NAFA, the NRA and the USSA

It’s probably an understatement when I say I’m a bit burned out on falconry politics. :) With the exception of dropping out of NAFA for a couple of years, I rejoined and have been a member for over 30 years. I am a current member of both NAFA and the AFC. I’m also a member of the NRA and the USSA. I firmly believe in seeing falconry survive as a legitimate and legal field sport in the future.

For some time now I’ve wondered if it would be a good investment if NAFA became affiliate members of both the NRA and the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance. I’ve often wondered why NAFA never became more aligned and affiliated with the larger, national hunting advocacy groups. I’d be interested in hearing if people think if it would be a good time to perhaps think about it now.

Could NAFA benefit if it became an affiliate member of both the NRA and U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance? What would be the drawbacks if NAFA did become an affiliate member these larger and more powerful organizations? How much national political influence do you think NAFA will have in the next 10 years if it does stand alone?

What are your thoughts?

Personally, I would like to see NAFA become affiliated with the USSA but not NRA. I know NRA probably carries a bigger stick (pun inteneded) but I like to think of falconry as a sport but not a sport that is related to firearms. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against gun sports, I gun hunted my entire life until I discovered falconry, it gives me the type of hunting that I have always been looking for. But I think we need to keep the image of falconry as an outdoor sport and not use the NRA as a voice just because they are the largest organization out there. Just my humble opinion!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FredFogg

Personally, I would like to see NAFA become affiliated with the USSA but not NRA. I know NRA probably carries a bigger stick (pun inteneded) but I like to think of falconry as a sport but not a sport that is related to firearms. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against gun sports, I gun hunted my entire life until I discovered falconry, it gives me the type of hunting that I have always been looking for. But I think we need to keep the image of falconry as an outdoor sport and not use the NRA as a voice just because they are the largest organization out there. Just my humble opinion!

---

I understand. But the NRA just may also be the largest hunting advocacy organization in the world.

My pennies have become scarce...I have not paid dues in NAFA, MFA or NRA. But I have paid for USSA.

Greg

Even though it is smaller, I think that Gun Owners of America, is a better choice than the NRA. The NRA has gone weak Kneed and soft on protecting rights, and folks are beginning to realize it and bail out.

If you look at older (70's and early 80's) Hawk Chalks, you will see in the inside cover a statement like this: Afflliate of the National Rifle Association and the National Wildlife Federation. I don't know if NAFA still is afflliated with them. But the USSA is also good. I am also a member of the Florida Wildlife Federation, which SUPPORTED the take of peregrines in Florida. Audubon of Florida opposed a take. So my money went to those who support falconry.

Here is an article about the FWF: http://www.oxfordamerican.org/articl...s-greens-guns/

Which is larger, the hunting groups or the wildlife groups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkmom

If you look at older (70's and early 80's) Hawk Chalks, you will see in the inside cover a statement like this: Afflliate of the National Rifle Association and the National Wildlife Federation

---

Thanks Kitty. Very Good. I just saw that. I never realized that NAFA was an associate member organization of the NRA. I knew about the NWF though.

I'm not sure NAFA still is. I still think it would be a good idea. The USSA also.

Thank you again Kitty. I'm glad you caught that.

Best,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elinor

Which is larger, the hunting groups or the wildlife groups.

---

Wildlife groups by far....

Greg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GregMik

Wildlife groups by far....

Greg

---

Just the same, I for one would want to be alligned with the hunting groups. Falconry is a hunting sport. At least game hawking is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyodjm

Just the same, I for one would want to be alligned with the hunting groups. Falconry is a hunting sport. At least game hawking is.

---

Agreed!

Greg

Hunting groups by far, especially living in Montana,Idaho and Wyoming.

One might say that the shooting groups might view the, as they say, the "primitive" hunting groups as a threat to shooting as it offers the anti-shooting crowd an alternative to gun sports. Is it possible once the shooters are more familiar with the "primitives" that they would turn against us.

OR am I being to paranoid, I see the same type of paranoia among my gun nut (good) friends and their reasoning sometimes goes beyond rational logic.

One of them, a good friend of mine, said on seeing the no firearms while hawking clause in the old falconry regs that he would fight any law that forbade firearms for any reason. In other words he would fight against falconry in general because it favored a no shooting stance. Now in Idaho there is no mention, so far, of firearms in the new falconry law, some want it however or at least used to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Smith

One might say that the shooting groups might view the, as they say, the "primitive" hunting groups as a threat to shooting as it offers the anti-shooting crowd an alternative to gun sports. Is it possible once the shooters are more familiar with the "primitives" that they would turn against us.

