Thoughts on Manning, from a Behaviorism Perspective

[Dillon]

Okay, so here's a rough, unedited draft of some thoughts on manning I put together today. There are likely some grammatical errors and things that could be better-worded, but this is a start. I'm happy to start a dialogue with anyone who has any questions about this, as some concepts are complicated. For the sake of time, simplicity, and length, I haven't provided definitions for all of the jargon, so you'll have to google them if you're interested in learning more, or I can explain later on.

Cheers.


PHILOSOPHY

Most falconry literature mentions that occasionally—despite a falconer’s best efforts—individual birds will not work out for use in falconry. These birds never tame down, these authors contend, and will not respond to glove, lure, or even game without weight being cut to the bone. Many falconers also believe that the traits of a bird are largely inborn rather than learned or cultivated, and that there are a percentage of birds (especially wild eyasses that lack a pedigree) that are destined to fail due to genetic fate.
While there is no doubt that genetics do certainly play a role when it comes to gifted performers, a bird’s physical build, or an unusual level of natural tameness, I contend that with the right early interactions with the falconer, any tabula rasa raptor can be trained to take game, respond well in the field, and otherwise be well-adjusted in captivity. Even if the reader vehemently disagrees with this notion, it behooves him or her to not at least practice a working empiricist’s approach despite his misgivings, as the alternative effectively seals the fate of the falconers’ charge and suppresses the quest for novel approaches that might work where more orthodox approaches fail. It’s the old nature versus nurture argument, and to put it in a different perspective, consider the following: If your child was having difficulty with spelling or math, would you rather have his or her teacher adopt a “nature” approach—that is, the child is just not naturally gifted, so is not worth the effort of teaching—or the nurturing approach which contends that with the right approach, the child can not only learn these skills, but excel at them?
Granted, raising children and training falconry birds don’t exactly harbor the same gravity, but making the mental leap of the empiricist prevents the falconer from prematurely damning his charge. Why is it that a falconer who makes mistakes along the journey of raising an imprint is forced to publicly accept the consequences of mistakes during the raising process, yet those dealing with passagers or chamber-raised individuals are permitted to wantonly disregard potential mistakes or incongruent techniques, and instead place the blame on the animal?
Aside from exponentially increasing the chances that the bird will be successful, this philosophy also fosters an environment conducive to life-long learning, in which the falconer will only become more analytical, self-critical, and ultimately a more accomplished gamehawker.

OPERANT CONDITIONING

This is an important point: a falconer cannot “choose” whether or not to use operant conditioning; it is innate and omnipresent in every single minute of every single day of every single animal. Like gravity, its laws and theories hold true even if one doesn’t understand or accept it. To successfully fly a plane, it’s helpful to have a working knowledge on how gravity works, and to fly a hawk, it’s helpful to familiarize oneself with Behaviorism, respondent behavior (Operant Conditioning), and reflexive behavior (Classical Conditioning).

