Horn, NAFA web site, 8/6/08)

3) Letter from attorney William Horn to U.S. Dept. of Interior Solicitor General (Can send as an attachment via email, contact charinabottae@earthlink.net)

4) A review of the PTD by legal scholars in Washington D.C. as summarized by Jonathan H. Adler on 11/11/04. See http://commonsblog.org/archives/000226.php You will note that these authorities refer to the Public Trust Doctrine as pertaining to land. There are a couple of references that suggest the Public Trust Doctrine might eventually be extended to cover such resources as air and wildlife.

Conclusion: If one accept the information contained in the above reference as valid, then the most reasonable conclusion it that the 'Public Trust Doctrine' and the 'public trust in wildlife' as contained in the N. Am. Model of Wildlife Conservation are not one in the same but merely contain similar language.

Re: Ownership of Live Wildlife
1) Robert Kennedy's law review article: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/v...ts+in+raptors

2) Various state statutes dealing with ownership of live wildlife
As one example, see Ch. 169.02 of the Wisconsin statutes: http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=stats&jd=ch.%20169

3) Reference to the N. Am. Model of Wildlife Conservation doctrine, attorney William Horn made the following two statements: (NAFA web site, 8/6/08)
"However, there is a critical feature of wildlife “ownership” that co-exists with these principles and the Model: when wildlife is reduced to possession in a lawful manner, the individual acquires ownership of the taken wildlife."

"Wildlife when in the wild (ferae naturae) is “owned” by the public but when captured, ownership is then vested in the taker/capturer." Mr. Horn's credentials can be found on the following link: www.birchhorton.com/attorney_horn.html ( I can supply full texts of Mr. Horn's letter.)

4) Letter from attorney William Horn to U.S. Dept. of Interior Solicitor General (Can supply attachment via email with link to letter.)
That letter is an exhaustive legal review with Mr. Horn's arguments pertaining to the issue of private property of live wildlife. As an attachment, I can send the link so you can better update your input as to the legal precedents dealing with ownership of live wildlife. charinabottae@earthlink.net

5) Input by USF&WS biologist Dr. George Allen contain in his email message of 9/26/08 to then NAFA president Dan Cecchini. (See my previous post with Dr. Allen's email.)
This document is a particularly compelling piece of evidence. Note where Dr. Allen mentions "I should not have put the statement in the proposed propagation regulations stating the birds held under the permit are not private property,---." and, "MBTA falconry and propagation raptors are private property,---"

Further, Dr. Allen is a biologist but for some time has been in charge of forming regulations dealing with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. So he has considerable savvy when it comes to wording regulations in terms that will generally meet legal scrutiny. Yet after Dr. Allen has produced drafts of regulations, I assume that the standard procedure is for a reviewed of such drafts by U.S. Dept. of Interior legal staff to insure legal accuracy.

So you might note that in his message to Dan Cecchini, Dr. Allen states the following: "In short, I've been corrected - and we won't say falconry raptors are not private property." And of course, it was the federal government's own attorneys that corrected Dr. Allen's original reference to the public's ownership of falconry birds.

Conclusion: If one accept the information contained in the above references as being valid, then the most reasonable conclusion is that once live wildlife (including falconry birds), are lawfully reduced to possession by individuals, they become private property.

And John, if you look into these sources and that doesn't get you to at least thinking more about these issues and questioning your current beliefs, that's okay. It is just my attempt to inform.

Richard F. Hoyer

[afranke]

I agree with the concept of responsible stewardship of my property, to include a requirement to treat all the animals I own with proper care. But I will fight to retain ownership of my own animals. .

Hi Mike, It's unlikely that any of us will need to fight to retain ownership of our raptors – apparently we do own them…but as with many other things, ownership is limited and, as you pointed out, comes with a set of "stewardship" responsibilities. Any act beyond those limits or an abuse of responsibility and our right to ownership may be lost. Behave poorly enough and one risks having others painted with the same brush. This thread is full of really good information…we’ve been told that regulators “won't say falconry raptors are not private property”, but we also know that our right to ownership of any falconry bird or propagation bird (including hybrids) is not exempt from our responsibilities outlined in the MBTA regulations, and that any wild-taken raptor that we own under permit cannot be bought or sold, and that our facilities and records are subject to inspection. These things amount to a small price to pay for a system that simultaneously allows for access to wild take that once gain includes peregrines (which as we all know may well have been lost without the ban of DDT, the ESA, and the deeply entrenched conservation ethic of the falconry community), access to public lands, and free access to quarry on private land. What a great system in spite of its warts. Alastair

[Jimmy]

and that our facilities and records are subject to inspection.