OR am I being to paranoid, I see the same type of paranoia among my gun nut (good) friends and their reasoning sometimes goes beyond rational logic.

One of them, a good friend of mine, said on seeing the no firearms while hawking clause in the old falconry regs that he would fight any law that forbade firearms for any reason. In other words he would fight against falconry in general because it favored a no shooting stance. Now in Idaho there is no mention, so far, of firearms in the new falconry law, some want it however or at least used to.

---

Hi Tom:

I hope you're being a bit paranoid! :) It would be a shame if it were true.

Wyoming used to have the no firearm possession rule also. Maybe they still do, I’d have to look. The main reason for that here was because of the extended and liberal falconry season. I guess the state figured if you’re hunting with a hawk there was no reason to have a gun with you also, because gun hunting was closed. I saw it as a similar regulation comparing archery and gun hunting. For example, archery has its own early season where the carrying of a firearm is prohibited. And then there is a black powder season also.

You can explain to your friend that it wasn’t personal when the regulations were written excluding firearms. I look at those regulations more as a “choose your weapon” regulation. The taking of waterfowl, game birds, and small game with a hawk is just another form of weapon I reckon.

Best,

Dan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyodjm

The taking of waterfowl, game birds, and small game with a hawk is just another form of weapon I reckon.

Best,

Dan

---

That's precisely what got me into falconry. I had hunted with almost every other method and to me (this is still the case), falconry is graduate level hunting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyodjm

Hi Tom:

I hope you're being a bit paranoid! :) It would be a shame if it were true.

Wyoming used to have the no firearm possession rule also. Maybe they still do, I’d have to look. The main reason for that here was because of the extended and liberal falconry season. I guess the state figured if you’re hunting with a hawk there was no reason to have a gun with you also, because gun hunting was closed. I saw it as a similar regulation comparing archery and gun hunting. For example, archery has its own early season where the carrying of a firearm is prohibited. And then there is a black powder season also.

You can explain to your friend that it wasn’t personal when the regulations were written excluding firearms. I look at those regulations more as a “choose your weapon” regulation. The taking of waterfowl, game birds, and small game with a hawk is just another form of weapon I reckon.

Best,

Dan

---

Hi Dan,
In the old federal regs there was a mention of firearms. In the new ones they are not mentioned because they are falconry regs. The issue of permitted hunting methods for any given season or quarry can be addressed somewhere else keeping the whole issue of guns and falconry separate. In other words it is not necessary for the falconry laws to take sides in a firearms issue and thereby avoiding either side of the debate if you see what I'm saying.

If you would like to align with NRA it would be good if there was no mention of firearms in the falconry regs at all, in my opinion.

There is no need to explain anything to my friends now, and I wouldn't be brave enough to even try, because we have no mention of firearms in our falconry law. Which actually brings up another point, some falconers I knew were carrying sidearms illegally while hawking and why not since personal protection is a valid reason for carrying a side arm. A person busted for carrying that firearm could have his falconry permits revoked, so why risk it on a law that goes against ones constitutional rights in the first place?

People have the right to carry that gun but unfortunately falconers don't have a constitutional right to carry that hawk and that can be taken away from that falconer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Smith

Hi Dan,
In the old federal regs there was a mention of firearms. In the new ones they are not mentioned because they are falconry regs. The issue of permitted hunting methods for any given season or quarry can be addressed somewhere else keeping the whole issue of guns and falconry separate. In other words it is not necessary for the falconry laws to take sides in a firearms issue and thereby avoiding either side of the debate if you see what I'm saying.

If you would like to align with NRA it would be good if there was no mention of firearms in the falconry regs at all, in my opinion.

There is no need to explain anything to my friends now, and I wouldn't be brave enough to even try, because we have no mention of firearms in our falconry law. Which actually brings up another point, some falconers I knew were carrying sidearms illegally while hawking and why not since personal protection is a valid reason for carrying a side arm. A person busted for carrying that firearm could have his falconry permits revoked, so why risk it on a law that goes against ones constitutional rights in the first place?

People have the right to carry that gun but unfortunately falconers don't have a constitutional right to carry that hawk and that can be taken away from that falconer.