A Quick Overview of Traditional Training Methods From A Behaviorism Perspective

Traditional manning techniques rely on a combination of several passive conditioning techniques that fall under Classical Conditioning, simultaneously paired with respondent behavior conditioning. Early on, when the bird is first unhooded and the jesses are restrained, the falconer is relying on the effects of negative reinforcement. As the bird bates it is restrained by the jesses; the consequences of hanging upside down and the pressure on the legs (negative reinforcement) increases the likelihood of sitting on the glove. Think about the beeping alarm when a car is started and the seatbelt is not fastened: the beeping conditions the driver to buckle the seatbelt in order to remove the aversive stimulus of the beep. In the same manner, the hanging upside down and pressure on the legs is relieved as the bird regains the fist or is placed on the fist with the help of the falconer.
In conjunction with the negative reinforcement conditioning, the classical conditioning phenomenon known as short term habituation begins to take hold. Think of someone popping a balloon behind your back unexpectedly—at first, a reflexive startle response occurs, but if another balloon is popped shortly afterwards, the reflex no longer happens, or the response is weakened.
So, the negative reinforcement of the jesses increases the likelihood of the hawk remaining on the glove (or inversely, punishes bating and decreases the bating behavior), and short-term habituation places a temporary decrease in reflexive startle responses. What the falconer hopes to accomplish, if these effects do indeed occur, is to begin pairing positive reinforcement with the behavior of sitting on the glove in proximity to a human. This is called counterconditioning—a stimulus that once associated with an aversive (the human) becomes associated with a positive stimulus (food). Weight is dropped, which increases the value of the primary reinforce (food). More time is spent with the bird, either on the glove or on an indoor perch, and this solidifies the process of long-term habituation. The net gain of this is what we as falconers refer to as the degree in which the bird is manned.
The other traditional taming technique that falconers use is “waking.” A hawk is “waked” by different means, based on local tradition. In medieval Europe, a succession of handlers restrained the bird in shifts for three days or more, constantly exposing the hawk to unnerving stimuli and depriving it of sleep; in Pakistan and Afghanistan, hawks were casted, the tail wrapped, and were placed in cages in bustling coffee shops or marketplaces. These are attempts at flooding (response blocking), and there are tinges of learned helplessness that begin to creep in. Flooding can be thought of as an animal permanently becoming habituated to certain stimuli by exposing the hawk to inescapable aversive stimuli until it no longer elicits a response. That is, things that once elicited an escape-avoidance response now elicit no response at all. Keep in mind, however, that in learned helplessness and flooding experiments in the lab, most, but not all animals responded to such conditioning. This will be important later.
Most raptors eventually come around to these methods, but there are some potential pitfalls. These pitfalls don’t often cause major unwanted behavioral conditioning in the majority of birds, but they are, I believe, exactly what cause the more sensitive individuals to become maladapted to falconry.

UNEXPECTED PITFALLS ENCOUNTERED IN TRADITIONAL FALCONRY MANNING

The most important thing a falconer can learn about operant conditioning is that the use of aversives in training (negative reinforcement, punishment) tend to cause side effects. These negative side effects include increases escape-avoidance behavior, increased aggression, apathy, generalized fear, and much more. The science is there and proves this.
Next, remember short-term and long-term habituation? Animals tend to habituate to stimuli that are irrelevant or insignificant, for obvious evolutionary reasons. However, animals tend to sensitize to stimuli that are relevant or dangerous in some way. Think of a soldier that slowly becomes habituated to the constant sound of bombs and gunfire far in the distance. It makes sense for the brain to stop reacting to these relatively insignificant sounds. Now picture the soldier when an artillery shell explodes close by, or gunfire erupts in the vicinity—the response is immediate, serious, and for survival. The more times a soldier reacts to these immediate dangers and survives, the more ingrained the particular behavior becomes. By contrast, if a soldier habituated to nearby bombs and gunfire, they would be removed from the gene pool in short order.
Now, consider the soldier who returns home and is affected by Post Traumatic Stress (PTS). What occurs here is the sensitization response has generalized to similar stimuli. For instance, the slam of a car door can elicit a similar response to the behavior exhibited when a mortar exploded in the battlefield. Not all soldiers develop PTS.
Let’s relate all this to our hawks. Remember that animals tend to sensitize to stimuli that are relevant or dangerous? Well, to a wild hawk, what is more “relevant or dangerous” than being fettered to a giant predator, 100 times their size? The biggest mistake a falconer can make is to force a fat, wild hawk to sit on the glove in an attempt to habituate it to people. Even worse are those falconers who insist on manning hawks fresh off the trap outdoors or tether a new hawk to a bow perch. It doesn’t make much of a difference whether or not the hawk is bating itself silly, flaring its wings in “dragon mode,” or in shock and frozen to the perch—the falconer is still running a risk of sensitizing the hawk to humans.
One of the greatest falconry quotes I’ve ever read (I think it was Martin Hollinshead) was that “bating doesn’t make a hawk tamer, it makes it wilder.” This is a falconer who intuitively understands the potential of sensitizing his birds to him. In addition, rehearsing any behavior over and over tends to make it a habit (Guthrie’s Theory), and behavior that leads to survival during times of stress tends to be repeated. Picture our soldier responding to close explosions by hitting the deck and finding cover; if he survives, this it is likely this behavior will be repeated. In the exact same fashion, let’s picture a hawk that bates when the falconer approaches to pick it up from the perch, or a bird that bates and hangs upside down when it is being tethered. Because it survived this “relevant or dangerous” experience by rehearsing this behavior, it will likely become quickly conditioned. Picture our soldier who developed PTS, and imagine how easily fear, escape behaviors, and aggression can become generalized and more prevalent with hawks.
I’ve seen plenty of hawks that—even after years in captivity—still bate away from the falconer and the hood. I’ve seen plenty of hawks that have poor field control or won’t work with the falconer, even though they are very sharp. In my estimation, these are the hawks that don’t tend to become conditioned to learned helplessness or flooding phenomena, and are more likely to sensitize to their experience in captivity unless the utmost care is taken. Not surprisingly, there are a disproportionate number of prairie falcons, cooper’s hawks, and goshawks that don’t work out. Also, not surprisingly, these are the species that have been subjected to the more extreme manning techniques of flooding in stark contrast to the more congenial peregrines, merlins, Harris’ hawks, etc.