Which is also illegal........ I'll be glad when someone fixes that BS......

[Montucky]

John:

In your 6:02 AM post of 3/18, you mention: "The public trust issue and the associated wildlife laws do not support a concept that only free-roaming wildlife are under its sphere - but rather all "wildlife". This told me two things. 1) Similar to Dick Musser, you embrace the notion that all 'wildlife', even though lawfully possessed by individuals, forever remains in public ownership. Secondly it tells me it is highly unlikely that you performed a comprehensive search of court decisions pertaining to the 'ownership' issue.

So you might note that in his message to Dan Cecchini, Dr. Allen states the following: "In short, I've been corrected - and we won't say falconry raptors are not private property." And of course, it was the federal government's own attorneys that corrected Dr. Allen's original reference to the public's ownership of falconry birds.

Conclusion: If one accept the information contained in the above references as being valid, then the most reasonable conclusion is that once live wildlife (including falconry birds), are lawfully reduced to possession by individuals, they become private property.

And John, if you look into these sources and that doesn't get you to at least thinking more about these issues and questioning your current beliefs, that's okay. It is just my attempt to inform.

Richard F. Hoyer

I get it...but still...this is your interpretation and the interpretation of lawyers with whome you agree. The kennedy paper was also at a certain time and place with regard to the USFWS position on captive bred birds...everything has varying context. Like a divorce...lawyers on opposing sides interpret things differently and you are cherry picking certain case law over others. I believe that there is commonse sense legal precident to say that while falconers maintain certain common sense ownership of their birds, falconers do not have a right to possess native birds of prey but rather a privaledge bestowed by the PUBLIC and I believe a lawyer could argue this successfully also.

It sounds like the powers at be do not want to wade into a property/ownership issue with falconers so they are sitting on the fence as long as falconers do not challenge the status quo sideboards in place now. Obviously the fact we can breed and sell these birds between permitted falconers is an unusual exception to the overal legal framework, and I think we as a community should let it lay where it is and appreciate the way in which we and the managing agencies have thread the needle largely for our benefit. If you bury the Operation Falcon hatchet for day and consider this...i think you may perceive the issue a little differently. The more aggressive approach to "rights" is a mistake in my opinion and reflects more of a "big government overreach" philosophy than it does a thoughtful approach to falconry regulation.

[wyodjm]

Some days I think we should have taken care these legal questions 40 years ago. It seems very clear to me.

What you don't use, you lose. Why would perhaps 3,500 licensed citizens flying and hunting with birds be such a big deal to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the state game and fish agencies?

At this very moment the feds are trying to rewrite the Eagle Act without going to Congress and severely restrict the trapping of eagles for falconry. At this moment I’ll bet you dollars to donuts the feds are rewriting federal regulations (perhaps for the third time in three years, but who knows….I’ve lost count) regarding eagles until they think they have it right.

This stuff is going on right under our noses and we have no national advocate with the teeth and stones to remind the feds that they work for us.

This stuff is mind boggling to me. When is the time to just stand up and say this stuff is wrong? The feds have been jerking on falconers' chains for 40 years because they are used to doing it.

[Montucky]

Hi Mike, It's unlikely that any of us will need to fight to retain ownership of our raptors – apparently we do own them…but as with many other things, ownership is limited and, as you pointed out, comes with a set of "stewardship" responsibilities. Any act beyond those limits or an abuse of responsibility and our right to ownership may be lost. Behave poorly enough and one risks having others painted with the same brush. This thread is full of really good information…we’ve been told that regulators “won't say falconry raptors are not private property”, but we also know that our right to ownership of any falconry bird or propagation bird (including hybrids) is not exempt from our responsibilities outlined in the MBTA regulations, and that any wild-taken raptor that we own under permit cannot be bought or sold, and that our facilities and records are subject to inspection. These things amount to a small price to pay for a system that simultaneously allows for access to wild take that once gain includes peregrines (which as we all know may well have been lost without the ban of DDT, the ESA, and the deeply entrenched conservation ethic of the falconry community), access to public lands, and free access to quarry on private land. What a great system in spite of its warts. Alastair
amennn




Why would perhaps 3,500 licensed citizens flying and hunting with birds be such a big deal to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the state game and fish agencies?