---

Hi Tom:

You're right. No argument from me. I never said some of our restrictions weren’t a bit goofy. I like guns and hawks.

Best,

Dan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Smith

Hi Dan,
In the old federal regs there was a mention of firearms. In the new ones they are not mentioned because they are falconry regs. The issue of permitted hunting methods for any given season or quarry can be addressed somewhere else keeping the whole issue of guns and falconry separate. In other words it is not necessary for the falconry laws to take sides in a firearms issue and thereby avoiding either side of the debate if you see what I'm saying.

If you would like to align with NRA it would be good if there was no mention of firearms in the falconry regs at all, in my opinion.

There is no need to explain anything to my friends now, and I wouldn't be brave enough to even try, because we have no mention of firearms in our falconry law. Which actually brings up another point, some falconers I knew were carrying sidearms illegally while hawking and why not since personal protection is a valid reason for carrying a side arm. A person busted for carrying that firearm could have his falconry permits revoked, so why risk it on a law that goes against ones constitutional rights in the first place?

People have the right to carry that gun but unfortunately falconers don't have a constitutional right to carry that hawk and that can be taken away from that falconer.

---

Tom,

When you say there was mention of firearms in the old federal regs, how far back do you mean? There hasnt been mention of firearms federally since I became a falconer in the early 90s.

When I was first licensed in Utah there was a state requirement against possesing a firearm while practicing falconry. I see the logic - "let keep those guys from cheating and killing stuff with a gun and prenteding the caught it with their hawk during the seasons when falconry is open and gun hunting is closed...." but its nuts.

Washington has never had that restriction, that I am aware of, and its a damn good thing. There are three incidents I know of where a falconer wase hunting in undevleped industrial areas and got into very dangerous situtations, and all three times the falconer had a concealed weapon permit and was packing. He never needed it, but it was good he had it.

My experience with the hunting community is that they welcome all supports in the fight against the anti-hunting activisim. They may, and often do, get snooty when it comes to fighting over who gets which share of the resources when setting season.

The problem with affiliating NAFA with those other organizations is that they have a tendency to pursue the issues of interest to the largest number of members. As we all know falconers represent a very small number of hunters and field sports enthusiasts. When falconers in Vermont were trying to get the sport legalized here they schmoozed all of the other field sports organizations and thought they had support. When the anti falconry crowd showed up and started rattling sabers the firearms / bowhunters and trappers all ran back in the fort and pretended they didn't know what this small handful of falconry nuts were talking about. It was not in their best interest to be involved in controversial issues which did not affect the vast majority of their members. I would bet that the same thing happens with NRA and other national organizations as well. They would sell us out in a heartbeat rather than face unnecessary controversy and negative media attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rkumetz

The problem with affiliating NAFA with those other organizations is that they have a tendency to pursue the issues of interest to the largest number of members. As we all know falconers represent a very small number of hunters and field sports enthusiasts. When falconers in Vermont were trying to get the sport legalized here they schmoozed all of the other field sports organizations and thought they had support. When the anti falconry crowd showed up and started rattling sabers the firearms / bowhunters and trappers all ran back in the fort and pretended they didn't know what this small handful of falconry nuts were talking about. It was not in their best interest to be involved in controversial issues which did not affect the vast majority of their members. I would bet that the same thing happens with NRA and other national organizations as well. They would sell us out in a heartbeat rather than face unnecessary controversy and negative media attention.

---

Hi Ron:

Your analogy illustrates a shocking similarity to the falconry community’s overall reaction to the eagle issue. People flying eagles are a small minority of falconers. It just doesn’t affect the overall majority. And that is within our own camp.

Even though I’m not arguing with you, it’s a sad commentary on the entire hunting community. We’re all going to have to get on the same page sooner or later. We’re going to have to. And I think the clock is ticking. What comes around goes around. I can see lion hunters who chase and tree cats with hounds and bear baiters as fairly vulnerable sportsmen in the future. And I would not be so quick to judge or condemn one form of hunting over another. We’re all in this together.

Agree 110% with the last 2 posts. Sad but true.

Remember this short but thought provoking item by Pastor Niemoller?
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.


This applies to us whether we want to acknowledge it or not. The anti-groups will first get the most vulnerable and then the will work their way up as there are less and less people to oppose them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rkumetz

Remember this short but thought provoking item by Pastor Niemoller?

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.


This applies to us whether we want to acknowledge it or not. The anti-groups will first get the most vulnerable and then the will work their way up as there are less and less people to oppose them.

