Just for fun

[Saluqi]

There's a person, I hesitate to call them a falconer, on Facebook who has an axe to grind with the evil empire, oh sorry, I mean NAFA. I thought in the spirit of open discussion I'd post his manifesto here. What do you all think?

P.S. I think he actually meant to write "severe", not sever, as in cut off.


8426

[SkyRider]

At this point, I’m not sure if this whole thing is PLF vs the State of California or if it’s become grumpy falconers vs NAFA. I’ve seen more anti-NAFA rhetoric than I’ve seen progress on any lawsuit. It’s disenchanting to say the least.

[rkumetz]

Seems to me that the director at large involved in the Alaska non-resident thing was sanctioned since he is no longer a director.
While he probably should have made a disclaimer that he was not representing NAFA, there is nothing in the NAFA bylaws which
prevents an officer from making statements on behalf of local falconers when involved in intra-state politics. Do I not have a say about
what happens in my state? My state doesn't have non-resident take but then again why would anyone want to come here to trap a
redtail or a passage gos (master falconers only for residents) when they can do that in other more suitable places anyway? If the issue
was opened up it would most likely result in the anti-falconry element coming out in force and resident take would be in jeopardy.

And let's think about this. Directors are volunteers elected by the members. Exactly how is NAFA going to sanction him? Withhold his lucrative
paycheck? Or maybe this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4yqbLHYbcI

[rkumetz]

At this point, I’m not sure if this whole thing is PLF vs the State of California or if it’s become grumpy falconers vs NAFA. I’ve seen more anti-NAFA rhetoric than I’ve seen progress on any lawsuit. It’s disenchanting to say the least.

What is really scary is that a lot of falconers do not realize that the PLF lawsuit is really about an agenda that has nothing to do with falconry and that falconers are now pawns in their
quest to drive politics in a direction that suits them.

[rkumetz]

I have to say that I have had frank discussions with myself about the appointment of the NAFA president and vice-president by the board.

On one hand it goes against my grain to not have a direct say in who is at the helm.

On the other hand there is a relatively good argument for leaving it the way it is. At the moment the board functions a bit like the electoral college.
Living in a state with a dozen falconers (on a good day) if we all voted for those offices it is like that states like Texas (nothing against Texans. God bless Texas..... :))
and California would elect those officers and I might as well just not bother voting. Sort of like the people in 95% of New York counties who have their votes for national
offices negated by the huge population in the NYC.

It is not a perfect system but then again the alternative has problems too.

[goshawkr]

I have to say that I have had frank discussions with myself about the appointment of the NAFA president and vice-president by the board.

On one hand it goes against my grain to not have a direct say in who is at the helm.

On the other hand there is a relatively good argument for leaving it the way it is. At the moment the board functions a bit like the electoral college.
Living in a state with a dozen falconers (on a good day) if we all voted for those offices it is like that states like Texas (nothing against Texans. God bless Texas..... :))
and California would elect those officers and I might as well just not bother voting. Sort of like the people in 95% of New York counties who have their votes for national
offices negated by the huge population in the NYC.

It is not a perfect system but then again the alternative has problems too.

I dont think the electoral college analagy applies here very well. Although my understanding is the the board appointed president was a check against hostile control by anti-falconry sorts coming from outside. If so, that seems silly to me because there is no check against a majority of the board being made up of anti-falconry sorts.

What has happened in the not so distant past is for crony control occur, because the board knew which good ole boy should be appointed despite what the peasant membership might think of the chap. That has not been a problem recently, thankfully. But I have been told that it was so bad in the 80s (a bit before my time in NAFA) that it nearly caused the collapse of NAFA, and likely set up the events that lead to the schism that eventually lead to the creation of the AFC.

[Montucky]

leadership folks in any similar constituent-based member organization are volunteering their time for the benefit of members. What is so disappointing about falconers is the frequency of really challenging personalities who display irrational hostility to leadership. Many of these folks frankly dont have the full picture of facts and context to ground their criticism. By in large volunteer leadership gets extremely pissed and burned out having to deal with really personal attacks. In most cases the irrational criticisms are usually based in political beliefs not falconry interests. If NAFA leadership seems aloof, critics should think about their own personal responsibility in that outcome. Anyone will start to circle the wagons after they hear enough bullets cracking by their ears:) its human nature.

If NAFA has done anything wrong over the years, its probably not adequately telling the story of how and why we are where we are with rules and regs etc. Also its important to remember that NAFA is not a default state club....state associations have their own role and responsibility....like any national entity, NAFA needs to be asked for help before they dive into state clubs.

I hate to say it, but most of the folks throwing the most criticism simply do not have the personal attributes to lead. After all the doors are fully open to take on leadership roles. Speaking from personal experience - the more I learned about how stakeholders make progress with agencies, the more I realized that 99% of the scenarios require patience, diplomacy, and humility, with a strong dose of stubbornness to keep one's eye on the prize. At least from my point of view, folks have varying amount of these attributes, but regardless, it takes time and seasoning to be effective. We have been lucky to have been represented by so many that have had these qualities in spades.

[rkumetz]

I dont think the electoral college analagy applies here very well. Although my understanding is the the board appointed president was a check against hostile control by anti-falconry sorts coming from outside. If so, that seems silly to me because there is no check against a majority of the board being made up of anti-falconry sorts.

What has happened in the not so distant past is for crony control occur, because the board knew which good ole boy should be appointed despite what the peasant membership might think of the chap. That has not been a problem recently, thankfully. But I have been told that it was so bad in the 80s (a bit before my time in NAFA) that it nearly caused the collapse of NAFA, and likely set up the events that lead to the schism that eventually lead to the creation of the AFC.

Geoff,
That was the logic I had while wearing my no direct say in who is at the helm hat. It was a heated argument. Not sure which of my personalities won. frus)

There was a time when I first joined NAFA when I really didn't think that anyone running the show was interested in what an apprentice with a redtail was doing
or any other dirt hawker for that matter. The picture I was painting in my head was cigar chomping good old boys with big long wings driving large new SUV's with
leather seats and wearing custom Gokey boots. (Yes, I do have a good imagination but I don't think I was far off)

I do not however feel that the formation of AFC had a lot to do with that since AFC doesn't do much except get involved in politics. As a disclaimer, I also joined
AFC and was a member for a number of years.

NAFA is not perfect however I had a lot of reservations about the way AFC goes about things. I am not saying that I disagree with all of their ideas but they
are simply way too confrontational. I am not above becoming confrontational but from the day I joined I got the impression that being confrontational was
Plan A with them and I believe you should exhaust other means before going that route.

I joined AFC because I felt that supporting another organization that was supposed to be supporting falconry was a good idea. I left because I felt that
AFC was actually pursuing a political philosophy within the microcosm of falconry regulations and that doing so while purporting to be about falconry
was misleading.

[goshawkr]

The guy obviously has an axe to grind, and I dont see anything positive coming out of the way he is communicating his gripe.

That being said, he is right on point with his first point. NAFA admitted with the WBPA regs came out they were asleep at the wheel (more acurately, they inquired about it early on in the process and were told to not worry that raptors were not affect). To me, that does not mean they should stay sleep. The WBPA has been in place long enough now though that is highly unlikely to be readdressed. I cannot argue with what was said on point 2 as well, although demanding an appology over that now seems silly.




I have to say that I have had frank discussions with myself about the appointment of the NAFA president and vice-president by the board.

On one hand it goes against my grain to not have a direct say in who is at the helm.

On the other hand there is a relatively good argument for leaving it the way it is. At the moment the board functions a bit like the electoral college.
Living in a state with a dozen falconers (on a good day) if we all voted for those offices it is like that states like Texas (nothing against Texans. God bless Texas..... :))
and California would elect those officers and I might as well just not bother voting. Sort of like the people in 95% of New York counties who have their votes for national
offices negated by the huge population in the NYC.

It is not a perfect system but then again the alternative has problems too.

I dont think the electoral college analagy applies here very well. Although my understanding is the the board appointed president was a check against hostile control by anti-falconry sorts coming from outside. If so, that seems silly to me because there is no check against a majority of the board being made up of anti-falconry sorts.

What has happened in the not so distant past is for crony control occur, because the board knew which good ole boy should be appointed despite what the peasant membership might think of the chap. That has not been a problem recently, thankfully. But I have been told that it was so bad in the 80s (a bit before my time in NAFA) that it nearly caused the collapse of NAFA, and likely set up the events that lead to the schism that eventually lead to the creation of the AFC.

[falconrydope]

Member of NAFA sincen1974. Have watch them accomplish great things over the years. I moved 2,000 miles away from my family to practice the type of falconry I wanted. I back NAFA 100%. I'm too old fashioned for face book so I don't know what's going on there, don't have the time. Not even sure about what I'm doing here, but wanted to voice my opinion about NAFA support.

