Decline in NAFA membership

[ericedw]

WRTC or AFC was not started by NAFA. NAFA wants that organization to disappear.

WRTC / AFC was started as a direct result of NAFA’s inaction/inability to represent North American falconers.

AFC clearly represents North American falconers. Just go to their website and you can see what they have done for us already, and remember this is a young organization. http://falconryconservancy.org/

Josh Halverson

I think they meant IAF was created by NAFA but it was not. In fact it took a while for NAFA to become a member. The UAE is a major supporter of IAF, probably more influential than NAFA, but I don't know a lot about the organization.

[CRAIG HENDEE]

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to reply to several of the posts in this thread, and hope that you can follow me.

Tom Smith can consider himself corrected. Even I was aware of the creation of the IAF back in the late 60's through personal correspondence with the first president of the IAF, Jack Mavrogordato, when I was a youth. Hal Webster tried to get some support for NAFA joining the organization because of his friendship with Jack in the early 70's, but got nowhere. NAFA joined 30 some years later (1999), and AFC (WRTC), the board realizing the importance of the IAF, joined as soon as we qualified as a full member, and remain so.

Dan must have some extremely good contacts in the Western European falconry community that he is not sharing with us. He is right on the money.

I don't know why Brad would say that he isn't sure if AFC represents US falconers. That is what AFC is all about. My phone number and email is readily available, as is that of Jim Ingram. I suggest that everyone join AFC as we as officers and a board are, and our agenda is membership driven, and I would think responsive to our members as officers and the board. We do not create a committee, talk about things, and do nothing. We act, to the benefit of all falconers, falconry, and the birds that we fly.

The world falconry community is more closely knit than most people would think. I wish that most of you could have gone to the Festival of Falconry and spent some time with our peers from other countries. Then we would not have had the thread about not letting other people handle your birds. If you have a falconry festival, then you need birds, although I know that some people wish that they had not handed over theirs to some of our people. That is a story for a closed thread, and was not totally addressed completely or properly, but nonetheless created too much heat.

Craig Hendee

[Saluqi]

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to reply to several of the posts in this thread, and hope that you can follow me.

Tom Smith can consider himself corrected. Even I was aware of the creation of the IAF back in the late 60's through personal correspondence with the first president of the IAF, Jack Mavrogordato, when I was a youth. Hal Webster tried to get some support for NAFA joining the organization because of his friendship with Jack in the early 70's, but got nowhere. NAFA joined 30 some years later (1999), and AFC (WRTC), the board realizing the importance of the IAF, joined as soon as we qualified as a full member, and remain so.

Dan must have some extremely good contacts in the Western European falconry community that he is not sharing with us. He is right on the money.

I don't know why Brad would say that he isn't sure if AFC represents US falconers. That is what AFC is all about. My phone number and email is readily available, as is that of Jim Ingram. I suggest that everyone join AFC as we as officers and a board are, and our agenda is membership driven, and I would think responsive to our members as officers and the board. We do not create a committee, talk about things, and do nothing. We act, to the benefit of all falconers, falconry, and the birds that we fly.

The world falconry community is more closely knit than most people would think. I wish that most of you could have gone to the Festival of Falconry and spent some time with our peers from other countries. Then we would not have had the thread about not letting other people handle your birds. If you have a falconry festival, then you need birds, although I know that some people wish that they had not handed over theirs to some of our people. That is a story for a closed thread, and was not totally addressed completely or properly, but nonetheless created too much heat.

Craig Hendee

Wow!

[wyodjm]

Dan:
I guess my problem is with people make actuation against some thing or someone not knowing the facts and then asking if someone can verify there position. Everyone should know the facts before casting the stone. It is sort of like saying that someone is a for example a rapist and it is put on the front page of the local newspaper, and later finding out this is not true then they put a retraction on the back page, the harm is done. How many Country's make up the IAF, they all get one vote. Don't for get to vote for DAL in the up coming election. How many times has our new President back paddles in the last few month. I guess we better be carefully this is getting political

Forgive me, but I disagree. I can see your point of view. I understand how sensitive this stuff is. But it will get buried so fast ............ and the sands of time will hide the tracks.

Some of this stuff needs to get out in the light, if for anything just to sanitize things a bit. There seems to be a caste system existing within NAFA and most people either don't care about it or are in denial. I haven't figured that out yet. It has me stumped a bit.

Perhaps Brad explained it best.

But I respect your opinion Ev. I'm sorry if I offended you.

Best,

[wyodjm]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't NAFA create IAF? Along with all the other orgnizations over the years that now look like the opponents of NAFA like the outfit formerly known as WRTC.


Tom Smith

I'm sorry, but that's not true. The IAF was organized in the early to mid 1960's. I'm not sure. Jack Mavrogordato was the IAF's first president.

I have a very close, family friend who knew Mavro and stayed with him in England.

Best,

[Tom Smith]

I stand corrected, Thanks.

Tom Smith

[wyodjm]

I stand corrected, Thanks.

Tom Smith

No problem Tom. My friend Daryl Peterson speaks very highly of you.

My best,

Dan

[Tom Smith]

No problem Tom. My friend Daryl Peterson speaks very highly of you.

My best,

Dan

Dan,

Yah, Daryl is a very bright and good guy.

Hmm, I knew Jack Mavrogordato mostly in 1966 and 67, we were pals at the '66 Nafa meet and continued to correspond for a couple of years afterward. He was the first president of IAF in 1968, IAF was created a little before that. Nafa was created, I think '61 or 2

I don't recall for sure but I think Jack was the president of the British Falconers Club just prior.

Not to argue with probably more learned persons but, I think I'm going to dig out my old hawk chalks and see just who did get it going. You guys have me curious now. I don't see where Jack being president proves Nafa didn't create or play a major role in the creation of IAF. Hal Webster, who I also knew, worshipped Jack Mavrogordato, that relationship in the creation of IAF may be linked. At the time Hal Webster was the Nafa. Everyone else was a sideshow.

Tom Smith

[Lowachi]

I hope this thread continues. Slowly but surely the reasons/problems/issues/bitches/piss & moans have come to the surface and the 'people' become aware of the issues. Whether they choose to act on the information is beside the point....maybe that is the point....Pardom me while I go back ^ check something...yep. I was right. Brad called it.. the balls in yer court...and the choses are that clear....and if yer staying in NAFA, and don't like it/it's direction, then the opportunity is here.... get the ballot outta the mailbox, corner, garbage, where ever, and vote for the change. It's at least a start.

[Lowachi]

gee, that sounded like a paid advertisement... sorry, it's late

[everetkhorton]

Forgive me, but I disagree. I can see your point of view. I understand how sensitive this stuff is. But it will get buried so fast ............ and the sands of time will hide the tracks.

Some of this stuff needs to get out in the light, if for anything just to sanitize things a bit. There seems to be a caste system existing within NAFA and most people either don't care about it or are in denial. I haven't figured that out yet. It has me stumped a bit.

Perhaps Brad explained it best.

But I respect your opinion Ev. I'm sorry if I offended you.

Best,

Dan:
No offense take, we all have the right to disagree. Why is everyone hiding the name of the person that there bird past away at the falconry fair. Isn't this something we should all know about. I just do not like seeing people beat up an organization when not know all the facts. There is not a organization in this world that every member is happy with.
We are all practice falconry as it is today because of NAFA. The AFC commented on item and they say they change the reg just because they made the comments. I am not sure if they did or not for that reason. JMO

[1goshawk]

Dan:
No offense take, we all have the right to disagree. Why is everyone hiding the name of the person that there bird past away at the falconry fair. Isn't this something we should all know about. I just do not like seeing people beat up an organization when not know all the facts. There is not a organization in this world that every member is happy with.
We are all practice falconry as it is today because of NAFA. The AFC commented on item and they say they change the reg just because they made the comments. I am not sure if they did or not for that reason. JMO

Ev, why else would they have changed the regs.

AFC spent a lot of time and money and it was spent for every falconer in the U.S.

[Migisi]

That is a story for a closed thread, and was not totally addressed completely or properly, but nonetheless created too much heat.

Craig Hendee

If it's a 'story for a closed thread', why bring it up in this one? If you feel it wasn't 'totally addressed completely or properly', start another one.

[jhausman]

If it's a 'story for a closed thread', why bring it up in this one? If you feel it wasn't 'totally addressed completely or properly', start another one.

Craig and all, the thread was closed as soon as the person in question's name was leaked. I was not the one who closed the thread (I don't have the power unless it is an AFC thread) but it comes down to this. If everyone wants to discuss the dead bird situation at the IAF meet. I agree, feel free to start another thread. If you all wish to know who the "person in question" is. Then it will HAVE to be circulated via Private Messaging and not in public view or the new thread will be closed.