---

I never have given a rat's petunia about the communists. I'm not missing the point. I get it.

It's a poor analogy, but I understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rkumetz

The problem with affiliating NAFA with those other organizations is that they have a tendency to pursue the issues of interest to the largest number of members. As we all know falconers represent a very small number of hunters and field sports enthusiasts. When falconers in Vermont were trying to get the sport legalized here they schmoozed all of the other field sports organizations and thought they had support. When the anti falconry crowd showed up and started rattling sabers the firearms / bowhunters and trappers all ran back in the fort and pretended they didn't know what this small handful of falconry nuts were talking about. It was not in their best interest to be involved in controversial issues which did not affect the vast majority of their members. I would bet that the same thing happens with NRA and other national organizations as well. They would sell us out in a heartbeat rather than face unnecessary controversy and negative media attention.

---

How extremely unfortunate.

The correct response in that situation would have been for the other hunters to realize that we all have common cause agains thte Animal Rights clowns. By dividing and hiding like that they greatly stengthened the position of their oposition. In fact, those groups that are opposed to hunting COUNT on the fact that hunters will not stick together, and take a divide and conqure strategy. Your states hunting communty danced to their tune. Pity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyodjm

I never have given a rat's petunia about the communists. I'm not missing the point. I get it.

It's a poor analogy, but I understand.

---

Dan.
I wasn't making the analogy for you. It is clear that YOU get it. It is the people who sit by and do nothing because things do not immediately affect them who need the harsh analogy. Though that analogy may be somewhat extreme the process is always similar. The minorities fall victim first and nobody pays attention until something important to them is threatened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyodjm

Hi Ron:

Your analogy illustrates a shocking similarity to the falconry community’s overall reaction to the eagle issue. People flying eagles are a small minority of falconers. It just doesn’t affect the overall majority. And that is within our own camp.

Even though I’m not arguing with you, it’s a sad commentary on the entire hunting community. We’re all going to have to get on the same page sooner or later. We’re going to have to. And I think the clock is ticking. What comes around goes around. I can see lion hunters who chase and tree cats with hounds and bear baiters as fairly vulnerable sportsmen in the future. And I would not be so quick to judge or condemn one form of hunting over another. We’re all in this together.

---

Your correct on all counts here Dan.

In Washington in 1996 the HSUS came after teh lion hunters and the bear baiters. The hunting community in our state was not very cohesive at that time, and those two hunting groups fell flat to the preassure. That was a big wake up call, as was the push against trapping that came 4 years later.

It would be inacurate to think that the hutners in this state gather around and sing Kum Bay ya together, but we do tightly flock up against the common threat.

I think affiliating with the NRA, USSA, and any and all other umbrella hunting groups is a great idea. Those groups, typically, are not stupid enough to cast their affiliate members interests under the bus. They get the big picture. Sure they compromise, but sometimes thats required to win the big game. Another good one to consider would be the Safari Club. They have great pull within the NRA, and independantly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elinor

Which is larger, the hunting groups or the wildlife groups.

---

Wildlife groups can be controversial (as it relates to Falconry) because they don't support hunting or outdoor sports.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rkumetz

Dan.
I wasn't making the analogy for you. It is clear that YOU get it. It is the people who sit by and do nothing because things do not immediately affect them who need the harsh analogy. Though that analogy may be somewhat extreme the process is always similar. The minorities fall victim first and nobody pays attention until something important to them is threatened.

---

Thumbs up Ron. I agree.

All my best,

Dan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michaelberan

Wildlife groups can be controversial (as it relates to Falconry) because they don't support hunting or outdoor sports.

---

Thats true, and each wildlife group should be looked at individually.

There are many conservation/wildlife groups that are very supportive of hunting. Some are very obvious because they are largely founded, funded and run by hunters like Quail Forever and the Ruffed Grouse Society. Others are not so obvious (sadly, I dont have any examples because I havnt researched this recently) because they are not hunting focused, but are still very supportive of sustanable take.

You also cant trust them to not change their proverbial stripes. Ducks Unlimited, for example, does some fine work in wildlife conservation. On the whole, they are an excellent group. But as the dollars they raised started to shift from being almost exclusively hunters to also including a lot of money from those who are not consumptive users, their support for hunting weakened. 11 years ago when washington was fighting a ban on trapping we contacted them for permission to use some of their data about the benifits to ground nesting birds from the trapping of ground predators. DU refused to let us use the data because they didnt want to offend their contributors who were against trapping and hunting.