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS BASED ON REPETITION OF POSTIVE EXPERIENCES

Early in my falconry career, I would rack my brain trying to figure out what the best “recipe” was for anti-carrying conditioning, how to best train a hawk to hood, how to step off a kill—and—how to man a hawk. What I realize now is that there are no recipes—it’s all about minimizing negative experiences as much as possible and giving as much control to the hawk as possible, as early as possible. There is no way to force or coerce a hawk into becoming a falconer’s hunting partner; it must make that decision on its own. Building this relationship is where I believe the art in falconry truly lies, as a tame, well-adjusted bird chooses and appreciates living in captivity and hunting with the falconer. Below are some thoughts that drastically decrease the percentage of birds that won’t work out for falconry.
• Minimize bating and rehearsal of escape-avoidance behavior through the use of the hood, especially early on. When I first unhood a new passager, it is in a dim, quiet room with no commotion. Unfortunately, this tried and true advice of the masters of old has fallen to the wayside, and an increasing number of falconers are attempting to man their birds outside or with commotion right away.
The goal is to get the bird eating as soon as possible. The sooner it is eating, the quicker the counterconditioning process can occur. Distractions won’t help here. If the bird is repeatedly bating or shows no interest in eating, it is re-hooded. Feeding can be attempted again in a few hours with smaller birds or those trapped in thinner condition, or the next day with large, robust hawks.
• Once the bird is eating, use washed meat to increase the amount of positive time spent with the hawk without putting on weight. The lowest weight my hawks will ever be at is when they are first learning to jump to the glove and are flying the creance. This minimizes fear and minimizes any negative experience such as the bird flying off and checked on creance, bating, etc.

• Hawks should be kept hooded at all times except training until they begin hopping to the glove. After this, they can be tethered to an indoor perch (preferably off the ground), and offered tidbits/ stepped up throughout the day to condition them to the approach.

• No “manning” on the glove. Unless the bird is eating or being actively trained, it is never walked around bare-headed on the glove. This minimizes any bating that can occur and slants the relationship towards heavy association of positive experiences and minimal negative experiences. Habituation is achieved with the indoor perch.

• Make sure the hawk is 100% reliable stepping up indoors and is hopping to the glove outside before transitioning to the outdoor weathering. Transition to outdoors slowly.

• Make sure the bird is 100% reliable stepping up outdoors without bating before moving on to the creance.

• Make sure response to the lure is instant, and introduce the live lure (if that jells with your ethics). With passage falcons, I find it easier to introduce the live lure, then use a frozen pigeon or quail, and gradually move to a leather lure in time.

• Spend as little time on the creance as possible. This is the age of telemetry—it’s worth the risk. What this will do is minimize the chances of negative experiences associated with the inherent restraint. It will also allow the falconer to exploit the passager’s predisposition to fly wide and high the first few times it is free flown. Toss a bagged pigeon on the second free flight when the bird is a half mile out, and it will learn to eat up the sky without the kite.