[MrBill]

As I see it, this gentleman has laid out how NAFA has failed over the years. We can argue, ad nauseum, about the merit of his claims, but I think it would probably be more productive if we took the time to point out what NAFA has accomplished over the years. If what we have to say on behalf of NAFA conflicts with his comments, we can then discuss them, but to simply refute his comments because we are enamored with NAFA, proves nothing. I will begin by saying that during and after Operation Falcon, NAFA was instrumental representing falconry at the federal level. In the aftermath of this so-called operation, the USFWS was prepared to put a real damper on the practice of falconry in the United States through new regs, but falconers from all over the country, under the umbrella of NAFA and with the club's encouragement, launched a hell of letter writing campaign to our elected representatives in Washington, and others, which resulted in the feds backing off; in fact, the USFWS sent a representative to the 1988 meet in Amarillo to mend fences with falconers. From this experience, I learned that it is very important to have a national organization that we can run to in times of need. Now, this is not to suggest that NAFA has without fault; in fact, what this individual has written is not entirely wrong (IMO).

Bill Boni

Bill Boni

[rkumetz]

leadership folks in any similar constituent-based member organization are volunteering their time for the benefit of members. What is so disappointing about falconers is the frequency of really challenging personalities who display irrational hostility to leadership. Many of these folks frankly dont have the full picture of facts and context to ground their criticism. By in large volunteer leadership gets extremely pissed and burned out having to deal with really personal attacks. In most cases the irrational criticisms are usually based in political beliefs not falconry interests. If NAFA leadership seems aloof, critics should think about their own personal responsibility in that outcome. Anyone will start to circle the wagons after they hear enough bullets cracking by their ears:) its human nature.

If NAFA has done anything wrong over the years, its probably not adequately telling the story of how and why we are where we are with rules and regs etc. Also its important to remember that NAFA is not a default state club....state associations have their own role and responsibility....like any national entity, NAFA needs to be asked for help before they dive into state clubs.

I hate to say it, but most of the folks throwing the most criticism simply do not have the personal attributes to lead. After all the doors are fully open to take on leadership roles. Speaking from personal experience - the more I learned about how stakeholders make progress with agencies, the more I realized that 99% of the scenarios require patience, diplomacy, and humility, with a strong dose of stubbornness to keep one's eye on the prize. At least from my point of view, folks have varying amount of these attributes, but regardless, it takes time and seasoning to be effective. We have been lucky to have been represented by so many that have had these qualities in spades.

This is all something that people who want to whine and complain should contemplate in depth. As chief of a volunteer fire department I know first hand how people love to whine, complain and make demands but when you ask them if they would like to volunteer even a few hours of their time they rarely offer to help while they totally ignore the hundreds of hours of my time that go into keeping their houses above the cellar and they and their families able to call an ambulance if need be.

While I don't agree with everything the NAFA board does, I also don't have any time left to serve myself so I try to give them the benefit of the doubt and when I do have a problem with something they do I give them the courtesy of an email or call to discuss the situation rather than taking out an add on the front page of the NY Times to bitch about it.

[goshawkr]

I do not however feel that the formation of AFC had a lot to do with that since AFC doesn't do much except get involved in politics. As a disclaimer, I also joined
AFC and was a member for a number of years..

The Wild Raptor Take Conservancy, which went on to become the AFC formed from a core group of NAFA members who were frustrated with the crony good ole boy politics within NAFA that was working to ensure that the issues they kept trying to bring up - primarily Non Resident Take - were never actively addressed. At the time, from what I could tell a majority of the NAFA membership agreed that NAFA should address it (I seem to recall some internal poling of NAFA members that indicated this) but the good ole boys would not even consider it. Likely because one of their core influential personalities was dead set opposed to NRT in his state.

Bill,

Good for you for trying to pull this around into a positive direction.

[MrBill]

The Wild Raptor Take Conservancy, which went on to become the AFC formed from a core group of NAFA members who were frustrated with the crony good ole boy politics within NAFA that was working to ensure that the issues they kept trying to bring up - primarily Non Resident Take - were never actively addressed. At the time, from what I could tell a majority of the NAFA membership agreed that NAFA should address it (I seem to recall some internal poling of NAFA members that indicated this) but the good ole boys would not even consider it. Likely because one of their core influential personalities was dead set opposed to NRT in his state.

Bill,

Good for you for trying to pull this around into a positive direction.

Thanks, Geoff. I figure, if people will take the time to point out the accomplishments of NAFA over the years (absent embellishment), then we can compare it to the list Paul posted, and see how it all washes out. But, if people don't have anything to offer, well, . . . .

BTW, Geoff, I have taken the same approach you have in terms of contacting the NAFA board directly, but I have not had any real luck doing this; in fact, when I get back home in a few days, I will forward an e-mail I sent with some recommendations, that I never received a response to from any of the members. I thought perhaps it never got to them, so a couple of months later I wrote James Gregory Thomas, and sure enough they had received it; in fact, he--then--responded. I guess he felt obligated at that point. Over the years, this has happened to other folks, as well. So, I do think this is an area where NAFA has failed their constituents. I will say, however, that if you contact the President directly he will respond. He is pretty good at doing that, as have previous presidents, but the board needs to do their share as well (IMHO). I have often heard, "these are volunteer positions." My response to that has always been, "If you don't have the time to do devote to a particular position in NAFA, then don't take on the job."

Bill Boni

[Montucky]

The bottom line is that in the social media world we live in - we now know that mental diarrhea rises and nuanced, learned debate falls. Calls to burn everything to ground rank higher than stories about a diplomat who can speak 7 languages and negotiated a peace settlement. The falconry community needs to basically grow a pair, and tell the truth about who we are and where we came from. Even if that means losing a few hundred political zealots in our ranks. NAFA (or any state club) isn't a pure representative organization bending to the whims of whatever ideology pays dues - it is a member organization with a clear mission: "to encourage the proper practice of the sport of falconry and the wise use and conservation of birds of prey."

As such, it has not only made huge strides in that mission, but one could argue the NAFA legacy is a model. You would be hard pressed to show any other example of a stakeholder member organization that worked with officials to create a continent-wide framework for a practice that had no context in existing law and was generally opposed by majority of environmental stakeholder voices. In just 50 years, they shepherded what was essentially an illegal practice with no historical roots in NA, to a legally entrenched sport continent-wide. The trajectory has been the gradual liberalization of rules as trust and understanding has grown. Personal attacks directed at NAFA leadership are pathological in the face of this legacy (nevermind 99% of the attacks are factually/historically wrong). At worst its a positive trend of effective rational advocacy with the agencies. At worst! At best, NAFA has been one of the premier voices in raptor conservation.

Most people make choices based on their own financial stability and their own political beliefs. Few have the mental constitution to advocate for the greater good of a larger mission beyond themselves. We call those people leaders. I side with the leaders that follow the mission with passion and dedication. Most of the naysayers couldnt negotiate a tree trimming with their neighbors...never mind a continent-wide wildlife policy. :)

[Captain Gizmo]

A personal opinion.

Considering the tiny constituency the falconry community represents I am constantly surprised to the point of amazed at the favorable treatment from state and federal legislators and agencies that has been achieved.

Regards,
Thomas of the Desert

[elycreek]

God i wish we had a LIKE button! Thanks Tom!

[falcon56]

The bottom line is that in the social media world we live in - we now know that mental diarrhea rises and nuanced, learned debate falls. Calls to burn everything to ground rank higher than stories about a diplomat who can speak 7 languages and negotiated a peace settlement. The falconry community needs to basically grow a pair, and tell the truth about who we are and where we came from. Even if that means losing a few hundred political zealots in our ranks. NAFA (or any state club) isn't a pure representative organization bending to the whims of whatever ideology pays dues - it is a member organization with a clear mission: "to encourage the proper practice of the sport of falconry and the wise use and conservation of birds of prey."

As such, it has not only made huge strides in that mission, but one could argue the NAFA legacy is a model. You would be hard pressed to show any other example of a stakeholder member organization that worked with officials to create a continent-wide framework for a practice that had no context in existing law and was generally opposed by majority of environmental stakeholder voices. In just 50 years, they shepherded what was essentially an illegal practice with no historical roots in NA, to a legally entrenched sport continent-wide. The trajectory has been the gradual liberalization of rules as trust and understanding has grown. Personal attacks directed at NAFA leadership are pathological in the face of this legacy (nevermind 99% of the attacks are factually/historically wrong). At worst its a positive trend of effective rational advocacy with the agencies. At worst! At best, NAFA has been one of the premier voices in raptor conservation.

Most people make choices based on their own financial stability and their own political beliefs. Few have the mental constitution to advocate for the greater good of a larger mission beyond themselves. We call those people leaders. I side with the leaders that follow the mission with passion and dedication. Most of the naysayers couldnt negotiate a tree trimming with their neighbors...never mind a continent-wide wildlife policy. :)
clapp

[MrBill]

As such, it has not only made huge strides in that mission, but one could argue the NAFA legacy is a model. You would be hard pressed to show any other example of a stakeholder member organization that worked with officials to create a continent-wide framework for a practice that had no context in existing law and was generally opposed by majority of environmental stakeholder voices. In just 50 years, they shepherded what was essentially an illegal practice with no historical roots in NA, to a legally entrenched sport continent-wide. The trajectory has been the gradual liberalization of rules as trust and understanding has grown. Personal attacks directed at NAFA leadership are pathological in the face of this legacy (nevermind 99% of the attacks are factually/historically wrong). At worst its a positive trend of effective rational advocacy with the agencies. At worst! At best, NAFA has been one of the premier voices in raptor conservation.