Hope this helps.

Jason

[wyodjm]

Dan:
No offense take, we all have the right to disagree. Why is everyone hiding the name of the person that there bird past away at the falconry fair. Isn't this something we should all know about. I just do not like seeing people beat up an organization when not know all the facts. There is not a organization in this world that every member is happy with.
We are all practice falconry as it is today because of NAFA. The AFC commented on item and they say they change the reg just because they made the comments. I am not sure if they did or not for that reason. JMO

The point I was trying to make I guess is that certain people running for offices in NAFA, and now on the international scene, will do or say just about anything to get elected to these positions while the rest of us just watch it happen.

Sometimes it just amazes me.

[Saluqi]

Craig and all, the thread was closed as soon as the person in question's name was leaked. I was not the one who closed the thread (I don't have the power unless it is an AFC thread) but it comes down to this. If everyone wants to discuss the dead bird situation at the IAF meet. I agree, feel free to start another thread. If you all wish to know who the "person in question" is. Then it will HAVE to be circulated via Private Messaging and not in public view or the new thread will be closed.

Hope this helps.

Jason

You can start a new thread, but I'll probably close it down like I did the previous thread, so if you want to beat a dead bird, do it via PM's.

[Migisi]

WRTC or AFC was not started by NAFA. NAFA wants that organization to disappear.

WRTC / AFC was started as a direct result of NAFA’s inaction/inability to represent North American falconers.

I'm a WRTC founding member and first secretary. The org was originally formed to insure the continuation of legal take of wild raptors for US falconers - hence, its previous name Wild Raptor Take Conservancy. Those of us who are avid trappers and prefer wild-taken eyas or passage birds had seen wild take outlawed by anti forces in other countries. We feared this would happen in the US if we did not band together and actively oppose any and all proposed anti-trapping legislation at both the fed and state levels. This was the WRTC mission statement. WRTC was not formed in reaction or opposition to NAFA, but as an org with a specific purpose.

However, when NAFA failed to directly address some pending and important fed/state issues impacting falconry and its practioners, WRTC was compelled to become involved. This led to the expansion of WRTC's mission statement and the subsequent name change to AFC - American Falconry Conservancy.

My POV, from the low perch I sit on...

[1goshawk]

I'm a WRTC founding member and first secretary. The org was originally formed to insure the continuation of legal take of wild raptors for US falconers - hence, its previous name Wild Raptor Take Conservancy. Those of us who are avid trappers and prefer wild-taken eyas or passage birds had seen wild take outlawed by anti forces in other countries. We feared this would happen in the US if we did not band together and actively oppose any and all proposed anti-trapping legislation at both the fed and state levels. This was the WRTC mission statement. WRTC was not formed in reaction or opposition to NAFA, but as an org with a specific purpose.

However, when NAFA failed to directly address some pending and important fed/state issues impacting falconry and its practioners, WRTC was compelled to become involved - to defend/protect its own membership as well as the sport itself. This led to the expansion of WRTC's mission statement and the subsequent name change to AFC - American Falconry Conservancy.

My POV, from the low perch I sit on...


Can you define founding member. Does this mean you are one of the people who started the organization or does it just mean you were one of the first people that joined?

If NAFA was doing its job such as "actively oppose any and all proposed anti-trapping legislation at both the fed and state levels" then WRTC / AFC would not have been needed. But it is clear they were needed and that the AFC has been of great benefit to all falconers.

[FredFogg]

so if you want to beat a dead bird, do it via PM's.

Now that's a good one! LOL I guess pun was intended! :D

[Migisi]

one of the people who started the organization ?

Mike Beebe, Bill Murrin, and I discussed its formation several years before it came to be. I took on the Secretary position, Bill took the President's position, and Bob Herrick took Treasurer. Sadly, Mike died before the org was officially formed.


If NAFA was doing its job such as "actively oppose any and all proposed anti-trapping legislation at both the fed and state levels" then WRTC / AFC would not have been needed.

I've made that very point myself on occasion. But that wasn't the reason I became involved. Again, we had a specific passion and purpose. And that purpose was shared by most NAFA members (except certain breeders). NAFA and WRTC did not have an adversarial relationship then - nor should we now, IMO.


But it is clear they were needed and that the AFC has been of great benefit to all falconers.

As I see it, both orgs benefit all falconers. Each has its strong points and weaknesses. If both could work together towards a common goal, imagine what can be accomplished. That was my vision, anyway - altruistic and naive, to be sure.

[everetkhorton]

Ev, why else would they have changed the regs.

AFC spent a lot of time and money and it was spent for every falconer in the U.S.

Josh:
Are you tell me that the AFC is the only organization or party that commented on or about the Reg's

NAFA has spent a lot of time and money and it to was spent for every falconer in the U.S. They have been doing it the last 40 years.

[1goshawk]

The AFC commented on item and they say they change the reg just because they made the comments. I am not sure if they did or not for that reason. JMO[/quote]

Ev,

I was referring to what you said in the above quote.
You can look at the comments submitted by AFC and you can easily see that they had an effect on the final regulations.
Why don’t you find them and read them along with any that NAFA made and then read the Regulations. It is enlightening to say the least.

I was led to believe that you are a member of both of these organizations. You should know these answers and I believe you do. I have a feeling you are for one of them and not the other. Hmmmm… I wonder which one is which.

[Richard F, Hoyer]

Ev,
You mentioned, "We are all practice falconry as it is today because of NAFA." I understand your loyalty to NAFA having been a member myself since early 1962. I doubt if there is any knowledgeable falconer that doesn't recognize the contribution of NAFA -----in the past.

But I suggest one should make a distinction between what NAFA accomplished in the past with what has occurred within the organization in recent times. I simply cannot have loyalty to some of the current leadership that in my estimation, not only failed to exercise responsible judgment in the private property issue, but then exacerbated the conflict within the NAFA board last year and within the falconry community as a whole.

So the question becomes, how many bonehead screw-ups can one tolerate before they become fed-up with the status quo within NAFA?

I was far more willing last year to chalk it up to the fact that anyone can make a mistake. But more recently, upon learning of additional gaffs, such as the resolutions by Lance Christensen last June, and now this year, continuing down the same irresponsible path with the petition fiasco, I find it hard to simply excuse such behavior as 'normal' mistakes. It looks to me as if there is, and possibly has been, a pattern of such behavior in recent times. I suggest this explains the discontent that has been expressed by some current and former NAFA member on this forum.

This thread originally concerned the decline in NAFA membership which I suggest, is at least partly due to the manner in which recent leadership have performed or failed to perform. From the input I received last year about the origin of the WRTC and now with what has just been revealed in this thread, it is clear to me that the WRTC organization would never have taken root had recent NAFA leadership been paying attention to its membership and had their priorities in order.

Concerning your comment about the WRTC organization and any possible role it played in changes that occurred in recent Federal regs: When last year I conducted my search for the facts in the private property issue, I came across a number of communications where some NAFA members, including two or three current board members, admonished and belittled the WRTC leadership for hiring an attorney with expertise in the field of wildlife law. At the time, I was dumbfounded as it was crystal clear to me, that was the very thing the NAFA leadership SHOULD have done in order to determine the facts of the private property issue. Words cannot begin to describe my dissatisfaction with such narrow minded individuals.

With the manner in which Dan Cecchini and 6 board members adopted the flawed positions that no live wildlife (including falconry birds), never could or never should be recognized as private property, it is safe to say that NAFA was not originally instrumental in the USF&WS making a change in their position on that issue. I do not know what went on behind the scenes only that WRTC's attorney William Horn laid out one hell of a convincing legal brief (in the form of a letter) dealing with the issue of raptors being recognized as private property.

Best to you in the future.

Richard F. Hoyer

[everetkhorton]

Ev,
You mentioned, "We are all practice falconry as it is today because of NAFA." I understand your loyalty to NAFA having been a member myself since early 1962. I doubt if there is any knowledgeable falconer that doesn't recognize the contribution of NAFA -----in the past.

But I suggest one should make a distinction between what NAFA accomplished in the past with what has occurred within the organization in recent times. I simply cannot have loyalty to some of the current leadership that in my estimation, not only failed to exercise responsible judgment in the private property issue, but then exacerbated the conflict within the NAFA board last year and within the falconry community as a whole.

So the question becomes, how many bonehead screw-ups can one tolerate before they become fed-up with the status quo within NAFA?

