Quote Originally Posted by Tanner View Post
This lawsuit threatens the future of legal wild raptor take for falconry. Period. NAFA did a great job addressing that with the amicus curiae -the extent to which raptors held under a falconry permit may be used in commercial and other activities. The NAFA brief basically says that falconry is falconry, ultimately a hunting sport – not a smorgasbord of activities including using raptors in commercials and movies, doing hawk walks/bird shows/renaissance fairs for profit….and all the other horse shit you see passed off as “falconry” in Europe, for example.

The AFC members on this forum claim infringement of free speech without stating truthfully that what that claim is really about is that Scott Timmons (and others) want to use raptors held on falconry permits to make money in the film/advertising industry and other commercial pursuits. Are you all going to own up to that? How does that constitute falconry?

If people want to do that – have at it. But fight for your own set of regulations to govern those activities. Those activities are not falconry and are not under the purview of a falconry permit!

AFC claims to be interested in preserving wild raptor take…that must be a joke considering the implications of this lawsuit. The fact is that AFC is bastardizing the definition of falconry (and therefore what activities are covered under a falconry permit).

The proof is in the pudding:

“Falconry is the taking [of] wild quarry in its natural state with a trained raptor.” And “.....falconry does not include the keeping of birds of prey as pets or prestige items, for captive-breeding purposes, for rehabilitation or education purposes, for shows, renaissance fairs and the like, or for purely scientific purposes.”

"Falconry is the art of housing, tending, training, flying, and hunting with birds of prey, such as falcons, hawks, and eagles."

No person should have their property searched without a warrant – that is a totally separate issue. However, it is not an issue that is worth losing wild take over. And that is not an issue that requires a new definition of what falconry is.
thanks Tanner. This is an important issue and I appreciate this perspective. The fact is this is a divide between the true interests of falconry, and those with other financial and political agendas. The politics behind the PLF and the AFC has its roots in the Wise Use Movement and other related anti-environmental movements that seek to challenge agency oversight over natural resources, and strengthen private control. That is why the PLF is doing this for free, and I personally dont appreciate the involvement of this ideological group and their meddling in falconry's future. Falconers have varying personal political beliefs, and some are just not going to see the light on this issue. The only thing we can hope is most of the readers here absorb the arguments and facts, research the PLF and their antagonistic relationship with wildlife conservation, and come to their own conclusion about what is best for falconry.