This stuff is going on right under our noses and we have no national advocate with the teeth and stones to remind the feds that they work for us.

the feds dont think 3,500 citizens flying and hunting with birds is a big deal ...you read Milsap and Allens paper on take and that is CLEAR, but even that is "too conservative" for many falconers now...falconers tend to go from zero to 100 in confrontation when they dont get what they want. Yeah, the feds work for us and another 300 million people.

I once heard a falconer say that he was taking an agency to court becaue they have always managed for wildlife interests instead of human interests and it has gone way off balance and he was sick of it. "they work for us!" he exclaimed. I was stunned as any look at american history shows otherwise - and policies that benefited wildlife over humans are a grain of sand in comparison with our exploits of the resource. the wildlife agencies have been mandated to work for the best interests of wildlife so it can exist for our use, for the integrity of our natural systems, and to be enjoyed by current and future generations. You dont get everything you want and if you do, you do it by consensus building and establishing credability as a conservation partner.

[redbird1]

The fact that falconers are legally interpreted (currently) as owning our birds has been addresed - it is a fact. The fact that some pseudo-intellectuals with more time on their hands than common sense enjoy opining to the contrary has been demonstrated. What is the issue? Where are the fighting lines drawn? They are drawn where any elitist representation of the sport does not support the overall beliefs, opinions and wishes of the sport's primary base of practitioner's.The fight begins at any point where such elitists might substitute their own judgement for the judgement of those they represent, using funding and position derived from those they are charged to represent as vehicles for their own vanity. In short - these are our current rights. If you do not want yours, then don't exercise them - but do not DARE to presume to offer away MY rights. And do not DARE to even breathe a willingness to sacrifice my rights from a position the public forum (not this forum) which I have helped provide for you with fmy personal funding and trust. This goes to out to NAFA (and the idiot who has apparently been seeking a leadership position within NAFA while expressing his willingness to abrogate our rights of ownership) REMEMBER - your responsibiloity is to stand for US. All of us, falconers and dirthawkers, east and west coast, hunters, hawkers, lovers of the sport - DO NOT EVER use the trusted position you have been given to allow a platfrom for effete wannabes or new age simpletons to volunteer away my rights based upon their own insufficiencies of wisdom or understanding. I paid my dues, still paying them, CONTINUE TO REPRESENT MY RIGHTS! DO NOT use my dues to allow a platform for othjers to undermine my rights - there are plenty of other platforms already available to them; NAFA communication vehicles should not be on that list. Letting these people use NAFA as a platform for their idiocy is like letting HAMAS have a seat on the Knesset.
Mike

[wyodjm]

amennn



the feds dont think 3,500 citizens flying and hunting with birds is a big deal ...you read Milsap and Allens paper on take and that is CLEAR, but even that is "to conservative" for many falconers now...falconers tend to go from zero to 100 in confrontation when they dont get what they want. Yeah, the feds work for us and another 300 million people.

I once heard a falconer say that he was taking an agency to court becaue they have always managed for wildlife interests instead of human interests and it has gone way off balance and he was sick of. " they work for us!" he exlaimed. I was stunned as any look at american history shows otherwise - and policies that benefited wildlife over humans are a grain of sand in comparison with our exploits of the resource. the wildlife agencies have been mandated to work for the best interests of wildlife so it can exist for our use, for the integrity of our natural systems, and to be enjoyed by current and future generations. You dont get everything you want and if you do, you do it by consensus building and establishing credability as a conservation partner.

Hi John:

I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me or not. I can’t really tell. Yes, I know this is a big country and the feds work for everyone.

The fact that I have a falconry permit, endorsed by the feds says that the activity that I’m licensed to conduct is legitimate. The Eagle Act as it was amended in 1972, specifically authorizes falconers to take eagles in depredation areas for falconry purposes. Congress said so, not me.

I’ve been up to my eyeballs on the eagle issue for over 25 years now. Just once, I’d like to feds to follow the intent of Congress, and I’d like them to administer their own written regulations consistently throughout the country. I’m not asking for special privileges or special treatment.

Congress amended the Eagle Act in 1972. The feds never even promulgated written regulations until 1984 regarding eagles for falconry purposes. The feds have never consistently administered those 1984 written regulations once. This is 2011. And now the feds seem to be rewriting the federal regulations again in order to be able to protect themselves from their last 39 years of neglect since the 1972 amendment to the Eagle Act.

Just one small facet in this whole discussion. But there is a pattern. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, just from simple observation, acts as though it is accountable to no one.