Well-put, John. Thanks for pointing out the work that NAFA did early on to make sure falconry was "legal," in the face of a real threat from organizations like the Audubon Society. But, let us not forget that California and Colorado led the way, as the first states to have sanctioned falconry regulations.

I was wondering if you would clarify, "
The falconry community needs to basically grow a pair, and tell the truth about who we are and where we came from"; in other words, why would falconers not want to tell the truth about where they came from? Also, it appears you are saying that what motivates these people is simply pure politics; that there is no validity to their protests. Yes?

Bill Boni

Bill Boni

[FredFogg]

I find it amusing the mention of the creation of the AFC (WRT) was due to former members of NAFA being fed up with the good ole boys within NAFA and now I look at the AFC and I see that same good ole boys mentality going on just like it was back in those days within NAFA that caused them to leave. LOL

[rkumetz]

A personal opinion.

Considering the tiny constituency the falconry community represents I am constantly surprised to the point of amazed at the favorable treatment from state and federal legislators and agencies that has been achieved.

Regards,
Thomas of the Desert

When you are not a sizeable voting population and don't have deep pockets it becomes more an issue of who you know than what you know as the saying goes.
We didn't have much success at the state level until we found some people to build personal relationships with. There is still a lot of room for improvement but
at least we are no longer viewed as simply an annoyance. Handshake politics is not the fastest way to achieve your goals but the bull in a China shop approach
can have repercussions. The PLF lawsuit might very well achieve its intended goals with respect to making falconry regs acceptable to libertarians and the
specific constitutional grounds they cite. Of course after they remove inspections and we can use birds held on falconry permits for commercial purposes how
will the state and federal agencies retaliate? Unless there is derivative benefit for PLF with respect to their own agenda they are not going to step to the plate
to save falconry. They could care less and we don't have deep enough pockets to litigate ourselves.

[rkumetz]

I have often heard, "these are volunteer positions." My response to that has always been, "If you don't have the time to do devote to a particular position in NAFA, then don't take on the job."

Bill Boni

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

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

[MrBill]

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

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

Bill Boni

[Montucky]

Well-put, John. Thanks for pointing out the work that NAFA did early on to make sure falconry was "legal," in the face of a real threat from organizations like the Audubon Society. But, let us not forget that California and Colorado led the way, as the first states to have sanctioned falconry regulations.

I was wondering if you would clarify, "
The falconry community needs to basically grow a pair, and tell the truth about who we are and where we came from"; in other words, why would falconers not want to tell the truth about where they came from? Also, it appears you are saying that what motivates these people is simply pure politics; that there is no validity to their protests. Yes?

Bill Boni

Bill Boni

Well NAFA played a key role working with states...I would argue that the core group of NAFA folks that authored the federal regs created something that the states would accept. theycevaluated the anti's and preemptively drafted regs to address opposition from groups like Audubon and did a ton of behind the scenes work for clubs as they marched legalization across the country. Kent Carnie, more than any one person, is more responsible for this heavy lifting. Facts get lost to time...we forget where we come from. I think in any enterprise, the founding principles or mission can get lost as subsequent generations come on board. Its true for any mission-driven Enterprise. What I am suggesting is that its human nature to bend to the loudest voices and concede things that are against the founding principles. Before you know it, the organization looks nothing like the original charter so to speak. You see this a lot in non-profits, where a brilliant visionary sort collects a core group of similar minded folks to create something great like an art museum...they bring in a board....key people leave, and eventually you have a board installing a zip line and a water park. (I give that example as someone who listened to a board chair try to convince the others to install a zipline at a natural history museum:). Im just suggesting that falconers need to guard their legacy. Sure there can be lots of validity to various points...but I think there is a theme we have observed where the most ardent abrasive critics of NAFA (in this example) typically voice their concerns in political language not falconry language.

[MrBill]

Well NAFA played a key role working with states...I would argue that the core group of NAFA folks that authored the federal regs created something that the states would accept. theycevaluated the anti's and preemptively drafted regs to address opposition from groups like Audubon and did a ton of behind the scenes work for clubs as they marched legalization across the country. Kent Carnie, more than any one person, is more responsible for this heavy lifting. Facts get lost to time...we forget where we come from. I think in any enterprise, the founding principles or mission can get lost as subsequent generations come on board. Its true for any mission-driven Enterprise. What I am suggesting is that its human nature to bend to the loudest voices and concede things that are against the founding principles. Before you know it, the organization looks nothing like the original charter so to speak. You see this a lot in non-profits, where a brilliant visionary sort collects a core group of similar minded folks to create something great like an art museum...they bring in a board....key people leave, and eventually you have a board installing a zip line and a water park. (I give that example as someone who listened to a board chair try to convince the others to install a zipline at a natural history museum:). Im just suggesting that falconers need to guard their legacy. Sure there can be lots of validity to various points...but I think there is a theme we have observed where the most ardent abrasive critics of NAFA (in this example) typically voice their concerns in political language not falconry language.

Thanks for your explanation, John; that clears it up for me.

Bill Boni

[rkumetz]

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

Bill Boni

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

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

[wyodjm]

Looking back over the years, it's been a pretty fulfilling and fun falconry ride. In fact, I'm thankful, and there are multiple people to thank! I saw my dream of flying passage eagles and goshawks fulfilled. At a quality and respectable level. And now the opportunity to fly passage Prairie Falcons on ducks. It doesn't get much better than that. Life is good!

At the end of the day, what's important? They say bitterness is like drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die! I've learned life is just too short to complain and whine. I'm so glad I learned it sooner than later!

My best falconry could still be in front of me! 👍

Good hawking everyone!

[BestBeagler]

Dan, What a great attitude!

[rkumetz]

Looking back over the years, it's been a pretty fulfilling and fun falconry ride. In fact, I'm thankful, and there are multiple people to thank! I saw my dream of flying passage eagles and goshawks fulfilled. At a quality and respectable level. And now the opportunity to fly passage Prairie Falcons on ducks. It doesn't get much better than that. Life is good!

At the end of the day, what's important? They say bitterness is like drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die! I've learned life is just too short to complain and whine. I'm so glad I learned it sooner than later!

My best falconry could still be in front of me! 

Good hawking everyone!

Dan that may be the most positive thing I have ever read on NAFEX. You are not just saying that to promote a self-help book you are writing are you? :)

There is a good point to be made here though. This is supposed to be fun. When falconers get bitter and nasty they are missing the point. It is a hobby. Granted most of us
are pretty passionate about it but at the end of the day it is all about enjoying ourselves. We can all disagree about the details (and we do) and still enjoy the ride.

[MrBill]

Looking back over the years, it's been a pretty fulfilling and fun falconry ride. In fact, I'm thankful, and there are multiple people to thank! I saw my dream of flying passage eagles and goshawks fulfilled. At a quality and respectable level. And now the opportunity to fly passage Prairie Falcons on ducks. It doesn't get much better than that. Life is good!

At the end of the day, what's important? They say bitterness is like drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die! I've learned life is just too short to complain and whine. I'm so glad I learned it sooner than later!

My best Falconry could still be in front of me! 

Good hawking everyone!

Dan,

I agree that falconry (for the most part) has been fulfilling and fun. And I also agree that we have many people to thank. And I am glad that you have been able to fly passage eagles and goshawks, but why follow it up with "at a quality and respectable level"? Are you trying to tell us something? Also, it wasn't that long ago that you were complaining and whining about NAFA's handling of the eagle situation to the point of resigning from the club (having since rejoined). So, I am not sure you learned "sooner than later" (unlike the rest of us mortal souls) that life is too short. Please tell us how NAFA has played a part in your falconry journey over the years? Thanks.

Bill Boni

[wyodjm]

Dan,

I agree that falconry (for the most part) has been fulfilling and fun. And I also agree that we have many people to thank. And I am glad that you have been able to fly passage eagles and goshawks, but why follow it up with "at a quality and respectable level"? Are you trying to tell us something? Also, it wasn't that long ago that you were complaining and whining about NAFA's handling of the eagle situation to the point of resigning from the club (having since rejoined). So, I am not sure you learned "sooner than later" (unlike the rest of us mortal souls) that life is too short. Please tell us how NAFA has played a part in your falconry journey over the years? Thanks.

Bill Boni

Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment. - Benjamin Franklin

Cheers Bill! 👍

[MrBill]

Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment. - Benjamin Franklin

Cheers Bill! 

Well, I certainly would not want you to say the "wrong" thing, Dan; that would not fit your image :-) But if you can bring yourself to do so, will you please share with us how NAFA has contributed (or not) to your falconry experience? Thanks, again.

Bill Boni

[MrBill]

Hey, Paul,

In your post that started this thread you asked us what we thought, which some of us have responded to. What do you think?