I was far more willing last year to chalk it up to the fact that anyone can make a mistake. But more recently, upon learning of additional gaffs, such as the resolutions by Lance Christensen last June, and now this year, continuing down the same irresponsible path with the petition fiasco, I find it hard to simply excuse such behavior as 'normal' mistakes. It looks to me as if there is, and possibly has been, a pattern of such behavior in recent times. I suggest this explains the discontent that has been expressed by some current and former NAFA member on this forum.

This thread originally concerned the decline in NAFA membership which I suggest, is at least partly due to the manner in which recent leadership have performed or failed to perform. From the input I received last year about the origin of the WRTC and now with what has just been revealed in this thread, it is clear to me that the WRTC organization would never have taken root had recent NAFA leadership been paying attention to its membership and had their priorities in order.

Concerning your comment about the WRTC organization and any possible role it played in changes that occurred in recent Federal regs: When last year I conducted my search for the facts in the private property issue, I came across a number of communications where some NAFA members, including two or three current board members, admonished and belittled the WRTC leadership for hiring an attorney with expertise in the field of wildlife law. At the time, I was dumbfounded as it was crystal clear to me, that was the very thing the NAFA leadership SHOULD have done in order to determine the facts of the private property issue. Words cannot begin to describe my dissatisfaction with such narrow minded individuals.

With the manner in which Dan Cecchini and 6 board members adopted the flawed positions that no live wildlife (including falconry birds), never could or never should be recognized as private property, it is safe to say that NAFA was not originally instrumental in the USF&WS making a change in their position on that issue. I do not know what went on behind the scenes only that WRTC's attorney William Horn laid out one hell of a convincing legal brief (in the form of a letter) dealing with the issue of raptors being recognized as private property.

Best to you in the future.

Richard F. Hoyer

Richard:
Thanks for your comments, I have something for you to research. I hope all your facts will be backed up in writing. Has Private Ownership been tested in court yet? Not CB birds, birds taken from the wild. I joined the WRTC the first year because I believe in wild take, I could care less about CB birds. But that is just me. Now they have shifted there mission and goal, now wild take is not as importanted anymore I guess. Who know's.
I have been checking out some of there statement and found out they are not true, but this is not earth shaking, it is there view. But I am not going to quit just because of it. It is sort of like what goes on in Washington D.C. if we all left because we did not like what is going on there would not be many light on any more.

[Migisi]

I joined the WRTC the first year because I believe in wild take, I could care less about CB birds. But that is just me. Now they have shifted there mission and goal, now wild take is not as importanted anymore I guess. Who know's.

Berni butting in... Like you, I believe in wild take - passionately. And you know me, Ev - and know I prefer passagers to CBs any day. I sincerely believe there'd be no need for CBs if wild take was legal for any species everywhere. You could travel west and trap your HH, or north to trap your Gyr, or travel to Lake Michigan and trap your Peregrine, etc. Or you could take a wild eyas if you like them. And it wouldn't matter where you lived. Just like back in the old days, Ev - before everything got so darned convoluted. Maybe I'm just a dreamer, and it'll never happen. But if we do nothing, it certainly never will.

I admit I felt the same as you, Ev, when WRTC first veered off its stated purpose to address other issues. And I made my objections known to the Board, and wanted to know why. I listened to their reasons, and after doing some research on my own - I realized that WRTC was compelled to do so. IMO, NAFA had dropped the ball on items that I felt would directly impact my falconry - and yours too, Ev.


I have been checking out some of there statement and found out they are not true, but this is not earth shaking, it is there view.

Have you asked the AFC prez or a director for their rationale behind the statements you feel are untrue? I've never been ignored or criticized when I asked for an explanation on their position. You won't be either.


But I am not going to quit just because of it. ...

I'm glad. As you've repeatedly said regarding NAFA, you can't change anything if you quit. AFC needs your opinions, and they want your input (unlike NAFA).

[Richard F, Hoyer]

Recently, I happened to look at some back Hawk Chalk issues. On page 8 of the April 2008 issue, Dan Cecchini wrote about membership indicating there had been rumors about declining membership. He did mentioned that membership had been a little over 3000 at one time but then "--- it has been holding steady at 2,200 - 2,300 members since 2003."

That got me to thinking more about this issue. And since it had been almost a month since I contacted the NAFA Membership Secretary about the current NAFA membership, on July 20th, I sent another message to Pete Rodas seeking an update.

As of last month Mr. Rodas indicated that membership at the end of 2008 was 1971 and was at 1726 late last month when I contacted him. Note in a prior post, I believe I mistakenly cited June's membership at 1722.

The next day in the mail was the 2009 NAFA membership directory. I have not heard back from Mr. Rodas so decided to see what information I could extract from 2009 Membership directory. Since the deadline for including membership numbers probably has been the same over the years, a comparison could be made of the NAFA membership as contained
from such directories.

There are four main categories of membership as follows: Honorary Members, Affiliate Organizations, International Members, and North American Member. For the latter, I separated the number of members from Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. In compiling the information, it is likely that there are some duplications as in some directories, affiliate members are included in the main list of members. I tried separate such duplications but undoubtedly I missed some so the data below is not precise. However, it should give a reasonable means for making comparisons.

Below are the results I obtained from the membership directories as
of June of each year for the 6 year period from 2004 through 2009.

H. Mem. Af. Mem. In. Mem. Me. Mem. Ca. Mem. U.S Mem.

2004 11 46 200 7 59 1944
2005 16 46 174 5 63 2022
2006 12 50 184 6 59 2013
2007 12 49 162 6 59 2121
2008 12 35 120 3 53 1623
2009 12 41 89 7 57 1516

It can be noted that the past two years, there has been a rather sharp decline in both the International and U.S. membership numbers.

Richard F. Hoyer

[Tom Smith]

Below are the results I obtained from the membership directories as
of June of each year for the 6 year period from 2004 through 2009.

H. Mem. Af. Mem. In. Mem. Me. Mem. Ca. Mem. U.S Mem.

2004 11 46 200 7 59 1944
2005 16 46 174 5 63 2022
2006 12 50 184 6 59 2013
2007 12 49 162 6 59 2121
2008 12 35 120 3 53 1623
2009 12 41 89 7 57 1516

It can be noted that the past two years, there has been a rather sharp decline in both the International and U.S. membership numbers.

Richard F. Hoyer[/QUOTE]


Richard,
I would be interested in seeing numbers comparing each of those years with the numbers of falconers US, Canadian, and Mexican. Total falconers to club (not just NAFA) member falconers in ratio. Also the same numbers involving falconers that have quit falconry for various reasons including lack of interest. age or death. Just to supply a more complete picture. Thanks

Tom Smith

[everetkhorton]

Is is mandatory that your name be printed in the NAFA directory? I think it would be interesting to know IF there has been a drop in the State Clubs also.

[Richard F, Hoyer]

Tom,
Unfortunately, the manner in which the numbers appear in the table are not like they appeared on the computer or just before I submitted the table.

I have no idea how many licensed falconers may be in Mexico or Canada. I believe I mentioned in a prior post. top the best of my knowledge, about 10 - 11 years ago there were 3900 licensed falconers in the U.S. and as of last year (or the year before), there was about 4500 U.S. licenses falconers.

As can be seen, Dan Cecchini was correct in mentioning that NAFA membership was pretty flat from 2003 through 2007 although his figures of 2200 - 2300 were about 200 members / year too high as can be seen below for those years.

Any interpretation of the data can be pretty iffy. That being said, my best guess is that two major contributing factors led to the recent 2 year decline. The first factor is the mishandling of the private property issue by NAFA leadership. The other factor is the U.S. economy that has gone sour.

Now the numbers below are as of June of each year. The current recession didn't really hit until the second half of 2008. So I suggest that the huge drop of nearly 500 members between mid 2007 and mid 2008 was primarily due to the 'Private Property' debacle. If anyone still believe that Dan Cecchini and 6 of 10 board members didn't really botch that issue, I will flat out tell them they have their head in the sand.

The decline from mid 2008 to mid 2009 is likely due to a combination of poor economic conditions and again, the manner in which the NAFA leadership has behaved with respect to the Petition' issue and 'Private Property' issue. For the recent two year period of mid 2007 to mid 2009, NAFA membership has declined from 2121 to 1516, a drop of 605 members or a whopping 28.5%.

I could be all wet on my analysis so you be the judge. Others may have a different and more reasoned take on the issue of what caused the decline. I do know that if Lance Christensen wins another term as a NAFA director, NAFA will likely loose one more member.

Richard F. Hoyer.

[Tom Smith]

Tom,
Unfortunately, the manner in which the numbers appear in the table are not like they appeared on the computer or just before I submitted the table.