Best,

[Montucky]

The fact that falconers are legally interpreted (currently) as owning our birds has been addresed - it is a fact. The fact that some pseudo-intellectuals with more time on their hands than common sense enjoy opining to the contrary has been demonstrated. What is the issue? Where are the fighting lines drawn? They are drawn where any elitist representation of the sport does not support the overall beliefs, opinions and wishes of the sport's primary base of practitioner's.The fight begins at any point where such elitists might substitute their own judgement for the judgement of those they represent, using funding and position derived from those they are charged to represent as vehicles for their own vanity. In short - these are our current rights. If you do not want yours, then don't exercise them - but do not DARE to presume to offer away MY rights. And do not DARE to even breathe a willingness to sacrifice my rights from a position the public forum (not this forum) which I have helped provide for you with fmy personal funding and trust. This goes to out to NAFA (and the idiot who has apparently been seeking a leadership position within NAFA while expressing his willingness to abrogate our rights of ownership) REMEMBER - your responsibiloity is to stand for US. All of us, falconers and dirthawkers, east and west coast, hunters, hawkers, lovers of the sport - DO NOT EVER use the trusted position you have been given to allow a platfrom for effete wannabes or new age simpletons to volunteer away my rights based upon their own insufficiencies of wisdom or understanding. I paid my dues, still paying them, CONTINUE TO REPRESENT MY RIGHTS! DO NOT use my dues to allow a platform for othjers to undermine my rights - there are plenty of other platforms already available to them; NAFA communication vehicles should not be on that list. Letting these people use NAFA as a platform for their idiocy is like letting HAMAS have a seat on the Knesset.
Mike

thats some venomous stuff there and totally inappropriate. second of all this isnt a formal NAFA venue but a forum to express opinions, share stories and photos... so chill. l admit I am online more than I should be, but one does things they shouldnt when sick and bed-ridden for 5 months. What's your excuse? that was a joke. and if i think i know who you are so angrily referring all I can say, to you, a "first year general" is that I hope you get anough experience as a falconer to appreciate what it is like to fly a great flying bird on the edge of loosing it - to experience that thrill and to have the balls to fly a falcon like you are going to loose it. that is also a joke...kind of. I dont know this person to whome you refer, but I know their history in the sport and experience and you should show a little respect to that. Experience like that is usually a prerequisite to leadership and leadership sometimes compels one to say unpopular things.

As for your earlier comments about an infant child it leads me to a logical conclusion that you do not in fact value the life of animals. I garrantee I have a lot more blood on my hands than you do and it all has led to one simple conlcusion that an ethical sportsman should pursue fair chase practices, should value life, and creatures should be handled and treated with respect even if they come to an end by your hands. The fact that you characterize ethics the way you do shows why regulation is inevitable because much of the sporting community doesnt care and doesnt conceive wildlife in step with our conservation values as a representative democracy not a libertarian free-for-all. We live in a democratic society that has evolved democratic principles about wildlife.
You clearly view pets and raptors in falconry as one in the same and see it all part of a broader issue of your personal rights and liberties. Falconry and the ability of falconers to possess wild native birds of prey is a privaledge bestowed to falconers by the "public". That is where the arguement lies and where the line is drawn between the community, then so be it, I know where i stand. Of course it should be a right to own and sell pets or other domestic animals. I should not be a right to own and sell wildlife (with permitted exceptions given by the USFWS) . There is a distinction and this distinction is not some "new-agey" thing.
Needless to say i did actually enjoy visualizing the ... "new-agey itype to commune with his hawk on a mountain-top and attempt to communicate with it through psychic telepathy... Be nutty if you want, eat granola and wear earth shoes, lose your hawks on a daily basis and teach your imprints to be vegans if you want" that was awesome;)

[redbird1]

John,
I hear you regarding the vitriol in my commentary, but I remind you - the forum I was referring to was not this forum (I tried to convey that clearly, perhaps unsuccessfully). The forum in question is a public forum provided from a platform funded and provided for the purposes of supporting the interests of the practitioner's of this sport - and no matter how much falconry experience any individual has, their willingness/intent to support any PERSONAL VIEW from that forum (i.e., NAFA or NAFA communication vehicles) is an unacceptable violation of trust. Worthy of a little vinegar. I stand on this fact (and I hold our publicly elected officials to the same standard) - if you use (or state any intent to use) a platform wherein you have been privileged to serve the interests of others, you had darn well better serve that interest - not your own. We have plenty of enemies among a growing army of activists and confused philosophers - apparently, even a few in our own ranks. That is allowed, this is a free country. But we cannot allow ANY of these individuals to represent us. We should demand better. For any who would seek to use NAFA or NAFA communication vehicles for any interests other than the sport's practitionmer base, this was a good ol fashioned shot across the