Bill Boni

[MrBill]

Well NAFA played a key role working with states...I would argue that the core group of NAFA folks that authored the federal regs created something that the states would accept. theycevaluated the anti's and preemptively drafted regs to address opposition from groups like Audubon and did a ton of behind the scenes work for clubs as they marched legalization across the country. Kent Carnie, more than any one person, is more responsible for this heavy lifting. Facts get lost to time...we forget where we come from. I think in any enterprise, the founding principles or mission can get lost as subsequent generations come on board. Its true for any mission-driven Enterprise. What I am suggesting is that its human nature to bend to the loudest voices and concede things that are against the founding principles. Before you know it, the organization looks nothing like the original charter so to speak. You see this a lot in non-profits, where a brilliant visionary sort collects a core group of similar minded folks to create something great like an art museum...they bring in a board....key people leave, and eventually you have a board installing a zip line and a water park. (I give that example as someone who listened to a board chair try to convince the others to install a zipline at a natural history museum:). Im just suggesting that falconers need to guard their legacy. Sure there can be lots of validity to various points...but I think there is a theme we have observed where the most ardent abrasive critics of NAFA (in this example) typically voice their concerns in political language not falconry language.

John,

I have been thinking more about your above statement regarding NAFA, and would like to follow-up on it.

One of the main things you touched upon, even though you didn’t say it, was “loyalty.” I am a big fan of loyalty, even though in today’s society, loyalty is fairly nebulous. And you, of course, were not talking about “blind loyalty.” You were simply saying, regardless of faults, we should always honor the fact that NAFA paved the way for falconry in the United States; and I certainly agree. We should never lose sight of our roots, so to speak. Then you go on to suggest that we should be careful of the firebrands that attack NAFA purely from a political perspective. As you know there are numerous definitions of “politics,” but I think I found one that you are referring to, which is, “activities within an organization that are aimed at improving someone's status or position and are typically considered to be devious or divisive.” I can’t argue with your contention here, either, except to say that there are personal reasons why people take this approach, and we should probably factor this reality into the scenario before we condemn the person (IMHO).

In light of your cautionary tale about how clubs can recreate themselves to a point where they involve themselves in issues that are well beyond the scope of the club’s original intent, are you suggesting that the list of things that Paul posted fall into that category, or are you simply saying, “Consider the source and the politics of it all”?

Finally, I would like to point out the obvious that “viable clubs” do evolve; a good example in terms of NAFA would be the Internet. Not too long after the Internet became available, I started a webpage and a listserv for falconers. NAFA leadership voiced strong opposition to doing this, suggesting that it would sound the death knell to falconry. But, look where we are today. Another good example is the leadership’s opposition in 80’s (as I recall) to the selling of captive-bred raptors. But, look where we are today. I am sure this is not the type of evolution you are talking about, John. I only point this out as way to broadcast the importance of not getting stuck in the mud, so to speak; in fact, in years gone by, I was one of those firebrands, who felt that NAFA was always playing catch-up on important issues, never ahead of the power curve. But, again, that had a lot to do with me as a person, more than anything else. And, as Ron has pointed out, “Handshake politics is not the fastest way to achieve your goals but the bull in the China shop approach can have repercussions.” So, my philosophy now is, All’s well that ends well, or in some cases, “All’s well that ends” :)

Bill Boni

[Saluqi]

Hey, Paul,

In your post that started this thread you asked us what we thought, which some of us have responded to. What do you think?

Bill Boni

What do I think? I ran for NAFA Mtn director in 2010, I'm sure a couple of folks who were on NAFEX back then might remember, Eric Tabb ran against me, I ran partly because of all the shit and shenanigans I heard about the internal workings of NAFA, so I figured what better way to find out then to get on the board. Be careful what you ask for, because you might get it, so I ended winning, with my term starting on January 1st 2011. At the time Larry Dickerson was president, Bob Welle VP, treasurer April Davenport-Rice, all who started their work with NAFA in January of 2010. I was replacing Bruce Haak as Mtn Director, who had served three terms (6 yrs), big shoes to fill. I credit Larry, Bob, and April for being top professionals, the strides that were made under their watch in terms of fixing the NAFA cash flow and budget, and bringing NAFA into the 21st century with a web presence and communication capabilities were nothing short of revolutionary for an organization that was behind the times.

What did I find in those board meetings? Were there hidden agendas and confrontational issues where board members were stifled from raising words of objection, graft and underhandedness? Unfortunately not, there was no intrigue, nothing, zero, zilch, nada. It was all business, and everyone and anyone could speak their mind. The NAFA board meets every third month, once in person at the NAFA meet in November, then again in January, March, June, and September, so 5 board meeting per year. I think the shortest meeting that I participated in was around 1.5 hours, the longest maybe 2.5 hours. Larry was a strict parliamentarian, so anyone who has ever served on a board knows the advantage of being able to stick to Robert's Rules, otherwise things descend into chaos very quickly.

What did we talk about at those meetings? Early on mostly the state by state adoption of the new federal regs. Dave Eslicker was spearheading this effort and interfaced with all 49 states clubs, or falconers for states without clubs, and with the states G&F dept when requested, or necessary. If you don't think this was a major effort by NAFA you are an idiot, NAFA was there at every step, from working with the USFWS to author the new regs in 2008 with George Allen to final state by state implementation by the December 31st 2012 deadline.

What else? I found out that when you serve on a board that there is a lot of organizational housekeeping chores, things like budgets, meet planning, publications, personnel issues, and member issues. It's all kind of blur to me now, if anyone is really interested I could go through each and every agenda over the 3 1/2 terms, 7 years, that I served and provide some the highlights, but I'm not going to do that this morning.

What did I take away from my time as director? I found out that my initial reasons for running for director were unfounded, there was no overarching hidden agenda, or back room politicking, all I witnessed after 7 years were people who were critically aware that the falconry community needed NAFA to be a leader, a constant desire to meet member expectations given the limitations of a volunteer organization. I found that falconers seemed to believe that NAFA has "operators standing by" to take calls on every bit of falconry minutia that crosses their mind. I can't count the number of times I heard "Why doesn't NAFA _____?" Fill in the blank. My stock reply was always, "Write a proposal and I’ll submit it to the board, and if it's approved, then you will have to step up and do the work." NAFA is a volunteer organization run by volunteers, if you want something to get done you had better be prepared to contribute your time and effort. People seemed to confuse the meanings of the words complain and contribute, cuz complainin’ ain’t contributin’! Very few people took me up on my offer.

Does NAFA have shortcomings? You bet. Volunteer organizations are not efficient, that's my opinion based on observing NAFA. Since those who serve don't get paid, nearly everything else gets attention before dealing with NAFA issues. That’s just life, NAFA will always be a volunteer organization. I wasn’t and am still not happy with most of the directors who I don’t think communicate well with their directorate. During my time as director I sent out emails to the Mtn directorate after every board meeting informing folks on what happened, and how I voted, I was the exception and not the rule, most directors are very out of touch with their directorate, it frustrated the shit out of me, and still does. Communication, or the lack thereof, is the biggest issue in every relationship, whether it’s with your spouse, or an organization and a member.

NAFA and the big picture? All of the mudslinging at NAFA that certain falconers seem to enjoy, most of those are personal grudges, or misinformation, or just weird ass people. Without NAFA there would be no falconry in this country period. In the words of Neil Degrasse Tyson “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it”, same goes for NAFA, NAFA is North American falconry whether or not you believe in it.

There you have it, I could go on and on, but I don't want to bore you any more.

[MrBill]

What do I think? I ran for NAFA Mtn director in 2010, I'm sure a couple of folks who were on NAFEX back then might remember, Eric Tabb ran against me, I ran partly because of all the shit and shenanigans I heard about the internal workings of NAFA, so I figured what better way to find out then to get on the board. Be careful what you ask for, because you might get it, so I ended winning, with my term starting on January 1st 2011. At the time Larry Dickerson was president, Bob Welle VP, treasurer April Davenport-Rice, all who started their work with NAFA in January of 2010. I was replacing Bruce Haak as Mtn Director, who had served three terms (6 yrs), big shoes to fill. I credit Larry, Bob, and April for being top professionals, the strides that were made under their watch in terms of fixing the NAFA cash flow and budget, and bringing NAFA into the 21st century with a web presence and communication capabilities were nothing short of revolutionary for an organization that was behind the times.

What did I find in those board meetings? Were there hidden agendas and confrontational issues where board members were stifled from raising words of objection, graft and underhandedness? Unfortunately not, there was no intrigue, nothing, zero, zilch, nada. It was all business, and everyone and anyone could speak their mind. The NAFA board meets every third month, once in person at the NAFA meet in November, then again in January, March, June, and September, so 5 board meeting per year. I think the shortest meeting that I participated in was around 1.5 hours, the longest maybe 2.5 hours. Larry was a strict parliamentarian, so anyone who has ever served on a board knows the advantage of being able to stick to Robert's Rules, otherwise things descend into chaos very quickly.

What did we talk about at those meetings? Early on mostly the state by state adoption of the new federal regs. Dave Eslicker was spearheading this effort and interfaced with all 49 states clubs, or falconers for states without clubs, and with the states G&F dept when requested, or necessary. If you don't think this was a major effort by NAFA you are an idiot, NAFA was there at every step, from working with the USFWS to author the new regs in 2008 with George Allen to final state by state implementation by the December 31st 2012 deadline.