• Finally, and most importantly, give the hawk as much countercontrol over its environment as possible. Modern behaviorists cite strong evidence that an animal’s innate desire to control its environment actually meets the criteria of a primary reinforcer (food, water, shelter, and sex). Abberant behavior, neurotic behavior, and depression in animals all stems from one cause: lack of control over one’s environment, or the perception of this.

The best way to get a wild hawk used to traffic, trains, people in the field, or anything else that might cause a nervous reaction is to give the bird power to escape. Don’t hold the jesses—even with food. Let go of the bird. Most often the fear response to strange stimuli is exacerbated by the fact that the bird knows that it cannot escape. Let go of the jesses and watch the confidence of the bird (and response to the glove and lure) grow.

[passagejack]

Great post Dillon!!! I especially like the last section. The strobe technique I and others have mentioned goes hand in hand with what you wrote. This thread should be a good one for all. Especially anyone new to the sport! Should get them off on the right foot. In the end all of this about whats best for the birds. I'll contribute more when my 4 year old daughter gives daddy a break LOL!

[Joby]

Interesting read!

[FredFogg]

Very interesting Dillon. Some of what you say, I have done the opposite and will try what you have said with my next bird.

Two questions:

1. "Transition to outdoors slowly". What are your steps for this?

2. "Finally, and most importantly, give the hawk as much countercontrol over its environment as possible". I am not sure what you are talking about here. Can you give examples or explain this in more detail?

[gratefool1]

I love this Dillon, thanks! Well written indeed.

[joekoz]

Dillon:

Thank you for taking the time to organize and share your thoughts on this subject.

I participate on this forum because I enjoy reading about falconry and what others have to share. That being said, as we all know, posts come in all sizes and flavors and offer a wide range in the value they offer to the reader.

From my perspective, I would rank this post in the top 1% of the posts I've read on this site.

Looking forward to following this thread and any future threads you might start.

[rcklmbr2586]

+2 on that! Great post!!!!

[Sthomas07]

Great postclapp

[Dillon]

Thanks for the positive feedback, guys! I'll try to follow up on this thread today during my lunch hour.

[bluejack]

Hi Dillon,
Great post! One of the few posts with real substance. Like Jeremy, I too appreciate your last section, very succienct. Thank you for putting into words the practices that have worked so well for me. I especially like the bit about griving the bird control of it's enviorment. I've seen how well birds settle down and begin to trust when they have the freedom to make choices. It opens the door for a deep bond to develop that goes beyond food.

[Ricky Ortiz]

Great Post!!!! makes me more excited for the upcoming trapping season. I to have seen where I have done the exact opposite in my manning/tranning of my my previous bird and have thought those were areas on where I needed to work on and you basically just spelled it out for me thanks alot for this thread!

[passagejack]