I have no idea how many licensed falconers may be in Mexico or Canada. I believe I mentioned in a prior post. top the best of my knowledge, about 10 - 11 years ago there were 3900 licensed falconers in the U.S. and as of last year (or the year before), there was about 4500 U.S. licenses falconers.

As can be seen, Dan Cecchini was correct in mentioning that NAFA membership was pretty flat from 2003 through 2007 although his figures of 2200 - 2300 were about 200 members / year too high as can be seen below for those years.

Any interpretation of the data can be pretty iffy. That being said, my best guess is that two major contributing factors led to the recent 2 year decline. The first factor is the mishandling of the private property issue by NAFA leadership. The other factor is the U.S. economy that has gone sour.

Now the numbers below are as of June of each year. The current recession didn't really hit until the second half of 2008. So I suggest that the huge drop of nearly 500 members between mid 2007 and mid 2008 was primarily due to the 'Private Property' debacle. If anyone still believe that Dan Cecchini and 6 of 10 board members didn't really botch that issue, I will flat out tell them they have their head in the sand.

The decline from mid 2008 to mid 2009 is likely due to a combination of poor economic conditions and again, the manner in which the NAFA leadership has behaved with respect to the Petition' issue and 'Private Property' issue. For the recent two year period of mid 2007 to mid 2009, NAFA membership has declined from 2121 to 1516, a drop of 605 members or a whopping 28.5%.

I could be all wet on my analysis so you be the judge. Others may have a different and more reasoned take on the issue of what caused the decline. I do know that if Lance Christensen wins another term as a NAFA director, NAFA will likely loose one more member.

Richard F. Hoyer.

Well without pursuing this much more with out researching it further and I can see it might be complicated to do unless one had access to federal permit lists which are supposed to be public. The 28% could be broken down something like 5% died 5% left the club disgruntled 5% forgot to pays their dues and so on.
Out of all the falconers I know a great many of them have never heard of "private property debacle" or at least never paid any attention to it. More falconers have dropped their membership because they were shorted a hawk chalk or expected it to be some sort of Playboy magazine for falconers than anything serious like the private property debacle. I myself for several years dropped my membership and I was disappointed that no one missed me, life just went on like I wasn't there and of course I wasn't. The only one sad about my absence was me, but then falconers are pretty self centered. I know one thing you got to stay in the boat if you want to row.

Tom Smith

[Peregrinus]

Tom:

You are quite right. A lot of people didn't, (and still don't) know about the private proerty issue. A lot of members don't know about the resolutions passed in agenda 8.3 of August 2008. A lot of members have no idea about how far the board was willing to go to thwart the will of the membership. The same people who had been crowing for years about the need for members to get involved turned around and accused any who held differing ideas of 'trying to take over NAFA'. That mantra was a canard from start to finish and the only reason it was used sucessfully was because hotheads on all sides muddied the issues.

You are also right about not being able to row if you're not on the boat. That boat was- and probably still is- heading in the wrong direction, and attempts to tack have failed. Therefore, many of us- enough to make a notable difference in membership numbers- just bailed.

Bridget




Well without pursuing this much more with out researching it further and I can see it might be complicated to do unless one had access to federal permit lists which are supposed to be public. The 28% could be broken down something like 5% died 5% left the club disgruntled 5% forgot to pays their dues and so on.
Out of all the falconers I know a great many of them have never heard of "private property debacle" or at least never paid any attention to it. More falconers have dropped their membership because they were shorted a hawk chalk or expected it to be some sort of Playboy magazine for falconers than anything serious like the private property debacle. I myself for several years dropped my membership and I was disappointed that no one missed me, life just went on like I wasn't there and of course I wasn't. The only one sad about my absence was me, but then falconers are pretty self centered. I know one thing you got to stay in the boat if you want to row.

Tom Smith

[Saluqi]

Below are the results I obtained from the membership directories as
of June of each year for the 6 year period from 2004 through 2009.

H. Mem. Af. Mem. In. Mem. Me. Mem. Ca. Mem. U.S Mem.

2004 11 46 200 7 59 1944
2005 16 46 174 5 63 2022
2006 12 50 184 6 59 2013
2007 12 49 162 6 59 2121
2008 12 35 120 3 53 1623
2009 12 41 89 7 57 1516

It can be noted that the past two years, there has been a rather sharp decline in both the International and U.S. membership numbers.

Richard F. Hoyer

Just a question here Richard, but don't the numbers provided in the membership directory reflect the previous year's membership? I was under the impression that the numbers in the '09 directory were actually the for '08?

[Eagle Owl]

Just a question here Richard, but don't the numbers provided in the membership directory reflect the previous year's membership? I was under the impression that the numbers in the '09 directory were actually the for '08?

Paul, the '09 membership directory are those members that are currently paid as of the time the directory went to print. I don't know the exact date the cut-off is, but it is not the 2008 membership.

[Migisi]

The decline from mid 2008 to mid 2009 is likely due to a combination of poor economic conditions and again, the manner in which the NAFA leadership has behaved with respect to the Petition' issue and 'Private Property' issue.

While I believe economics can be a reason for a decline in single memberships, economics didn't cause the longtime member club - the Great Lakes Falconers Association (one of the very first NAFA affiliates) - to officially dis-affiliate itself from NAFA in 2008. It was due to the latter reasons (among others).

[Roper]

ya and that makes for all kinds of stability the glfa has made themselves an island. divide and concore.. predation is simple , seperate one from the herd and we shall all eat tonight.

[bluejack]

I think that some folks are simply allolwing their membership to expire. SO that would be a slow bleed over the next few years.

[Richard F, Hoyer]

Tom,
At the time membership was holding at between 2000 - 2100, undoubtedly there was a steady percentage loss of members due to individuals dying. The same applies to individuals that forget to pay their dues on time. So during those years, new memberships balanced the loss of members that died or drooped out of NAFA for any of a large variety of reasons.

Consequently, attributing any part of the 28.5% loss to deaths, late dues, becoming inactive, etc. really doesn't explain anything as all of those factors were at play during the years when membership was holding steady. And I would ask, what is your explanation for the other 13.5% loss in membership that you overlooked?

I agree with you that many, if not most NAFA members were not, and still are not aware of details of what transpired during the controversies that enveloped NAFA the past couple of years. That is part of the short-comings of NAFA, the lack of information dissemination other than what the leadership wishes to spoon feed the membership. It would be my view Tom, that if all or almost all of the members knew the details of what transpired during the 'Private Property' and 'Petition' issues, the exodus would have been far greater.

Richard F. Hoyer

[Tom Smith]

I think that some folks are simply allolwing their membership to expire. SO that would be a slow bleed over the next few years.

I have to agree with that as historically speaking all the great falconry clubs of old have just faded into history. The Loo Hawking Club is the only one I can think of as I write this but there have been others. It was predicted long ago that the Nafa would follow suit at some point and now probably is that point no matter what the issues.

Tom Smith

[Saluqi]

Tom,
At the time membership was holding at between 2000 - 2100, undoubtedly there was a steady percentage loss of members due to individuals dying. The same applies to individuals that forget to pay their dues on time. So during those years, new memberships balanced the loss of members that died or drooped out of NAFA for any of a large variety of reasons.

Consequently, attributing any part of the 28.5% loss to deaths, late dues, becoming inactive, etc. really doesn't explain anything as all of those factors were at play during the years when membership was holding steady. And I would ask, what is your explanation for the other 13.5% loss in membership that you overlooked?

I agree with you that many, if not most NAFA members were not, and still are not aware of details of what transpired during the controversies that enveloped NAFA the past couple of years. That is part of the short-comings of NAFA, the lack of information dissemination other than what the leadership wishes to spoon feed the membership. It would be my view Tom, that if all or almost all of the members knew the details of what transpired during the 'Private Property' and 'Petition' issues, the exodus would have been far greater.

Richard F. Hoyer

Richard,

I appreciate all of your efforts in gathering information for this thread and posting it for all to read. Here we are 9 pages of posts down the road and what have we learned?

1) NAFA membership has been in decline for years
2) The internet has superseded NAFA, and all falconry organizations, in the dissemination of falconry related information
3) Recent actions by the NAFA board has accelerated the exodus for a few now former members
4) On a whole falconers are apathetic and happy with the status quo

I'm sure there are other points that I've missed, but so what? Are we beating a dead horse with this discussion? If people care about the internal workings of NAFA they won't quit, and they'll work to remedy the problems. If they don't care they'll just quit. Bottom line is if those who have left NAFA in the last year or so and have joined the AFC, then all is well - these are people who sought an alternative to NAFA. Likewise, if in the future all folks who quit NAFA join AFC then I'd say that falconers are an engaged group who give a crap about the future of the sport and are looking for a viable alternative to NAFA. On the other hand, what percentage of those leaving NAFA join AFC? Maybe that's a more pertinent question, then why are people leaving NAFA.