What else? I found out that when you serve on a board that there is a lot of organizational housekeeping chores, things like budgets, meet planning, publications, personnel issues, and member issues. It's all kind of blur to me now, if anyone is really interested I could go through each and every agenda over the 3 1/2 terms, 7 years, that I served and provide some the highlights, but I'm not going to do that this morning.

What did I take away from my time as director? I found out that my initial reasons for running for director were unfounded, there was no overarching hidden agenda, or back room politicking, all I witnessed after 7 years were people who were critically aware that the falconry community needed NAFA to be a leader, a constant desire to meet member expectations given the limitations of a volunteer organization. I found that falconers seemed to believe that NAFA has "operators standing by" to take calls on every bit of falconry minutia that crosses their mind. I can't count the number of times I heard "Why doesn't NAFA _____?" Fill in the blank. My stock reply was always, "Write a proposal and I’ll submit it to the board, and if it's approved, then you will have to step up and do the work." NAFA is a volunteer organization run by volunteers, if you want something to get done you had better be prepared to contribute your time and effort. People seemed to confuse the meanings of the words complain and contribute, cuz complainin’ ain’t contributin’! Very few people took me up on my offer.

Does NAFA have shortcomings? You bet. Volunteer organizations are not efficient, that's my opinion based on observing NAFA. Since those who serve don't get paid, nearly everything else gets attention before dealing with NAFA issues. That’s just life, NAFA will always be a volunteer organization. I wasn’t and am still not happy with most of the directors who I don’t think communicate well with their directorate. During my time as director I sent out emails to the Mtn directorate after every board meeting informing folks on what happened, and how I voted, I was the exception and not the rule, most directors are very out of touch with their directorate, it frustrated the shit out of me, and still does. Communication, or the lack thereof, is the biggest issue in every relationship, whether it’s with your spouse, or an organization and a member.

NAFA and the big picture? All of the mudslinging at NAFA that certain falconers seem to enjoy, most of those are personal grudges, or misinformation, or just weird ass people. Without NAFA there would be no falconry in this country period. In the words of Neil Degrasse Tyson “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it”, same goes for NAFA, NAFA is North American falconry whether or not you believe in it.

There you have it, I could go on and on, but I don't want to bore you any more.

Hey, Paul, you are certainly not boring me, for one. I appreciate you taking the time to share your insights based upon first-hand experience at the helm. And, I totally agree with your comments regarding Larry Dickerson. He was an exceptional president (IMO). I certainly agree that there is an obvious lack of communication between the directors and their constituents, which is too damn bad. And, I remember your director's reports that you sent out. Thanks, and just know that people like myself were appreciative of your efforts. There was one other director during your tenure that was pretty good about doing this reporting also. I forget who he was now. But, I haven't seen a report like yours since.

Bill Boni

[goshawkr]

Well, I certainly would not want you to say the "wrong" thing, Dan; that would not fit your image :-)

Dan was not speaking for himself, it was polite gentlemanly advice. Referring to what you had said to him


Also, it wasn't that long ago that you were complaining and whining about NAFA's handling of the eagle situation to the point of resigning from the club (having since rejoined).

This is certainly not an entirely inaccurate description of events, but it is rather interestingly lacking in detail. And I believe entirely disrespectful in how it is presented.

Dan was the active core of the NAFA eagle committee. This was after Dan had gotten falconry trapping of golden eagles for falconry normalized in this country through decades of astute political navigating. Not entirely by himself, but he was the central core to it and did far more work than anyone else and with no help from NAFA. At one point, it was as simple as applying for a non resident take permit from Wyoming and showing up to trap during the depredation season in designated depredation areas. He does not toot his own blower about that, but that is how it happened.

There was guy who liked to think of himself as an eagle falconer and liked to think he was a significant contributor to eagle falconry that leveraged Dan off the eagle committee and got himself installed as the chair of the eagle committee instead, and under the watch of this guy eagle falconry trapping was shut down without any effort at all to counter it. Those are the facts that you were missing. You may call it whining, but if that had happened to me, I would never say a positive thing about NAFA again. If I had invested that much time and energy into something only to have it junked, well.... I am not as graceful about Dan over such things. And in point of fact, this incident was one of the reasons why I left NAFA under protest for almost a decade. It was not the main reason, but it went on the list.

Still, I never have seen Dan "whine" about this. I have seen him calling NAFA to task about the completely inadequate way they handled the eagle take issue, but even that was done with respect.

NAFA completely utterly and undeniably dropped the ball on protecting eagle falconry and the trapping of eagles in the last ~15 years. Saying anything different is quite simply just engaging in anal tongue waggling. It certainly is unfair to say that NAFA would have been able to keep eagle trapping open. We dont know if that would have been possible because they did absolutely nothing significant to try. So while I cannot actually blame NAFA for take being closed, and I do not, I can and do blame them for sitting on their thumbs and watching it happen. After take was closed, NAFA did very little in terms of effective work to get it reopened. I was watching the board minutes when I rejoined NAFA for a while after one of the board members publicly proclaimed to make eagle take an issue - but I dont recall one word showing up in board minutes related to eagle take.

I agree with you and John that NAFA has done some great things in the the past. And I agree that gratitude is deserved on the part of NAFA for that. It is not accurate to say that without NAFA there would be no falconry, because we really do not know. That alternate history never occured. NAFA was there, and got it done. At any rate, I cannot think of any examples more recent than Operation Falcon where I would make the statement taht NAFA did a great job. I do not think its completely fair to descend into saying "...what has NAFA done for me lately..." However, I also have a hard time saying NAFA is still relevant. I have been called on the carpet about that statement by a previous DAL in NAFA and even a previous president who threw a project in my lap and said "...ok mr, put your tough talk into action..." and I will admit that despite my eager enthusiasm for the project, I dropped it on the floor. I admit that I own some guilt at not helping make NAFA more relevant.

A key example of that - we have a species that was completely delisted more than 20 years that has special quota rules and special flyway oversight over take. NAFA did stage a mild protest at the outset for that, but it was pretty ineffective. When the US FWS decided to play hardball over the peregrine take at delisting, NAFA just went and sat on the proverbial bench. And the work accomplished since then has been relatively light weight.

There has been a tiny amount of progress on getting the eagle take re-opened. And maybe that will build to something significant. The current state is nothing to be crowing about, especially given what was lost. But it might get there, and I am hopeful it will. NAFA deserves some credit for that. As far as I am aware, all the activities that led to this tiny re-opening of eagle take were undertaken by NAFA members. It was a monumentus undertaking, and real credit is due to the progress made so far. When I say tiny amount of progress, I know that this involved lots and lots of effort to even get that far.

One very interesting, and nefarious, link to my prior comment is that the US FWS is rumored to think that the flyway council should have some say on the newly re implemented eagle take. Accepting that sets a very dangerous precedent. The flyway councils are there to equitably regulate a take that has serious potential to impact the resource and make sure it is allocated fairly. On the whole, its a good process for species that seriously could be impacted by take. But there is absolutely no science based justification to use that model to regulate falconry take of eagles or peregrines or any other raptor. It just adds unnecessary red tape. And really bodes the question - what is next? Harris' hawks? Goshawks? Kestrels? The precedent could very easily slip to include all falconry raptors. Do we really need to have that much bureaucracy to make sure that a few apprentices and squirrel hawks do not decimate redtails?

[sharptail]

g. I will begin by saying that during and after Operation Falcon, NAFA was instrumental representing falconry at the federal level. In the aftermath of this so-called operation, the USFWS was prepared to put a real damper on the practice of falconry in the United States through new regs,

Bill Boni [/COLOR]What I was told by a past Director whom was serving at the time and dealing with the aftermath, was that Operation Falcon was a premeditated attempt by USFWS and National Audubon to outlaw falconry in the U.S. entirely. Is it any wonder that older falconers whom remember these good old days have trust issues and worse with not just the Federal level but also those at the state level whom have shown similar animus. It is not just falconers that are responsible for the ill will. NAFA's surrender on some issues in the 'new falconry regulations' has not helped their reputation or their membership numbers. I doubt I will ever be a member again.

One thing that NAFA did right was to appoint a new President, that was outside of the 'old guard'. Someone without a long history, that some view as on the wrong side of things.

[wyodjm]

What I was told by a past Director whom was serving at the time and dealing with the aftermath, was that Operation Falcon was a premeditated attempt by USFWS and National Audubon to outlaw falconry in the U.S. entirely. Is it any wonder that older falconers whom remember these good old days have trust issues and worse with not just the Federal level but also those at the state level whom have shown similar animus. It is not just falconers that are responsible for the ill will. NAFA's surrender on some issues in the 'new falconry regulations' has not helped their reputation or their membership numbers. I doubt I will ever be a member again.

One thing that NAFA did right was to appoint a new President, that was outside of the 'old guard'. Someone without a long history, that some view as on the wrong side of things.

Many people believe Operation Falcon was also an attempt on the part of the USFWS to shut down the Peregrine Fund.

A year after Operation Falcon, (1985) I had a haggard female Golden Eagle on a rehab permit. She was blind in one eye. I had her for a year and had her stooping the lure like a Peregrine while slope soaring her. A week before I was going to release her back to the wild, the USFWS called me and ordered me to ship the eagle to Jeff McPartlin!