[redbird1]

Anyway - the summation is this: no one has a right, or should ethically, morally have a right, to seek a leadership position to serve as a representive of falconers within NAFA or NAFA-funded vehicles in the furtherance of views and opinions which are contrary to the desires, wishes and interests of the NAFA membership body itself - the body that supports and funds that position. NAFA is OUR voice, funded and supported by US. That is not a libertarian view - it is the original intent of democratic principles (of the the people, by the people, for the people...) I react angrily (without regret) to anyone who espouses the currently popular (and patently elitist) view that elected officials (public or NAFA) were elected to serve their own judgements, judgements which iare presumed to be wiser or more informed that those they were elected to serve. Such elitism would have been given short shrift by our founding populace (i.e., those who were fighting and dying to have their voices represented). There are foxes in the yard - we have to live with that. But I will not tolerate their campaigning for chicken consumption within the henhouse, if I can say otherwise. Mike

[Jimmy]

It sounds like the powers at be do not want to wade into a property/ownership issue with falconers so they are sitting on the fence as long as falconers do not challenge the status quo sideboards in place now.

Until they were forced to admit that we "own" our birds, they had no problem jumping off that fence. And I say 'forced' because it took the AFC hiring William Horn to make them admit it. Otherwise, they'd still be saying they owned them, and most falconers would still be letting them get away with it.



At this moment I’ll bet you dollars to donuts the feds are rewriting federal regulations (perhaps for the third time in three years, but who knows….I’ve lost count) regarding eagles until they think they have it right.

This stuff is going on right under our noses and we have no national advocate with the teeth and stones to remind the feds that they work for us.

This stuff is mind boggling to me. When is the time to just stand up and say this stuff is wrong? The feds have been jerking on falconers' chains for 40 years because they are used to doing it.


No way in hell would I take that bet.
You know as well as I do that if we're waiting on the national advocate to help with this issue, we're backing up. They're way too afraid to rock the boat. The feds get away with it because we let them. And we have let them for the last 40 years. We need a lawyer and we need to quit cowaring in the corner......

[Jimmy]

NAFA is OUR voice,

Speak for yourself........ They're not my voice.

[redbird1]

No offense intended - I simply meant that this is their (NAFA's) mandate to represent us all. I support NAFA financially for the same reason that I supported the union in those years when I was a bargaining member - because they are the currently recognized voice for the body (like it or not, agree with their performance or not). I am also not a NAFA basher - but - I believe that as a member, I have a right and a responsibility to ensure that the leadership is aware of where I stand. I expect the leadership to represent our interstes. I applaud the AFC for clearing up the ownership issue - I had no idea they were the force behind this accomplishment. I have tremendous respect for Eric Edwards - I will look into the AFC also.

[Black Gold]

Falconers have to understand the Feds are tired of the Falconry laws and just going through the motions put in place starting that were implemented in 1977. The "Plastic Bands" to track all birds is a prefect example. What was accomplished with that?crazyy Most birds do not have to be banded now and the impact of a wild take of Raptors by the 3500 of us does not even play into any kind of "Wildlife" management!confusedd

The 3-186a forms need to go away also. A bunch of paperwork and for what? noidea The only thing I can see beneficial for these forms is for the breeder of captive bred Raptors to be able to track genetic background, but they make better forms and Computer programs for genetic tracking them this ambiguous form.

The recent regulations sent to me could use a good buzz cut. Again most of these are not about management they are about letting someone sleep at night whether it is LE or Falconers.

On the flip side the reduction of these regulations is a step in the right direction, but for sure understand that somethings have to be kept in check by having certain laws in place so things will not get out of control as what has recently happened in our Banking/financial World.

[Jimmy]

The only thing I can see beneficial for these forms is for the breeder of captive bred Raptors to be able to track genetic background........


They're absolutely useless for that too......

[redbird1]

I decided to re-read my contributions to this thread. As John's reply pointed out, my posts were harsh enough to impact their credibility - and honestly, they were just not my best presentation of myself. So - I apologize for going a little over the top. Mike

[wyodjm]

amennn



the feds dont think 3,500 citizens flying and hunting with birds is a big deal ...you read Milsap and Allens paper on take and that is CLEAR, but even that is "too conservative" for many falconers now...falconers tend to go from zero to 100 in confrontation when they dont get what they want. Yeah, the feds work for us and another 300 million people.