[Tom Smith]

Tom,
At the time membership was holding at between 2000 - 2100, undoubtedly there was a steady percentage loss of members due to individuals dying. The same applies to individuals that forget to pay their dues on time. So during those years, new memberships balanced the loss of members that died or drooped out of NAFA for any of a large variety of reasons.

Consequently, attributing any part of the 28.5% loss to deaths, late dues, becoming inactive, etc. really doesn't explain anything as all of those factors were at play during the years when membership was holding steady. And I would ask, what is your explanation for the other 13.5% loss in membership that you overlooked?

I agree with you that many, if not most NAFA members were not, and still are not aware of details of what transpired during the controversies that enveloped NAFA the past couple of years. That is part of the short-comings of NAFA, the lack of information dissemination other than what the leadership wishes to spoon feed the membership. It would be my view Tom, that if all or almost all of the members knew the details of what transpired during the 'Private Property' and 'Petition' issues, the exodus would have been far greater.

Richard F. Hoyer

The 13.5 % is in the "and so on' bracket, I was only using these figures as an example of what may have been a truer picture. In other words I don't think your figures prove anything. It is not viable proof of any particular mind set opposing club leadership, in other words your evidence needs some fortification, not that I don't agree you have a valid point of view.

Tom Smith

[CRAIG HENDEE]

The Great Lakes Falconers Association is the second oldest falconry organization in the US, formed after the Potomac club. It was the first club to join NAFA as an affiliate , and I believe, the only one to ever vote to leave NAFA. Our Great Lakes Falconers Association NAFA individual membership was at least 72 falconers prior to the corrupt activities surrounding the last NAFA election in regards to the nomination and election of our Great Lakes NAFA director, two important NAFA closed board issues sent to the NAFA board by GLFA not being addressed or even acknowledged, the Beebe and Webster petition debacle, private ownership issue, and other ignored issues of importance to our members. Several Great Lakes members brought the idea of disaffiliation to the officers and board of GLFA due to the actions or inaction of the NAFA board and officers. The board of GLFA voted to let the GLFA membership decide whether to remain an affiliate of NAFA or not, as per our bylaws. All of the votes either for or against disaffiliation came from NAFA members. In a fairly close vote, the membership voted to disaffiliate from NAFA. I do not know our present NAFA individual membership number among our GLFA membership, but I know that there are several, and also some who had paid yearly dues in advance who still are NAFA members.

The Great Lakes Falconers Association is an affiliate member of the American Falconry Conservancy. The AFC is, and has been responsive to issues or business brought to the officers and board of AFC by GLFA as a club and also individual members. That is the way a national organization should be, and I am proud to be a part of AFC as an individual and through the affiliation of GLFA.

Craig Hendee

[goshawkr]

Bridget,

I'd love to see you elaborate some - particularly about the resolutions you speak of.

I'd suggest that those who left NAFA in protest - like Bridget and I did - make sure that the NAFA leadership knows the exact reasons why you left. I wasnt a member of the AFC until the fiascos of the last year.

Geoff Hirschi
Seattle, Wa


Tom:

You are quite right. A lot of people didn't, (and still don't) know about the private proerty issue. A lot of members don't know about the resolutions passed in agenda 8.3 of August 2008. A lot of members have no idea about how far the board was willing to go to thwart the will of the membership. The same people who had been crowing for years about the need for members to get involved turned around and accused any who held differing ideas of 'trying to take over NAFA'. That mantra was a canard from start to finish and the only reason it was used sucessfully was because hotheads on all sides muddied the issues.

[FredFogg]

I am a member of both NAFA and the AFC as I want a say in every organization out there that may have a say in my falconry in the next 30 years (if I live that long). I do not plan on exiting either oganization as I believe you can't fix something if you aren't a part of it. Everyone can bitch and moan on the internet about all the things that NAFA and AFC do wrong, but you can't do a damn thing about it if you aren't a member of either. My personal opinion!

[everetkhorton]

I am a member of both NAFA and the AFC as I want a say in every organization out there that may have a say in my falconry in the next 30 years (if I live that long). I do not plan on exiting either oganization as I believe you can't fix something if you aren't a part of it. Everyone can bitch and moan on the internet about all the things that NAFA and AFC do wrong, but you can't do a damn thing about it if you aren't a member of either. My personal opinion!

Fred:
It maybe your personal opinion but it is a good oneclapp

[Migisi]

... but you can't do a damn thing about it if you aren't a member of either. My personal opinion!

An opinion I agree with too. I think it's great that falconers now have a choice. Prior to WRTC/AFC, we didn't. It was NAFA or nothing.

[Roper]

Paul and Fred i could not agree more.

[Tom Smith]

I got my nafa directory today and at first glance I noticed some members were listed that had husband wives and other family members that were also members. So I thought perhaps with these economic times that some members dropped out because other family were still members and could be part of the action and save some money.

In my youth only a couple of us around were members but my buddies lined up to read my latest hawk chalks, damned freeloaders, good falconers and friends though. Some are big mucky mucks now.

Tom Smith

[everetkhorton]

This is the 299 post on the decline of the NAFA membership and still now conclusion. I was thinking to myself, does it matter one way or the other. The people that do not like NAFA will keep telling people why. The people that like being NAFA member will say very little. We will all go on with our lives. As the man kissed the cow he said, "each man to his own taste".

[everetkhorton]

Sorry, 298 post on the decline of NAFA membership

[Tom Smith]

Sorry, 298 post on the decline of NAFA membership

Wow a chance to be 300 I can't pass it up. Tom Smith

[Lowachi]

Wow a chance to be 300 I can't pass it up. Tom Smith
301 here it goes.....ever the optimist, I have to keep paddling, as a voyaguer, I know a subtle turn of the paddle makes the turn....Ev, you of all asksed 'does it make a difference" to me,.. yes, to all the questions that my sons have asked.... yes...gotta say yes. The right people are out there! No personal agendas, no personal gain, do what the constituantnts demand regardless of personal desire. I know people like this and I know falconers like this willing to step and do. Acouple are running for DAL.. I haven't put the time in that Richard has, but I'm not blind either. I'm not sure where this is going, but I'm damn sure where I want to end up. I've been too many years the biker to NOT know divide and concure. In all my life no one I've ever met are more like bikers than falconers. Opinionated, pig headed, judgmental, tunnel visioned,slow to anger/quick to retribute, unmoving, loyal, devout, brothers with out doubt..but to what cause/does it matter... Give all to one...and in the end, ignore the whole... I'm sure I've offended a few who have given alot, accompished much for the many without desire for fame and fortune..they did it for falconryand they did it cause they could..
I got one paddle, and when that breaks , I'm gone, but as long as it holds,..... stroke on. JMPO
I'm outta here'
Rich Borquist

[Aquilachrys]

When a person joins an organization or association it is usually because that organization gives representation of his/her ideals or like mindedness. There is also the social aspect of just "belonging" to something or associating with others like oneself. The social aspect seems to vary from person to person, but often is secondary to the representation provided, especially in today's world of laws, courts and political rhetoric. If one feels like his/her ideals and interests are not represented in a fashion consistent with one's personal views then choosing to discontinue the membership or join another organization is logical. The math it seems would obviously indicate a trend. Right or wrong? who's to say what you think is better or worse than what I think? It is great that we can choose where we want to spend our nickel and waste our time. It will be interesting to see where the numbers gravitate.

[Migisi]

I got my nafa directory today and at first glance I noticed some members were listed that had husband wives and other family members that were also members. So I thought perhaps with these economic times that some members dropped out because other family were still members and could be part of the action and save some money.

Exactly, Tom. In my family, there are three falconers - husband, wife, daughter (actually four - add my brother-in-law). That's the reason I and many others had asked NAFA to adopt a "family" membership. (Who needs 3 Hawk Chalks and 3 Journals in one bathroom? ;) ) So, only one in our family is a member, and we share his pubs. The drawback is that we don't have membership privileges (like voting). I guess if our votes (input) mattered at all to NAFA, daughter and I would likely be members. But since it doesn't (and hasn't for years), we're not.

About numbers... while they might indicate a trend, I don't think numbers necessarily mean all that much. Most of us who've been actively involved in org management know that only a small number of members are do-ers. The rest are along for the ride. A large roster doesn't always imply power or influence. AFC's numbers are small, yet they've accomplished a lot (IMO).