The USFWS even sent me a prepaid crate to my door to put the eagle in with a shipping label already on it! All I was to do was drive the eagle to our local airport in Rock Springs! They actually told me not to release the eagle!

I mailed their worthless federal rehab permit back to them and told them to cancel it! I still have the paperwork!

[wyodjm]

After making my last post, I realized I had left some things out concerning the rehab eagle the feds made me send McPartlin. It was a long time ago and I moved on without really skipping a beat!

But I want to say that during the time I was working to get passage eagle take opened in the 1990's, Nafa was very supportive of my efforts. Frank Bond was a personal advisor who helped me navigate the political and legal maze I was constantly finding myself in. And he believed in me and what I was doing! That was very important! Nafa Presidents Ken Felix and Tim Kimmel were also very supportive of my efforts. I will always be grateful to them for that. Tim and I became very good friends through that ordeal.

[MrBill]

Dan was not speaking for himself, it was polite gentlemanly advice. Referring to what you had said to him



This is certainly not an entirely inaccurate description of events, but it is rather interestingly lacking in detail. And I believe entirely disrespectful in how it is presented.

Dan was the active core of the NAFA eagle committee. This was after Dan had gotten falconry trapping of golden eagles for falconry normalized in this country through decades of astute political navigating. Not entirely by himself, but he was the central core to it and did far more work than anyone else and with no help from NAFA. At one point, it was as simple as applying for a non resident take permit from Wyoming and showing up to trap during the depredation season in designated depredation areas. He does not toot his own blower about that, but that is how it happened.

There was guy who liked to think of himself as an eagle falconer and liked to think he was a significant contributor to eagle falconry that leveraged Dan off the eagle committee and got himself installed as the chair of the eagle committee instead, and under the watch of this guy eagle falconry trapping was shut down without any effort at all to counter it. Those are the facts that you were missing. You may call it whining, but if that had happened to me, I would never say a positive thing about NAFA again. If I had invested that much time and energy into something only to have it junked, well.... I am not as graceful about Dan over such things. And in point of fact, this incident was one of the reasons why I left NAFA under protest for almost a decade. It was not the main reason, but it went on the list.

Still, I never have seen Dan "whine" about this. I have seen him calling NAFA to task about the completely inadequate way they handled the eagle take issue, but even that was done with respect.

NAFA completely utterly and undeniably dropped the ball on protecting eagle falconry and the trapping of eagles in the last ~15 years. Saying anything different is quite simply just engaging in anal tongue waggling. It certainly is unfair to say that NAFA would have been able to keep eagle trapping open. We dont know if that would have been possible because they did absolutely nothing significant to try. So while I cannot actually blame NAFA for take being closed, and I do not, I can and do blame them for sitting on their thumbs and watching it happen. After take was closed, NAFA did very little in terms of effective work to get it reopened. I was watching the board minutes when I rejoined NAFA for a while after one of the board members publicly proclaimed to make eagle take an issue - but I dont recall one word showing up in board minutes related to eagle take.

I agree with you and John that NAFA has done some great things in the the past. And I agree that gratitude is deserved on the part of NAFA for that. It is not accurate to say that without NAFA there would be no falconry, because we really do not know. That alternate history never occured. NAFA was there, and got it done. At any rate, I cannot think of any examples more recent than Operation Falcon where I would make the statement taht NAFA did a great job. I do not think its completely fair to descend into saying "...what has NAFA done for me lately..." However, I also have a hard time saying NAFA is still relevant. I have been called on the carpet about that statement by a previous DAL in NAFA and even a previous president who threw a project in my lap and said "...ok mr, put your tough talk into action..." and I will admit that despite my eager enthusiasm for the project, I dropped it on the floor. I admit that I own some guilt at not helping make NAFA more relevant.

A key example of that - we have a species that was completely delisted more than 20 years that has special quota rules and special flyway oversight over take. NAFA did stage a mild protest at the outset for that, but it was pretty ineffective. When the US FWS decided to play hardball over the peregrine take at delisting, NAFA just went and sat on the proverbial bench. And the work accomplished since then has been relatively light weight.

There has been a tiny amount of progress on getting the eagle take re-opened. And maybe that will build to something significant. The current state is nothing to be crowing about, especially given what was lost. But it might get there, and I am hopeful it will. NAFA deserves some credit for that. As far as I am aware, all the activities that led to this tiny re-opening of eagle take were undertaken by NAFA members. It was a monumentus undertaking, and real credit is due to the progress made so far. When I say tiny amount of progress, I know that this involved lots and lots of effort to even get that far.

One very interesting, and nefarious, link to my prior comment is that the US FWS is rumored to think that the flyway council should have some say on the newly re implemented eagle take. Accepting that sets a very dangerous precedent. The flyway councils are there to equitably regulate a take that has serious potential to impact the resource and make sure it is allocated fairly. On the whole, its a good process for species that seriously could be impacted by take. But there is absolutely no science based justification to use that model to regulate falconry take of eagles or peregrines or any other raptor. It just adds unnecessary red tape. And really bodes the question - what is next? Harris' hawks? Goshawks? Kestrels? The precedent could very easily slip to include all falconry raptors. Do we really need to have that much bureaucracy to make sure that a few apprentices and squirrel hawks do not decimate redtails?

Now, Geoff, you know me well enough to have fully realized that when you made this post, you were going to get a response-in-kind; however, because Dan did not instigate this response, I won't "disrespect" him anymore, but I will certainly address your other comments.

First of all, Dan--on a number of occasions--made it perfectly known, and in no uncertain terms, how he felt about NAFA's handling of the eagle situation, which I have referred to as "complaining and whining" because that is a fair description.

Secondly, I have "never" denied Dan's overall efforts in terms of recovering the eagle for falconry purposes; in fact, to the contrary. So, I am not sure why you brought these topics into the discussion.

Thirdly, i have never heard your take on how Dan left NAFA. And, I don't ever recall Dan saying anything like what you have suggested. What I have heard is Dan resigned from the eagle committee and left NAFA because he was thoroughly disgusted with the way NAFA tending to eagle issue.

Fourth, I didn't know Brian Kellogg was such a dismal failure on the eagle committee. And since he was living in Washing State (where you live) at the time, and had for many years, I am surprised that you have chosen to disrespect him. But, then again, look what I have done to Dan.

The rest of your comments reflect your feelings about NAFA, etc., and are certainly in keeping with the theme of this discussion. I would like to point out though that
nowhere did I even infer that NAFA was without fault when it came to this issue; so please don't put me in that camp. Thanks.

Bill Boni

[goshawkr]

Thirdly, i have never heard your take on how Dan left NAFA. And, I don't ever recall Dan saying anything like what you have suggested. What I have heard is Dan resigned from the eagle committee and left NAFA because he was thoroughly disgusted with the way NAFA tending to eagle issue.

You heard wrong. Dan did not resign from the eagle committee, he was pushed out by someone who was jealous of his position and wanted his job. I know this from several sources, including Dan himself. He did resign from NAFA (or more correctly, refused to renew his dues) because of how he was treated. He told me today he is done with the skunk pissing in this thread - which is wise of him - so that is as far as I will take it here and now.


Fourth, I didn't know Brian Kellogg was such a dismal failure on the eagle committee. And since he was living in Washing State (where you live) at the time, and had for many years, I am surprised that you have chosen to disrespect him. But, then again, look what I have done to Dan.

I did not mention Brian, why did you?

That is who I was referring to, but I refrain from dragging peoples name through the mud when they are not around to wipe it off. I did not disrespect him, what I stated is exactly what happened. There are a lot more things that I could say that I did not, things that are well known by those who know him and watched events unfold. As a side note, I think it is rather odd that you are implying that just because the guy is from the same state as me I should be looking up to him. That actually is precisely why I know the nature of that particular proverbial leopard's spots. Some I admire, more that I do not.

Also, dont begin to put words in my mouth. I did not say that he was a dismal failure on the eagle committee. I actually have no idea what, if anything, he did with his position on that committee. I expressed some harsh criticism over the lack of action in keeping eagle take open, but that is a fact based statement. On that particular point, he was asleep at his post.

[MrBill]

You heard wrong. Dan did not resign from the eagle committee, he was pushed out by someone who was jealous of his position and wanted his job. I know this from several sources, including Dan himself. He did resign from NAFA (or more correctly, refused to renew his dues) because of how he was treated. He told me today he is done with the skunk pissing in this thread - which is wise of him - so that is as far as I will take it here and now.

I did not mention Brian, why did you?

That is who I was referring to, but I refrain from dragging peoples name through the mud when they are not around to wipe it off. I did not disrespect him, what I stated is exactly what happened. There are a lot more things that I could say that I did not, things that are well known by those who know him and watched events unfold. As a side note, I think it is rather odd that you are implying that just because the guy is from the same state as me I should be looking up to him. That actually is precisely why I know the nature of that particular proverbial leopard's spots. Some I admire, more that I do not.

Also, dont begin to put words in my mouth. I did not say that he was a dismal failure on the eagle committee. I actually have no idea what, if anything, he did with his position on that committee. I expressed some harsh criticism over the lack of action in keeping eagle take open, but that is a fact based statement. On that particular point, he was asleep at his post.