Even some groups who used to be rabidly oppposed to hunting, like the Audobon Society (as a nation wide group, some local chapters may vary in their stance) are very supportive of sustainable hunting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goshawkr

Tom,

When you say there was mention of firearms in the old federal regs, how far back do you mean? There hasnt been mention of firearms federally since I became a falconer in the early 90s.

When I was first licensed in Utah there was a state requirement against possesing a firearm while practicing falconry. I see the logic - "let keep those guys from cheating and killing stuff with a gun and prenteding the caught it with their hawk during the seasons when falconry is open and gun hunting is closed...." but its nuts.

Washington has never had that restriction, that I am aware of, and its a damn good thing. There are three incidents I know of where a falconer wase hunting in undevleped industrial areas and got into very dangerous situtations, and all three times the falconer had a concealed weapon permit and was packing. He never needed it, but it was good he had it.

My experience with the hunting community is that they welcome all supports in the fight against the anti-hunting activisim. They may, and often do, get snooty when it comes to fighting over who gets which share of the resources when setting season.

---

Geoff,
I should have said "believed" there was some reference firearms in the old federal regs. To tell you the truth they are long forgotten as far as I'm concerned. On the state level we did get references to firearms removed from the state regs as they are not necessary in the falconry regs and where there is a restriction as to extended falconry season it can stipulated that taking of quarry in those seasons is by the method of falconry only, rather than bring the gun issue up in the wording.

I believe in the second amendment it says that, in my words, I don't have it in front of me now, that no law will be made that infringes on the right to have and bear arms. So that would tend to make falconry laws that infringe on your rights to have and bear arms invalid don't you think.

In Idaho it was a bit of a hard sell to remove those wordings out of the law and my biggest opponents to change the wording was the very same people that carried sidearms with them while hawking and taking a chance getting an unnecessary violation for doing so. Weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goshawkr

Thats true, and each wildlife group should be looked at individually.

There are many conservation/wildlife groups that are very supportive of hunting. Some are very obvious because they are largely founded, funded and run by hunters like Quail Forever and the Ruffed Grouse Society. Others are not so obvious (sadly, I dont have any examples because I havnt researched this recently) because they are not hunting focused, but are still very supportive of sustanable take.

You also cant trust them to not change their proverbial stripes. Ducks Unlimited, for example, does some fine work in wildlife conservation. On the whole, they are an excellent group. But as the dollars they raised started to shift from being almost exclusively hunters to also including a lot of money from those who are not consumptive users, their support for hunting weakened. 11 years ago when washington was fighting a ban on trapping we contacted them for permission to use some of their data about the benifits to ground nesting birds from the trapping of ground predators. DU refused to let us use the data because they didnt want to offend their contributors who were against trapping and hunting.

Even some groups who used to be rabidly oppposed to hunting, like the Audobon Society (as a nation wide group, some local chapters may vary in their stance) are very supportive of sustainable hunting.

---

Good post Geoff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Smith

Geoff,
I should have said "believed" there was some reference firearms in the old federal regs. To tell you the truth they are long forgotten as far as I'm concerned. On the state level we did get references to firearms removed from the state regs as they are not necessary in the falconry regs and where there is a restriction as to extended falconry season it can stipulated that taking of quarry in those seasons is by the method of falconry only, rather than bring the gun issue up in the wording.

I believe in the second amendment it says that, in my words, I don't have it in front of me now, that no law will be made that infringes on the right to have and bear arms. So that would tend to make falconry laws that infringe on your rights to have and bear arms invalid don't you think.

In Idaho it was a bit of a hard sell to remove those wordings out of the law and my biggest opponents to change the wording was the very same people that carried sidearms with them while hawking and taking a chance getting an unnecessary violation for doing so. Weird.

---

Hi Tom.

Its just very common for us to all think our rules apply to everyone. Something in our nature to think everyone should think like we do and have the same restrictions.

I agree with you about the conflict with the second amendment, and when I lived in Utah I contemplated the possiblities of argueing that rule on exactly those grounds. Funny, since I have never carried a firearm while practicing falconry (nest hunting asside) and never really had an urge to (I hunt in safer places than the friend I mentioned).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyodjm

Good post Geoff.

---

That means a lot coming from you Dan.

All the best...

Agreed on the Safari Club. They have gotten some traction over the years for hunting rights.