I once heard a falconer say that he was taking an agency to court becaue they have always managed for wildlife interests instead of human interests and it has gone way off balance and he was sick of it. "they work for us!" he exclaimed. I was stunned as any look at american history shows otherwise - and policies that benefited wildlife over humans are a grain of sand in comparison with our exploits of the resource. the wildlife agencies have been mandated to work for the best interests of wildlife so it can exist for our use, for the integrity of our natural systems, and to be enjoyed by current and future generations. You dont get everything you want and if you do, you do it by consensus building and establishing credability as a conservation partner.

John:

Yes, I've read the paper Milsap and Allen wrote on take.

Let’s approach this from a different perspective:

Have you read the environmental assessment on eagles that the US Fish and Wildlife Service wrote? Have you read the final ruling on eagles that the US Fish and Wildlife Service also wrote? With your background as a wildlife professional, I’d be interested in knowing what you thought of these two documents.

Generally speaking, many of the wildlife professionals that aren’t talking about the EA or the final ruling on eagles are the ones that are receiving research or project grants and / or other funding directly from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. You really can’t blame them. It would like be cutting off the hand that feeds them.

If you’re familiar with the children's fable “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, from where I’ve been sitting, the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes.

That doesn't make me any less credible as a conservation partner. I hope I've already established that.

Best,

[Yeomanfalconer]

I just feel it would be arrogant of me to assume that I &quot;own&quot; a creature as inherently free and wild as a passage falcon. More and more, I feel that way about even captive bred falcons, in spite of the domesticity factor. We have many years to go before we are akin to dogs and horses on this ownership issue. Some of my peers accuse me of loosing too many falcons. I look at it as enabling entitled liberty. I take Ed Pitcher's theories to extremes, and it is Ed's fault.

And that is an old friend Ed, from Florida, not Mr. Pitcher.

[Montucky]

John:

Yes, I've read the paper Milsap and Allen wrote on take.

Let’s approach this from a different perspective:

Have you read the environmental assessment on eagles that the US Fish and Wildlife Service wrote? Have you read the final ruling on eagles that the US Fish and Wildlife Service also wrote? With your background as a wildlife professional, I’d be interested in knowing what you thought of these two documents.

Generally speaking, many of the wildlife professionals that aren’t talking about the EA or the final ruling on eagles are the ones that are receiving research or project grants and / or other funding directly from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. You really can’t blame them. It would like be cutting off the hand that feeds them.

If you’re familiar with the children's fable “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, from where I’ve been sitting, the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes.

That doesn't make me any less credible as a conservation partner. It just means I don't need glasses.

Best,

I have looked at some of it briefly and I would also say that I am not involved with federal migratory bird issues in any shape manner or form, I am not paying the bills with federal grants and I am not an expert in eagles. I'm one of those yankee born dickey bird douche-bags who wears sandals and eats tofu (no kidding I just eat tofu when ordering pad thai). ....actually 50/50 songbird to raptor work.

I try to stay on private land projects so I can clear the fray and avoid the paper work, then get on a tractor and seed some native habitat with a handshake from a landowner. Then the economy cratered so now I sell avon products and am in training as a mytag repairman:). Actually I have worked for the state & feds and all can say is that feel sorry for state and federal biologists...they spent a decade in school, most get paid less than 40k, they are dedicated to the resource and the public enjoyment of it, and for thanks, they take an inhumane amount of hostility from everyone:). In all seriousness I now of a state wildlife guy that is so sick of it he is in training to be a maytag repairman - make more money and work less.

Being familiar with how things get done within the agencies, I guess I am not one to think in terms of conspiracy or intent toward falconry when things dont pan out exactly the way we think they should. I have NEVER crossed paths with a state or federal biologist that is involved with avian research or policy that had an axe to grind with falconers or didn't want to support falconry (excepting quite a few LEO's). Mostly i run into professionals that have much bigger issues to grapple with and they tend to get into trouble with falconers because they tend to shelve falconry matters and focus their energy on actual threats to the resource and repsond to more significant user groups... either way you cant win:).

I think many in our community are looking through colored glasses with operation falcon in the back of their mind. maybe it is time to bury the hatchet....a little..maybe sharpen it and bury it with just the handle sticking out.