Well, good, then I can have the last say. These damn skunks anyway.

Whether you mentioned Brian's name or not, you drug him through the mud. It isn't as if many of us didn't know who you were talking about. And, if "there was a guy who liked to think of himself as an eagle falconer and liked to think he was a significant contributor to eagle falconry that leveraged Dan off the eagle committee and got himself installed as the chair of the eagle committee instead, and under the watch of this guy, eagle falconry trapping was shut down without any effort at all to counter it" is not disrespect, and a statement of "dismal failure," then I don't know what is. And, you are right, he is not here to defend himself. At least Dan is, although "silence is golden," particularly under some circumstances. And please understand everyone, Dan has certainly disrespected me a few times over the years, both publicly and otherwise. What goes around, comes around.

The end.

Bill Boni

[FredFogg]

Now girls! LOL

[rkumetz]

And please understand everyone, Dan has certainly disrespected me a few times over the years, both publicly and otherwise. What goes around, comes around.

Bill. This is not intended as a criticism of you but as a bit of a helpful hints for success that we all might consider.

One thing that I noticed when I took over the helm of my fire department was that there were various groups of people who didn't like various other groups of people.
At times people would start not showing up if they knew certain people were there and we have even had people quit because of interpersonal issues.

The first thing I did was to lay out the big picture: We do not have to agree with each other nor do we need to actually like each other. We are here because we have a common goal to provide a critical service to the community. When we show up we need to check our egos at the door and keep that in mind. We can argue and sometimes it becomes heated but it is not in the interest of the organization to let it sink to that "you disrespected me" sort of stuff. That is the kind of stuff that you find in gangs of kids who have their pants hanging down off their asses doing drive by shootings.

Likewise we are all here because we are passionate about falconry. It is not about me, you, Dan, Bill or any one of us. If there are 100 falconers there will be at least 100 different opinions. The unique personality that makes us gravitate toward falconry also seems to also make us passionate about our opinions and often we (as a group) are not predisposed to having excellent people skills.

It is valuable to have these discussions about the past but keep in mind that it is the past and it does not have to impact the future.

I guess what I am saying here is that it is in the best interest of the sport we all love to try to not end up taking sides and allowing the opinions expressed by other falconers make us feel like we were personally attacked. There are not very many of us so we need to check our guns at the door.

[goshawkr]

Whether you mentioned Brian's name or not, you drug him through the mud. It isn't as if many of us didn't know who you were talking about.

I made some reference to him as an official representative of NAFA. Anyone who knew the lay of the land was welcome to connect those dots, but I did not drag his name through the mud. I pointedly left his name out of it.


And, if "there ..... it" is not disrespect, and a statement of "dismal failure," then I don't know what is.

Your words, not mine. Do not put that on me. Once again, I did not say he was a dismal failure. He might have been, but I did not say it. For all I know he did a lot of fantastic things while he was in the role. I really would not know, because most of the time he was chairing that committee I was refusing to participate in NAFA over issues that I had with the NAFA leadership. And during that time when I was not supporting NAFA, I just was not paying that close attention to the all of the little details of their business.

[MrBill]

Bill. This is not intended as a criticism of you but as a bit of a helpful hints for success that we all might consider.

One thing that I noticed when I took over the helm of my fire department was that there were various groups of people who didn't like various other groups of people.
At times people would start not showing up if they knew certain people were there and we have even had people quit because of interpersonal issues.

The first thing I did was to lay out the big picture: We do not have to agree with each other nor do we need to actually like each other. We are here because we have a common goal to provide a critical service to the community. When we show up we need to check our egos at the door and keep that in mind. We can argue and sometimes it becomes heated but it is not in the interest of the organization to let it sink to that "you disrespected me" sort of stuff. That is the kind of stuff that you find in gangs of kids who have their pants hanging down off their asses doing drive by shootings.

Likewise we are all here because we are passionate about falconry. It is not about me, you, Dan, Bill or any one of us. If there are 100 falconers there will be at least 100 different opinions. The unique personality that makes us gravitate toward falconry also seems to also make us passionate about our opinions and often we (as a group) are not predisposed to having excellent people skills.

It is valuable to have these discussions about the past but keep in mind that it is the past and it does not have to impact the future.

I guess what I am saying here is that it is in the best interest of the sport we all love to try to not end up taking sides and allowing the opinions expressed by other falconers make us feel like we were personally attacked. There are not very many of us so we need to check our guns at the door.

Ron,

Trust me, I know all about getting people to work together that have different opinions (some strong), and let us not forget the part that personalities and egos play in the grand scheme of things, as I spent 27 years in the Marine Corps, dealing with people from all different walks of life; and talk about egos--yikes, there were some whoppers in that environment. But, in the end, we always put the mission first, and came together for the sake of the mission and the Corps. But, we were on on the same playing field, just like the folks in your fire department; plus, we were dealing with each other eyeball to eyeball, not so on social media. So, the "big picture" you have described doesn't work well in this arena; it never has. But, thanks for your advice; most appreciated.

Bill Boni

[MrBill]

I made some reference to him as an official representative of NAFA. Anyone who knew the lay of the land was welcome to connect those dots, but I did not drag his name through the mud. I pointedly left his name out of it.



Your words, not mine. Do not put that on me. Once again, I did not say he was a dismal failure. He might have been, but I did not say it. For all I know he did a lot of fantastic things while he was in the role. I really would not know, because most of the time he was chairing that committee I was refusing to participate in NAFA over issues that I had with the NAFA leadership. And during that time when I was not supporting NAFA, I just was not paying that close attention to the all of the little details of their business.

Damn, Geoff, you said in your previous post that you were not going to take this discussion any further. I'm disappointed :-(

Bill Boni

[MrBill]

There's a person, I hesitate to call them a falconer, on Facebook who has an axe to grind with the evil empire, oh sorry, I mean NAFA. I thought in the spirit of open discussion I'd post his manifesto here. What do you all think?

P.S. I think he actually meant to write "severe", not sever, as in cut off.


8426

As you may recall, I was hoping that we would define what NAFA has accomplished over the years (which some of us tried to do) and see if any of NAFA's accomplishments conflicted with these transgressions that Paul posted. Thus far I don't see where any of the accomplishments we have mentioned conflicts at all with what this person evidently posted somewhere. I am not sure what this suggests. I am also not sure, (assuming we are, in fact, attempting to truly reveal the validity of these comments) if this is the proper way to go either, without that person being part of the discussion, as s/he could best explain the true meaning and intent behind these contentions.

Bill Boni

[rkumetz]

Ron,

Trust me, I know all about getting people to work together that have different opinions (some strong), and let us not forget the part that personalities and egos play in the grand scheme of things, as I spent 27 years in the Marine Corps, dealing with people from all different walks of life; and talk about egos--yikes, there were some whoppers in that environment. But, in the end, we always put the mission first, and came together for the sake of the mission and the Corps. But, we were on on the same playing field, just like the folks in your fire department; plus, we were dealing with each other eyeball to eyeball, not so on social media. So, the "big picture" you have described doesn't work well in this arena; it never has. But, thanks for your advice; most appreciated.

Bill Boni

I do recall you have mentioned your experience in the corps so I am sure you understand how the personality dynamics work.

As a small group with substantial detractors falconers have no choice but to rise above the behavior expected elsewhere on social media.
We can either stick together despite our differences or allow those differences to become fractures that will eventually allow those who
are not fond of what we do to exploit our inability to circle our wagons. I am sure that there are some falconers that disagree with me on
various issues and probably some (perhaps even many) who have decided they simply don't like me for one reason or another but I hope that
despite reaching those conclusions they have also realized I am willing to work with just about anyone when it comes to preserving what our
common interest.

[MrBill]

I do recall you have mentioned your experience in the corps so I am sure you understand how the personality dynamics work.

As a small group with substantial detractors falconers have no choice but to rise above the behavior expected elsewhere on social media.
We can either stick together despite our differences or allow those differences to become fractures that will eventually allow those who
are not fond of what we do to exploit our inability to circle our wagons. I am sure that there are some falconers that disagree with me on
various issues and probably some (perhaps even many) who have decided they simply don't like me for one reason or another but I hope that
despite reaching those conclusions they have also realized I am willing to work with just about anyone when it comes to preserving what our
common interest.

Ron,

Social media does not define us and, believe me, falconers will definitely circle the wagons if push comes to shove, just like we did during in the aftermath of Operation Falcon. However, I do agree that there may be people who don't like you because of things you have said, even though they may have never met you. I know of people who don't like me, whom I have never met, simply because of what I have said on social media that they did not appreciate, or something that they have only heard, which may or may not be true. But, Ron, that's life in the Big City. I know a falconer who has been around for many years and is very popular. He is popular--as I have told him--because he has always placed his true feelings about people close to the vest. So, if you want to be popular, just keep your mouth shut :-) and/or simply say good things about people, regardless of how you feel; it is as simple as that.

Blll Boni

[jdrmd]

I am not trying to make a statement just an observation. Do you notice the people that are posting on Ron's thread about dogs? Some members who have been on NAFEX much longer than I and its the first time I have seen them post.

