I was not aware that personal attacks were allowed in the Hawk Chalk. In fact, the policies of NAFA say that this will not be tolerated. Yet, in the August Hawk Chalk, John Swift clearly goes on a personal attack of Kent Carnie. In his "review" of Kent's book (after a review by Ron Clark had already been published in the previous Hawk Chalk and, therefore, I'm not sure why a second review was necessary) Mr. Swift makes numerous false statements. The most glaring is that he has given himself the title of "Curator Emeritus - The Archives of Falconry". I thought that when someone quits, walks out suddenly, abandons their job as Mr. Swift did, they are not given any honorary titles such as Curator Emeritus. In fact, I asked the Archives if Mr. Swift had indeed been given this title (which requires board approval) and they replied 'no'! What kind of person would give himself a title that he has not earned? What kind of person would lie about something like that? Did Mr. Swift think nobody would notice?
Mr. Swift has, by attacking Kent Carnie and by making false claims, revealed to the falconry community the true nature of his character and how desperate he is for personal acclaim. He did actually do the Archives of Falconry a big favor, he quit. For me, I am very disappointed in NAFA and, in particular, the Hawk Chalk editor Kenn Filkins, who allowed this to be published and I would like to know why, what was the point? Does he not read the articles that are to be published, and shouldn't he be aware that personal attacks are not allowed by NAFA, or does he not care? This is totally unacceptable and I, for one, think that NAFA owes Kent Carnie an apology.