[Saluqi]

About numbers... while they might indicate a trend, I don't think numbers necessarily mean all that much. Most of us who've been actively involved in org management know that only a small number of members are do-ers. There rest are along for the fun ride. A large roster doesn't always imply power or influence. AFC's numbers are small, yet they've accomplished a lot (IMO).

Berni, while I agree with you, I do believe that numbers can make a difference. Look at this way, if AFC presents an idea to a politician and NAFA presents a different idea to the same politician whose idea carries more clout? AFC with 100 members or NAFA with 1500 members?

[goshawkr]

Paul,

That actually depends on the merrit of the idea. Well - actually its more about how persistent the speaker is. A really persistent speaker can get some boneheaded notions to be seriously considered. Numbers behind the message are certainly a factor, but its not all about numbers.

Geoff Hirschi
Seattle, Wa


Berni, while I agree with you, I do believe that numbers can make a difference. Look at this way, if AFC presents an idea to a politician and NAFA presents a different idea to the same politician whose idea carries more clout? AFC with 100 members or NAFA with 1500 members?

[Ray Arquette]

Berni, while I agree with you, I do believe that numbers can make a difference. Look at this way, if AFC presents an idea to a politician and NAFA presents a different idea to the same politician whose idea carries more clout? AFC with 100 members or NAFA with 1500 members?

Good question Paul,

As far as membership numbers:
NAFA: "Please note that membership in NAFA is not limited to licensed falconers" that is from the NAFA website.
AFC: membership is only open to falconers

I am aware of the NAFA change in bylaws stating that for new members you have to be a licensed falconer to vote. However ever that only applies to new members after the change in bylaws. We only recently voted this into the bylaws and any NON falconer who was a member before the change in bylaws this summer has voting rights in NAFA and will continue to do so.

This does not change the fact that youl do not have to be a falconer to join NAFA.

Your question also depends on several other factors:
1.) Does the idea actually represent American falconers?
2.) The idea would actually have to be presented.
3.) You would need to have proper representation. AFC’s has acquired the best representation in William Horn. (Google him. You will be impressed)

Currently and since the inception of AFC the best place to put falocnry your money has been to the AFC legal fund. This is not an argument or a flippant statement. Any one who research’s this statement will find it to be true.

[Ray Arquette]

Currently and since the inception of AFC the best place to put falocnry your money has been to the AFC legal fund. This is not an argument or a flippant statement. Any one who research’s this statement will find it to be true.


Should read:
Currently and since the inception of AFC the best place to put your falconry money has been to the AFC legal fund. This is not an argument or a flippant statement. Any one who research’s this statement will find it to be true.

[goshawkr]

Fred,

Your basic logic is sound, and I am in agreement with you basically.

However, this is not a theory that will absolutely hold up. Take an organization with an entrenched and corrupt leadership that doesnt give a damn what the membership wants for example. Oh wait, we are talking about just such an organization. Nevermind.

Well, lets pretend we are talking about PeTA. PeTA is structured such that only 3 core members get any input on how the group is run. All those who contribute cash, and volonteer for that huge group - and just three people call the shots. Without assasinations, there is NO way to take over that group. Actually, I am stating to feel like we are talking about NAFA again.

Anyway - my basic point here is that sometimes the best way to handle an organization that you disagree with is by supporting that groups competion. I believe that NAFA is in exactly that position now. If NAFA changes its tune and listens to the membership because of a mass exodus I'll be back. But as long as NAFA refuses to represent me, I refuse to lend my name to its membership tally.


Geoff Hirschi
Seattle, Wa


I am a member of both NAFA and the AFC as I want a say in every organization out there that may have a say in my falconry in the next 30 years (if I live that long). I do not plan on exiting either oganization as I believe you can't fix something if you aren't a part of it. Everyone can bitch and moan on the internet about all the things that NAFA and AFC do wrong, but you can't do a damn thing about it if you aren't a member of either. My personal opinion!

[Leon Crumpler]

I have read all the post about NAFA membership decline and I wonder how many have made their feelings known to NAFA officers. It is never going to resolved either way on this forum and if you are a member of NAFA and like it so what and it goes the same for AFC. It almost sounds like most of you are trying to convience yourself that AFC is the place for you. My bet is on NAFA over the long haul. So, just keep beating this dead horse. It kind of reminds me of children playing and when things don't go their way they take their toys and go home.

The person that brought up the point that you don't have to be a falconer to be a member, that may be some of the decline in members, just a thought.

[Roper]

Geoff
I am tryin to figure out what you think you will gain by seperating yourself from an organization .
You throw out statements like" entrenched in currupt leadership" as if to say they have done no good at all and everything they have done is all covert and underhanded..
so instead of pointing fingers and pissen on everyone boots and tryin to tell them it raining ,
why dont you try to find a possitive solution.

[Migisi]

Berni, while I agree with you, I do believe that numbers can make a difference. Look at this way, if AFC presents an idea to a politician and NAFA presents a different idea to the same politician whose idea carries more clout? AFC with 100 members or NAFA with 1500 members?

Perhaps. Or not. Let's say (for example), AFC rallies its small but active membership, and 200 comments are sent to the politician supporting an idea. Now let's say NAFA tries to rally its big membership, and 200 send in remarks opposing the idea. Nobody's pile is higher.

That's where I was coming from earlier.

[FredFogg]

Fred,

Your basic logic is sound, and I am in agreement with you basically.

However, this is not a theory that will absolutely hold up. Take an organization with an entrenched and corrupt leadership that doesnt give a damn what the membership wants for example. Oh wait, we are talking about just such an organization. Nevermind.

Well, lets pretend we are talking about PeTA. PeTA is structured such that only 3 core members get any input on how the group is run. All those who contribute cash, and volonteer for that huge group - and just three people call the shots. Without assasinations, there is NO way to take over that group. Actually, I am stating to feel like we are talking about NAFA again.

Anyway - my basic point here is that sometimes the best way to handle an organization that you disagree with is by supporting that groups competion. I believe that NAFA is in exactly that position now. If NAFA changes its tune and listens to the membership because of a mass exodus I'll be back. But as long as NAFA refuses to represent me, I refuse to lend my name to its membership tally.

Geoff Hirschi
Seattle, Wa

Geoff,

Knowledge and Communication! That is the only thing that is going to change NAFA. If communication is improved to where all NAFA members that vote are informed of all that is going on and has gone on, then with that knowledge, the leadership should change. I truly believe the majority of falconers just don't know what is going on. How many are on NAFEX? Maybe a couple hundred, how many of that couple hundred even read these threads about what has happened and is happening with NAFA. Very few. The only way the votes will change is every single falconer has to know what is going on. Will it ever happen, I don't know? But I am not going to quit NAFA, stand around and complain about the problems and run and join every other organization that pops up just because I am pissed at the leadership in NAFA. I joined AFC because their first mission statement was all about wild take, which I am a HUGE supporter of. I think they have done some good things in the mean time. I will join any organization that I think will have a say and will help my falconry for the next 30 years and I will try and have a say in what those organizations decide. I know not everyone is like me (thank goodness), but from my point of view, I don't see any other option. I just don't quit when the going gets tough, I try and find solutions.

[Dirthawking]

Perhaps. Or not. Let's say (for example), AFC rallies its small but active membership, and 200 comments are sent to the politician supporting an idea. Now let's say NAFA tries to rally its big membership, and 200 send in remarks opposing the idea. Nobody's pile is higher.

That's where I was coming from earlier.

Actually, in that example the AFC would look better and have "the bigger pile". Smaller membership with more return from said members.

This example, in my opinion, is exactly what has been the problem with NAFA for years!

[Migisi]

Actually, in that example the AFC would look better and have "the bigger pile". Smaller membership with more return from said members.

Yes, one could look at it that way. I certainly do. But do the legislators/regulators know (or care) how big an org reallly is? As a rule, orgs don't submit their private membership rosters along with comments. When an org sends its official comment on an issue, it counts as one remark, no matter the org's size. If/When the membership gets involved and submits additional comments, that's when numbers have impact. The legislator/regulator needs to be able to cover his butt and say, "My decision is based on the majority of remarks I received." In this way, a small but active/vocal org can have more impact than a much larger apathetic org.

[Saluqi]

Yes, one could look at it that way. I certainly do. But do the legislators/regulators know (or care) how big an org reallly is? As a rule, orgs don't submit their private membership rosters along with comments. When an org sends its official comment on an issue, it counts as one remark, no matter the org's size. If/When the membership gets involved and submits additional comments, that's when numbers have impact. The legislator/regulator needs to be able to cover his butt and say, "My decision is based on the majority of remarks I received." In this way, a small but active/vocal org can have more impact than a much larger apathetic org.