It seems as though they are more interested in the art of falconry and lack interest in the bickering arguing political threads that occur here. Personally, I enjoying reading threads like this one, for multiple reasons, but most of my interest comes from observing human behavior.

[goshawkr]

Damn, Geoff, you said in your previous post that you were not going to take this discussion any further.

you should read what I said a little more carefully. I did not say that at all.

[MrBill]

Ron,

Social media does not define us

Ron, I just wanted to tell you (and others) that this statement I made was erroneous--social media (for better or worse) does define us. But there are numerous falconers, many of whom have been around a long time and are accomplished in their own right, who do not post here or the various falconry FB pages. There are, of course, reason(s) for them not doing this, but that is a topic for another day. What I was trying to say (and didn't) is that absent their valued input on social media, in addition to a complete absence of the volumes of has been written about falconry over the years, social media does not get anywhere near the full picture of what falconry is all about. Sorry about the misstatement.

Bill Boni

[JRedig]

In response to the original post, here are some thoughts on the items (i realize a lot of this has been covered):

1. Not true, we have non native raptors. Tons of them. Why would the North American falconers association be interested in non native raptors anyway? That is not relevant to continuing North American falconry, which at the core is about the wild take of raptors and pursuing quarry.

3. I’m not sure what sever is, but NAFA was heavily involved in the Reg change over, but as the below point shows, it was state issues and that is not their playground. It’s not a volunteer organization for national representation so that it can get involved at a state level with extremely limited resources. They were involved in the framework and rule making, that’s where the effort belongs. There were NAFA representatives following up with every state to help, but ultimately it was up to each state. NAFA wasn't going to do it for anyone, and they shouldn't. California was almost dead last, which is where the person who posted this list is from. Interesting that they would try and blame NAFA (which they are not a member) instead of getting involved at his state level to help?

2. & 4. Deal with falconry at state levels. NAFA is a federal organization, the states didn’t ask for help, why would they inject themselves when not asked? Not to mention in the alaska situation the very person he is blaming is the one responsible for us even having non-resident take in AK now.

5. Is merely opinion and conjecture from someone who isn’t in the organization. Plus what would that change??? What’s the up or the down side?

6. Failure to announce....hmmm announce what? Was there a press release from the feds that we now privately own our raptors? Given that when we take them, they are reduced to possession, we have always privately retained them. That’s not new! Same as when you catch a fish.

7. Actually we do vote for the president, by voting for our director initially. We have the ability to influence our directors and how they vote.

So it seems to me it is a list of unfounded opinions. Even if someone chooses to look at the world through cracked and broken lenses this list provides, they are also living in the very far past and at no point are trying to improve the situation. As has been said here, it's a volunteer group, rather than bitch, roll up your sleeves and get involved. Otherwise, don't waste everyone's time living on a stack of lies from the past.

[rkumetz]

Ron, I just wanted to tell you (and others) that this statement I made was erroneous--social media (for better or worse) does define us. But there are numerous falconers, many of whom have been around a long time and are accomplished in their own right, who do not post here or the various falconry FB pages. There are, of course, reason(s) for them not doing this, but that is a topic for another day. What I was trying to say (and didn't) is that absent their valued input on social media, in addition to a complete absence of the volumes of has been written about falconry over the years, social media does not get anywhere near the full picture of what falconry is all about. Sorry about the misstatement.

Bill Boni

Your original post was only missing a single but very important word: Social media does not define us ACCURATELY

[rkumetz]

So it seems to me it is a list of unfounded opinions. Even if someone chooses to look at the world through cracked and broken lenses this list provides, they are also living in the very far past and at no point are trying to improve the situation. As has been said here, it's a volunteer group, rather than bitch, roll up your sleeves and get involved. Otherwise, don't waste everyone's time living on a stack of lies from the past.

When I see crap like that (and I don't often because mainstream social media is a waste of my time) it makes me wonder what the 99.99% of people who don't actually know a falconer or have much of a clue what we are about think of us. What sort of an image do they have in their head as to what a falconer looks like? Rants like that most likely make the image of Ted Kaczynski pop into their heads.

[Captain Gizmo]

My best guess as to interpreting: "3. Sever failures in supporting --"
is: "3. Several failures in supporting--"

Retrogrades,
Thomas of the Dialectics

[JRedig]

And I figured it was severe.

[goshawkr]

I dont want to give the impression that I am trying to validate the comments that Paul posted. Despite seeing some merit in a few of the points he raised, I think the comments are best ignored.


1. Not true, we have non native raptors. Tons of them. Why would the North American falconers association be interested in non native raptors anyway? That is not relevant to continuing North American falconry, which at the core is about the wild take of raptors and pursuing quarry.

I think that is a very curious response. I wont rehash my earlier comments, but are you saying NAFA should not be representing the interests of NA falconers who want to work with non native raptors? Why not? There is a lot of interest from North American falconers in non native raptors for a variety of reasons. Prior to WBCA going in place, bringing them into the US was as simple as satsifying the CITIES concerns, if any, and arranging quarantine. NAFA was interested in non native raptors enough in the late 80s and very early 90s when the WBCA was being put in place to monitor it. Why not enough interest to fix it?

It is true, that birds can still be imported but the level of red tape is, in a word, ludicrous. I have been through the process. And all without any real valid reason. There really are not any raptor populations that fall in line with the WBCA goals - protecting wild bird populations throughout the world from illegal and corrupt legal trade to the US markets.

There has been enough interest to make it worth while for some of the breeders to go through that process, thankfully. Some of the birds being brought in are "native" anyway - aplomados, peregrines, gys, goshawks, European kestrels, and Harris' hawks have all been imported after the WBCA went in place.


There were NAFA representatives following up with every state to help, but ultimately it was up to each state. NAFA wasn't going to do it for anyone, and they shouldn't.

I was very actively involved with the reg change in my state, and I could not really say that NAFA was very helpful in the process. The "help" we received from NAFA was a two page letter that could best be described as a beginners guide to working state politics. No follow up, no offers to support us through the process through communication with our state. Maybe the guys who were helping the state had already been told that the Washington folks can handle it on their own, which was absolutely true. There is a good pool of politically saavy talent in the falconry community here, and we know quite well how to work both the legislative and regulatory process.


2. & 4. Deal with falconry at state levels. NAFA is a federal organization, the states didn’t ask for help, why would they inject themselves when not asked?

I do not see why you think issue 2 was a state issue that NAFA should not have been involved in. It was the US FWS that spearheaded that action, as I recall, as a way to justify the "jail" that they had built to house up to 9 raptors during enforcement seizures. Colorado state Fish and Game was involved, but they were just along for the ride. Regardless, it was pretty clear early on that this was a fishing expedition by the agencies involved. All of the citations were dropped within a year for lack of a case. I know for sure one of the seized hawks died in custody, and as I recall there were several of them if not all that died. That is not something NAFA should care about? The USFWS abused their power, rail roaded some falconers, and killed birds through neglecting to care for them properly. By your logic, should a state stay out of the case if some bonehead county Sheriff is persecuting people without cause?

I know this reads like I am coming down hard on your statement, but really, I am just trying to understand where you are coming from because I am honestly baffled by it.

Non resident take is, by its very nature, not a sate level issue. If the falconers in one state are being selfish with "their" falconry take, I cannot even begin to wrap my mind around why anyone can say with a straight face that the national organization needs to stay out of it until invited by the state. Now, that being said, I know you are correct with what you said about the individual being drug through the mud.

Apart from that, it is not legal for a state that offers take to its residents to discriminate against the residents of another state. There are clear cut supreme court decisions addressing that matter. NAFA should have been the first one to have been pushing on this, if possible with co-operation with the state residents but definately with respect for the effect on the state residents (something that other group still needs to get their head wrapped around).

[rkumetz]

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

[MrBill]

Hey, Geoff,

I've been meaning to say this for a while, and this is probably an opportune time to do so.

You bring a lot of relevant information to the table, and it is not just about falconry. You seem to be well-read on a number of topics. As I have mentioned to you before, you seem to want to focus on the weaknesses of peoples' considered opinions, and some folks might roll their eyes when they see one of your profound posts; regardless, what you have had to say has historically added depth to the discussions. Now, don't interpret this as me trying to make amends; you know me better than this. Plus, I don't want to ruin my image.

Bill

[Saluqi]

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

Ron,
Hopefully the bickering Bickersons will stop bickering soon, but given their name it's doubtful!

[BestBeagler]

I liked Paul's post on his experiences with NAFA. People tend to complain a lot about how an organization is lacking in whatever. You want to change something volunteer and do something about it. It's easy to complain harder to actually do something about it.

We all have opinions and here's mine, just because we have opinions it doesn't mean they are constructive or that we should always share them even when asked. I may have an opinion on NAFA, for example, and it may be a complaint, but if I'm not going to do anything about it does it really matter? Probably not, It just means that I feel some way about something but not willing enough to make a change so how useful is it?

So much of this is front porch old men on rocking chair talk. Nothing wrong with that though.

Guess those that are doing are doing. Thanks to those that volunteer their time to NAFA. I appreciate you giving your time for something you care about.