I think if there has been a pattern, it is that agnecies have little understanding about just how fanatic and passionate the falconry community is...in total contrast to the statistics on participation.. So I think often someone drafting a regulation does what they try to do in all cases involving take. They try to be as conservative as they can in the areas they have more influence.

Falconers need to understand that take = "impact" from the standpoint of the official criterea used in a federal assessments on impacts to wildlife "No impact" cannot be legaly given when there is take . Every instance of take is not measured against a national population number to determine if it is meaningful or not. The argumement that we should be able to take the bounty of a population of birds of prey because there are not enough of us to matter, is a flawed arguement....there should always be a minimum take concept being promoted by a group that ought to be concerned with raptor populations...it is just better to advocate for not just what a population can withstand but for how a populations can thrive.

On that basis I think falconery orgs. should challenge the USFWS more in terms of making them put oil/gas and power co's. face to the flame about their impacts to raptors, expecially golden eagles. there is some hypocrisy I agree!

I just think if you try to imagine that you are not a falconer, and you are weighing a myraid of impacts or potential impacts to the resource and have to balance the considerations of wildlife, agriculture, energy development, alternative energy development, advocacy/comments from other wildlife NGO's, falconers, the public, native peoples...and do this all within the framework of our wildlife model and conservation priorities, ....I think then you might be a little less steamed, and be in the state of mind to achieve the results you want in terms of number of eagles allowed. the system does work for the most part.

[wyodjm]

I just think if you try to imagine that you are not a falconer, and you are weighing a myraid of impacts or potential impacts to the resource and have to balance the considerations of wildlife, agriculture, energy development, alternative energy development, advocacy/comments from other wildlife NGO's, falconers, the public, native peoples...and do this all within the framework of our wildlife model and conservation priorities, ....I think then you might be a little less steamed, and be in the state of mind to achieve the results you want in terms of number of eagles allowed. the system does work for the most part.

Hi John:

I’m sorry, but I don’t trust the US Fish and Wildlife Service. I’ve had a working relationship with them since the mid 1970’s. They have never properly (consistently) administered the use of eagles for falconry purposes since the 1972 amendment to the Eagle Act, or the regulations they wrote in 1984. Now they’re writing new regulations to cover their tracks for all their past neglect of not complying with the Eagle Act or their own, old written regulations.

I’m sorry, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, as the federal agency responsible for the administration of a legal, licensed, and legitimate activity simply hasn’t done their job.

Why would I want to try to imagine I’m not a falconer? I am a falconer. They haven’t done their job as an administering federal agency. That’s not my fault. And I don’t feel sorry for them.

Sir Walter Raleigh is known for this great quote: “Books are wonderful things, but are a bloodless substitute for experience.”

My apologies to Fred for straying from the thread topic.

Best,

[Richard F, Hoyer]

Dan:
Perhaps the 'ownership of raptors' issue has run its course.

Concerning the change to the Golden Eagles, since you have been involved with the species for many years, perhaps you can provide me with an update of the species and some of it's biology. Given enough input, by applying some general biological principles, it might be possible to arrive at some ball park estimates dealing with the species' population.
That information in turn, can provide a comparison as to what the government indicates would be the acceptable take of the species for falconry purposes if indeed, that is a point of contention. I haven't followed what has transpired but do note your unhappiness.

1) Are there reasonable estimates as to the mean number of occupied territories in the lower 48 states, in Canada, in Alaska?
2) Of those territories, what is the mean number of successful nesting attempts?
3) What is the estimated number of fledged young per successful nesting attempt?
4) Or, are there estimates as to the number of fledge Golden Eagles per year in the U.S., in Canada, in Alaska?

Other information that would help my understanding of he species would be knowing at what age eagles become mature, any information about the size and age composition of floating population, and mean live expectancy after the first, second, or third years of age. Somewhere I saw information relating to eagle mortality due to wind turbines. Do you have any information of that nature? Besides shooting, lead poisoning, wind turbines, other types of poisons, what are some of the other causes of unnatural mortality in the species? What is known about mortality caused by natural causes such as starvation, pathogens, and parasites?

I suspect I could look such stuff up but I am a bit lazy at this point and was wondering if you had some of the above information at your finger tips.

Richard F. Hoyer

[wyodjm]

Dan:
Perhaps the 'ownership of raptors' issue has run its course.