So, can PETA than form a falconry organization, and with their basically unlimited resources deep six both NAFA and AFC in the legislative arena?

[goshawkr]

Yes, one could look at it that way. I certainly do. But do the legislators/regulators know (or care) how big an org reallly is? As a rule, orgs don't submit their private membership rosters along with comments. When an org sends its official comment on an issue, it counts as one remark, no matter the org's size.

It is a common practice for Orgs to present their comments as if they count for every one of the their members. Its a regular footnot in comments from Orgs to say "on behalf of our 3,000 members...blah blah blah"

Sometimes officals buy into this, sometimes they dont.

Washington State's game department would actually prefer to pretend no one existsed outside of a user groups organizations. They want to inerface witht he falconry club, NOT individual falconers, and quietly do their best to minimize the amount of input they have to digest from individual falconers without cutting the public out of the regluatory process.

Geoff Hirshi
Seattle, Wa

[Migisi]

So, can PETA than form a falconry organization, and with their basically unlimited resources deep six both NAFA and AFC in the legislative arena?

If they had a mind to, I imagine so. But it doesn't have to be PETA. Ask Ev how trapping/falconry regs are influenced by Audubon in Michigan.

[areal]

So, can PETA than form a falconry organization, and with their basically unlimited resources deep six both NAFA and AFC in the legislative arena?
I imagine they are perfectly entitled to do so and if anything a direct action like that might even earn them "some" respect.
Personally I think if they were to go down this track it would be a lot easier and far more effective for them to utilize some of the complacency and loopholes in some of the "bigger" clubs and get one of their representatives elected onto the board of one of the falconry clubs.

I cant see it being worth more right now than watching these forums and collecting out the juiciest propaganda the falconers themselves hand to them. Maybe in a few years when the popularity of forums declines a bit, it might be worth the effort involved in starting a fake falconry club but until then they just collect all those priceless "oopsy" posts we keep handing to them.

[FredFogg]

So, can PETA than form a falconry organization, and with their basically unlimited resources deep six both NAFA and AFC in the legislative arena?

How would any falconry organization have any clout if all of its members didn't have any type of falconry license? I know our legislators aren't the smartest bunch of folks, but all of the real falconry organizations could easily point this out to them.

I find it amazing that it has taken NAFA this long to finally change it so that only licensed falconers can vote (yeah, yeah, I know they are grandfathering in prior members to this year).

[everetkhorton]

How would any falconry organization have any clout if all of its members didn't have any type of falconry license? I know our legislators aren't the smartest bunch of folks, but all of the real falconry organizations could easily point this out to them.

I find it amazing that it has taken NAFA this long to finally change it so that only licensed falconers can vote (yeah, yeah, I know they are grandfathering in prior members to this year).

Fred:
I know you are aware that when the USF&WS opens a Reg for comments anyone can comment, they do not ask who you are or your interest. On a local level it is votes, lets take the Michigan, we have around 105 lic. falconers, let say have are Rep. the other half Dem. There is still only 105 vote total. Let take the Michigan Audubon Soc. I am not sure of this number but let say there is 25,000 members. Now if 10% respond to an issue, look at the difference in the amount of responses they get. They do not care about the issue, they care about votes, it is hard to balance between the two but I will tell you who will win. JMO #319 I think

[areal]

How would any falconry organization have any clout if all of its members didn't have any type of falconry license? I know our legislators aren't the smartest bunch of folks, but all of the real falconry organizations could easily point this out to them.

Fred, think about how American legislation works. Votes are bought through campaign contributions by lobby groups.
Occasionally right and wrong might come into it but for the most part the guy with the biggest chequebook can afford to buy the result he wants.

[Tom Smith]

How would any falconry organization have any clout if all of its members didn't have any type of falconry license? I know our legislators aren't the smartest bunch of folks, but all of the real falconry organizations could easily point this out to them.

I find it amazing that it has taken NAFA this long to finally change it so that only licensed falconers can vote (yeah, yeah, I know they are grandfathering in prior members to this year).

Actually this has has been a topic since I first got into the club in 1964. There have been some and some dropped and reinstated methods to insure the club is in fact populated by falconers and not some interloping radical fanaticals trying to do us under.

Some of the things that the membership get so schizoid about, with the leadership 'spoon feeding" us information are maybe defense schemes to maintain the integrity of the club. The leadership perhaps can better see the outside opponent groups and wish to walk softly but carry a big stick or am I giving them to much credit? JMO.

Tom Smith

[Tom Smith]

Fred, think about how American legislation works. Votes are bought through campaign contributions by lobby groups.
Occasionally right and wrong might come into it but for the most part the guy with the biggest chequebook can afford to buy the result he wants.

Actually Evan, If that were true falconry in the US would have been long gone by now. Compared to our richer stronger opponents we have done very well. On a legistalative level we have shown we can scrap with the best of them and win. Our most troublesome fights are with ourselves and it seems we are always sparring with each other, perhaps honing our skills.

Tom Smith

[Richard F, Hoyer]

Ev:
I have been busy with other 'stuff' and failed to respond to your post and questions of July 18th. Sorry for the delay.

In reference to birds (raptors) taken from the wild, you asked. "Has Private Ownership been tested in court yet?" I seriously doubt it. It wasn't until the end of last September / first of October that in a letter by USF&WS biologist Dr. George Allen, the agency semi-officially acknowledged that lawfully possessed raptors were privately owned. Consequently, it is very unlikely that any enforcement action or court case would have taken place since that time in which raptors were seized without reasonable cause.

I suggest that the enforcement branch of the USF&WS is now aware of the agency solicitor general's 'informal' opinion on the private property issue. Consequently, it would be my guess the enforcement branch would be less inclined to confiscate raptors without reasonable 'probable cause' whereas in some instances in the past, the issue of 'probably cause' seemed not to be much of a factor when they seized property such as raptors, computers, records, etc.

Also, I am not certain why you restricted your question to raptors taken from the wild as it is my understanding that the initial stance by Dr. Allen was that all raptors, including captive bred, were considered as property of the government.

Richard F. Hoyer

[Migisi]

Our most troublesome fights are with ourselves and it seems we are always sparring with each other, perhaps honing our skills.

Honing our skills. Now that's an interesting concept. Never thought of it like that.

[Tom Smith]

Honing our skills. Now that's an interesting concept. Never thought of it like that.

Why else do you think outside the real world would falconers fight and argue over an issue they both agree on in the first place. We waste a lot of wordage and lipage if for no other reason than to practice for another arena, or so it seems, in my opinion.

Tom Smith

[Hawkmom]

Just got a NAFA email that they are looking for volunteer website designers for the 'NEW' NAFA website. I thought they had one ready to launch. What is going on here?

[areal]

Just got a NAFA email that they are looking for volunteer website designers for the 'NEW' NAFA website. I thought they had one ready to launch. What is going on here?
Note to the new site's architect. Dont use frames, search engines dont like them!!

[TexasFalconer]

ROFL!


Note to the new site's architect. Dont use frames, search engines dont like them!!

[FredFogg]

Note to the new site's architect. Dont use frames, search engines dont like them!!

Evan, I think when you are looking at websites, you have to look at if that website is even concerned about search engines finding it. Personally, I could care less if a search engine would bring up my website. Now if one was having paying advertisers on their website, it's a different story. Currently, NAFA doesn't have ads on their website, so the concern over a search engine is mute for them, I would think. Of course, that may change in the future for them.

[areal]

Fred I dont wish to get told off for turning this thread into geekspeak again but could I just ask what is the point of building a website if people cant find it.

Think about it from a different perspective. Frames came out with Netscape 2 or 3. Who's calling for continued support of the frames standard by the current browser vendors? Not netscape I can assure you!

In April I finished a website for a customer. Complicated CSS menu system written specifically for IE7 with legacy support for IE6 (Firefox doesnt seem to have any problems with it)
Guess what, it doesnt work in IE8 box2 You can guess how that's going down with the customer.
Imagine after how long this iteration of the website has been in development the new site stops working in 3 months time cause it was built using a technology from around 1996 ish that's been dropped from a new browser's support. Micro$oft just push updates out to PC's these days. The developer just has to try and keep up and hope they dont break something youre trying to get the job done for the customer. frus

[ericedw]

Just got a NAFA email that they are looking for volunteer website designers for the 'NEW' NAFA website. I thought they had one ready to launch. What is going on here?

Kitty, several things going on here. Our current webmaster/committee chair recently had a baby and wants to spend more time with family. We did manage to get the hosting out of a member's basement and get it onto a better host. A lot of the content/functionality has been moved to a new site but the board was not happy with the look of the site and voted not to launch it.

So, we're looking for some new talent.

[Flatwater Falconer]

I find it amazing that it has taken NAFA this long to finally change it so that only licensed falconers can vote (yeah, yeah, I know they are grandfathering in prior members to this year).

Fred - It was UP TO THE VOTING MEMBERSHIP to pass this amendment. No one else. If it took "this long" it was due to lack of response by membership; lack of interest; etc etc. This issue has been before the voting members 3 or 4 times in more than 5 years. It came up twice alone when Darryl Perkins was president.

I am glad it passed even though it did take forever.

[Hawkmom]

Donna, you are right. I've voted the same every time. To grandfather in current members and to require new voting members to be falconers. This issue was discussed when I was NAFA SE Director in the 80's.

[FredFogg]

Fred - It was UP TO THE VOTING MEMBERSHIP to pass this amendment. No one else. If it took "this long" it was due to lack of response by membership; lack of interest; etc etc. This issue has been before the voting members 3 or 4 times in more than 5 years. It came up twice alone when Darryl Perkins was president.

I am glad it passed even though it did take forever.

Donna, I would love to see the ratio of members in NAFA that are falconers and who are family members. I am guessing the reason it has never passed is there are a lot of families out there that have several family members that are not falconers, so of course, they are going to vote against it. As far as I am concerned, this vote should have been done only by permitted falconers. I would bet that it would have passed a long time ago if it had been done that way!

[FredFogg]

Fred I dont wish to get told off for turning this thread into geekspeak again but could I just ask what is the point of building a website if people cant find it.

Evan, the falconry community in the U.S. is small, maybe 4,000 and others that are interested in falconry aren't going to have any trouble finding the NAFA website, so without advertisers on there, there really is no need to worry about a search engine. You keep looking at it from a web builders perspective, which is understandable, but look at it from the tiny amount of folks that will actually be looking for the NAFA website. Not enough to worry about a search engine not finding it because of frames. And as you said, this is too geeking for this thread, but you really don't need frames to do a good website as you already know.

[Richard F, Hoyer]

Ev, others:
I have wondered if many individuals appreciate the value of the legal brief (letter) attorney William Horn sent to the USF&WS solicitor general. Lacking any other known reason for Dr. Allen admitting that falconry birds are private property, I suggest Mr. Horn's brief (letter) likely played a pivotal role. Dr. Allen's admission may likely influence the manner in which future USF&WS and state law enforcement actions proceed involving falconry matters, particularly with respect to any possible seizure of private property.

One thing I would like explained is why in 2007, the NAFA board supported the WRTC position on the 'private property' issue but then, about 6 - 8 months later, without any meaningful research into the issue, reversed themselves and took the opposite position? That is, what is the explanation as to why Dan Cecchini and 6 NAFA board members in
2008 took a stance against having falconry birds recognized as private property?

I can't understand how those 7 individuals (and others) could possibly believe that such a position was beneficial to falconry and in the best interests the individual falconer with respect to wildlife law enforcement.

Now a possible new development came to my attention. Someone on the OFA web site mentioned that NAFA's 2009 ethic's policy states, "NAFA is a strong supporter of private ownership rights of falconry raptors." I haven't tried checking this out so do not know if this is correct. But if true, here we seemingly have yet another flip-flop in position.

Richard F. Hoyer

[wyodjm]

Hi Richard:

Good points.

I'd like to know why the NAFA Board voted in favor of and gave WRTC $5000 a couple of years ago, and then a year or so later, denied WRTC affiliate membership into NAFA. I'm still scratching my head over than flip-flop move.

Dan McCarron

[Richard F, Hoyer]

On July 23rd, I posted NAFA membership numbers as extracted from the annual membership directories. I didn't give yearly totals which from 2004 to 2009 were 2267, 2326, 2324, 2409, 1846, and 1722 respectively.

Just before posting that information, I had again asked NAFA Membership Pete Rodas if he had an update on membership for the month of July. Here is part of my message to Mr. Rodas which speaks for itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete,
"In thinking more about the issue, I get the sense that sometime after the first of the year, perhaps in March when the deadline for renewal are due (?), membership drops way off until individuals send in their late renewals. Correct me if I am wrong on my assessment. The reason I came to that conclusion is that you mentioned that at the end of 2008, membership was at 1971. But then in late June, membership was at 1726."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Rodas did answer my message and as I had suspected, membership is near it highest level at the end of each year and probably up to the following March just before the deadline for renewing membership. Consequently, membership would be at its lowest after the deadline for renewing membership has passed.

So the membership numbers represented at the time the directories are published are about 3 months beyond the lowest membership levels for the year. The point being that it can make a great deal of difference as to the time of year where one wishes to identify membership numbers. So the numbers mentioned above taken from the membership directories do not represent a complete picture. What they do show however, is a trend which I suggest is probably real.

Pete mentioned that taking into account a number of considerations, membership would probably reach about 1900 to 1950 level by the end of the year. If we were to have end of the year numbers for all of the prior years, I suggest they likely would depict a similar downward trend, steep between 2007 and 2008 and less so between 2008 to 2009.

Perhaps with the new board members elected last year along with hopefully new directors elected this year, some better judgment will prevail in comparison to what transpired the past couple of years.

Richard F. Hoyer

[Tom Smith]

Hi Richard:

Good points.

I'd like to know why the NAFA Board voted in favor of and gave WRTC $5000 a couple of years ago, and then a year or so later, denied WRTC affiliate membership into NAFA. I'm still scratching my head over than flip-flop move.

Dan McCarron

Maybe it was because WRTC took the money squandered it and didn't uphold their end of the bargain. That's what I heard. That would make me flip flop to.

Tom Smith

[bluejack]

Hi Tom,
I don't undrestand your statement. Didn't the WRTC do exactly what they said they were going to do, which was to get the USFW to publically acknowlege private ownership?

[Tom Smith]

Hi Tom,
I don't undrestand your statement. Didn't the WRTC do exactly what they said they were going to do, which was to get the USFW to publically acknowlege private ownership?

Hi Kieth,

I think so, but it is not what Nafa wanted them to do with it. So it looked like they took the left over money for whatever purpose they wished.

I think also WRTC didn't have anything to do with the acknowledgement even after Horn made his now legendary comments it was the USF&W lawyers that informed George Allen that they were operating with a misconception of the ownership issue.

I will let you guys continue to whip this overly dead horse to hamburger if you want. I'm not going back and dig out all the bits and pieces of evidence that I have seen.

Tom Smith

[bluejack]

People hear what they want to hear.

[Tom Smith]

People hear what they want to hear.

So true, but I would like to see a full accounting of that 5000 dollars if any is available, but I'm not overly excited about it. It water under the bridge.

T.S.

[wyodjm]

I will let you guys continue to whip this overly dead horse to hamburger if you want. I'm not going back and dig out all the bits and pieces of evidence that I have seen.

Tom Smith

Don't look at me. I'm about fried with this and a couple of other issues that have been discussed on here.

DM

[FredFogg]

So true, but I would like to see a full accounting of that 5000 dollars if any is available, but I'm not overly excited about it. It water under the bridge.

T.S.

But yet you brought it up! confusedd I am sure all of that $5,000 went to legal fees, although I have no proof. But as far as I am concerned, NAFA gave it to WRTC, what right does NAFA have to say exactly what every cent goes toward. You can make up all the excuses you want Tom over NAFA's flip flop on WRTC, but it is what it is, a few folks trying to use their power the way they see fit, not the way the membership sees fit!

[Ray Arquette]

Hi Kieth,

I will let you guys continue to whip this overly dead horse to hamburger if you want. I'm not going back and dig out all the bits and pieces of evidence that I have seen.

Tom Smith

Instead you will throw out invalid information offering it up as fact.

This seems to be a common occurrence for Tom Smith in the majority of his posts.

AFC has spent $27,970.62 between Jan 1st 2008 and July 27 2009 on legal fees securing the rights of falconers and pursuing regulations that benefit falconers.

All this money came from falconers donating directly to the AFC legal fund. The AFC legal fund is only used for legal fees.

This information is available from AFC. I was able to get this information by making a simple phone call to AFC. I specifically spoke with Craig Hendee AFC Vise President.

If you want to help out falconry directly donate to the AFC legal fund you can be assured that every dime will be spent on you.

[Chris L.]

On that note. I think all sides have spoken.

This thread is worn out

I will be closing it. Please do not start a rebuttle thread. All have said their peace