Concerning the change to the Golden Eagles, since you have been involved with the species for many years, perhaps you can provide me with an update of the species and some of it's biology. Given enough input, by applying some general biological principles, it might be possible to arrive at some ball park estimates dealing with the species' population.
That information in turn, can provide a comparison as to what the government indicates would be the acceptable take of the species for falconry purposes if indeed, that is a point of contention. I haven't followed what has transpired but do note your unhappiness.

1) Are there reasonable estimates as to the mean number of occupied territories in the lower 48 states, in Canada, in Alaska?
2) Of those territories, what is the mean number of successful nesting attempts?
3) What is the estimated number of fledged young per successful nesting attempt?
4) Or, are there estimates as to the number of fledge Golden Eagles per year in the U.S., in Canada, in Alaska?

Other information that would help my understanding of he species would be knowing at what age eagles become mature, any information about the size and age composition of floating population, and mean live expectancy after the first, second, or third years of age. Somewhere I saw information relating to eagle mortality due to wind turbines. Do you have any information of that nature? Besides shooting, lead poisoning, wind turbines, other types of poisons, what are some of the other causes of unnatural mortality in the species? What is known about mortality caused by natural causes such as starvation, pathogens, and parasites?

I suspect I could look such stuff up but I am a bit lazy at this point and was wondering if you had some of the above information at your finger tips.

Richard F. Hoyer

Hi Richard:

If I may, please let me refer you to the following three NAFEX threads dealing specifically with the current issues surrounding eagles. It may take you some time to wade through the material, but I believe it will bring you up to speed with most of the information you’re seeking.

http://www.nafex.net/showthread.php?t=5907

http://www.nafex.net/showthread.php?t=6066

http://www.nafex.net/showthread.php?t=7487

If you have any questions after reading through the material, please don’t hesitate to ask.

All the best,

[everetkhorton]

post deleted

NAFMAN:
I see this is your first post,(welc) One of the few rules on the forum is that you sign your post with at least your first name. You can go to the User CP in the upper left hand corner and have your name added auto.

[Richard F, Hoyer]

I decided to re-read my contributions to this thread. As John's reply pointed out, my posts were harsh enough to impact their credibility - and honestly, they were just not my best presentation of myself. So - I apologize for going a little over the top. Mike

Mike:
I too noted that perhaps one of your posts was a bit harsh. That you acknowledged that fact then offered John an open apology is appreciated. Tells me you are a reasonably self confident individual.

I only wish those in NAFA leadership positions during 2008 had the same strength of character. To my knowledge, none of those individuals have openly admitted their error in the issue involving ownership of falconry birds and had the fortitude to apologize to the falconers that were besmirched and the falconry community at large.

Richard F. Hoyer

[Chris L.]

NAFMAN Sign your posts.


Yes as Ev said, you need to sign your posts. Also "united states" is not going to make it for your location. Please tell us the state you live in as well.

Thanks for understanding

Chris

Edit- I see you joined yesterday. I am going to delete your post as I do not like the smell of it. If you are legit and the post is legit I will bring it back. PM me if you would like.

[Chris L.]

Mike:
I too noted that perhaps one of your posts was a bit harsh. That you acknowledged that fact then offered John an open apology is appreciated. Tells me you are a reasonably self confident individual.

I only wish those in NAFA leadership positions during 2008 had the same strength of character. To my knowledge, none of those individuals have openly admitted their error in the issue involving ownership of falconry birds and had the fortitude to apologize to the falconers that were besmirched and the falconry community at large.

Richard F. Hoyer


Richard and All,

This thread is starting to go down the toilet. If you are going to use NAFEX as a way to brow beat others I am not going to allow it. I think the thread was started that way and it took a good turn now it is back where I do not want it.

If people have problems with an individual, you need to pick up the phone and call each one of them to let them know how you feel. Talking about them when they are not here, to defend themselves, will not be tolerated. NAFEX is not the place for this type of harassment.

I think this thread is needed and we need to talk about it. But we cannot attack others, even if you feel it is warranted. NAFEX is not the medium for this.

Please keep the thread on topic and proactive. Thank you for understanding.

Thanks

Chris

[jfseaman]

Thanks Chris.

Someone changed the thread title, I wasn't consulted prior to the change.

When I started this thread it was more about who Quinn is and how he got to the position postulated in "The Journal" article.

The issue is so divisive within our falconry community family it is ripping us apart but what I am more interested in is the roots behind those that believe live raptors are not private property.

Not being in agreement with a family members position is acceptable, attacking a family member is not. Trying to determine if the association administrative members are trying to promote personal opinions is acceptable, slandering the association is not.