When manning a fresh bird I used to for years take the approach of cut the birds weight and wait for a certain desired respnce. This aproach always felt unnatural to me. One of the main reasons I hated manning birds. Just ask my good friend Big Jer LOL! I was then unknowingly moving towards these, IMO, much more progressive manning ideas. It was then fueled heavily by guys like Leyman and Al Ross.
Thought of taking a fresh trapped bird, raising its weight drasticaly was foreign at first but made sence very quickly. This helped to establish a new (low) weight that would be needed. Example: if a bird is trapped hog fat at 30 oz and is then given the traditional manning regimen of full exposure resulting in lots of bating its initial free flight weight may be 22 oz? This would mainly be due to snaping the birds weight hard enough to get the desired responce. However if the falconer takes the birds weight way up when first trapped, say to 33 ounces?,.....then takes the bird down slowly giving it ample time to adjust to its new life, we may find that the (low) weight needed for its first free flieght would be 25 oz? I trapped a passage female prairie this past december. She was trapped at 850 grms. I would consider her an average bird while manning. Not crazy but not a sweetheart either. One good thing was she loved to eat! Having 3 other birds at the time forced me to get a little sloppy (fast) in my training. I cut her down to 700 grms for the first few creance sessions. She did okay but having it only been 2 weeks since her trapping made for some wildness on her part. I then came to my senses and gave her to a good friend. He is a very experianced "ol timmer". He immediately took her weight up to 875 grms. Full crop every day. Lots of face time outside! Nothing fancy just feeding on the glove. He kept her there for 2 weeks then brought her down to 730 grms. She was a beast at this weight! Flew well and was sweet as pie on the kill from day one! Within 10 days of her first flight she was eating the sky up at 810 grams! This bird flew bigger then any bird I have seen 10 days off the creance. Most of the time she was a half mile out and up over a thousand pumping hard! Point is Al gave her the option (and time) to fly at a higher weight. He became friends with her par say and gave her little reason to not like him. Slow and easy was his approach. I can not buy into the line that most praiies beed to be flown on the edge? My tiercel from this year was the same as Al's female. From waht I saw of Hub's approach with his female its the same as Al's. Takem way up for the first week then down. Give them time to wrap there heads around there new life.
Giving the bird (control) has been my biggest tool while manning. After the initial first days of manning I have often let the my (smaller) birds, merlins and coops) loose in a room with no windows and just sat. The bird flys in panic then lands, all the while expecting us, the (preditor)to give chase? When we don't it starts to set a new way of thinking for them when it comes to the falconer. I then let them move about freely around me with no action on my part to move towards them. I may even have a fully plucked sparrow in my hands while sitting there. I would then set a tethered live sparrow in front of me for them to come to. I would tid bit them while they pluck and then slowly pick them up. Giving the bird the "option" goes a long way in manning. This approach can be done with larger birds as well. However I take a slightly different approach. Sorry for the typos! Doing this from my "dumb" phone is not easy :)

[Dillon]

Very interesting Dillon. Some of what you say, I have done the opposite and will try what you have said with my next bird.

Two questions:

1. "Transition to outdoors slowly". What are your steps for this?

2. "Finally, and most importantly, give the hawk as much countercontrol over its environment as possible". I am not sure what you are talking about here. Can you give examples or explain this in more detail?

Hi Fred,

To transition outdoors, I usually start weathering the bird hooded outdoors for a few days. Most hoods aren't completely light-tight, IMO, and the hawk can feel the breeze, sun, and hear (albeit muffled) the same things they will later. On the day I will tie them to the block in the weathering yard, I pick them up from the indoor perch (shelf, pole, or "taming box"), hood, weigh, and tether outside for 15-20 minutes, as has been the routine the bird knows. Then, instead of picking up for a formal training session, I pick the bird back up, while still tethered to the block, unhood, and hand a tidbit. Then I step them off to the perch, hand them another tidbit to get them focused on food instead of bating. At this point-- and this goes against the intuition of many-- I hand them a tyring like a quail wing or pigeon wing, and let them start picking at it on the perch. Then I hand another tidbit while they're working on the tyring. I walk away, let the bird tear at the tyring for a few minutes, then approach and tidbit again. This keeps the bird occupied the entire time. I end by stepping the bird up, hooding, doing the formal training session, and then it spends the night in the house again. The next day, I repeat this same process, but I leave the bird to its own devices for 15-20 minutes, then do some tidbit reps, step up, and fly. I gradually increase the time spent bareheaded until they are being weathered all day long outside.

A couple points I follow: First, I never start this process close to dusk or first thing in the morning. I find that in the morning the bird knows it has the entire day ahead of it and will be very batey. Near dusk they'll want to roost and will bate a lot. Best to do it an hour or two before dusk, and gradually increase the time to earlier in the day, if your schedule allows it. If the weather is warm, as it often is here in AZ, I also wet down the bird with a spray bottle-- this curtails bating, and the bird will dry (out here, anyway) by the time we're ready to train.

Second, I'm really particular on the setup of a weathering yard. I've found that the best setup is one where there is a solid back so that the hawk feels somewhat secure, and the sides and front open, with as wide of a view as possible. A more enclosed weathering can work well for some of the more wild birds (I've used shade cloth temporarily), but I've found most bating occurs because the bird wants to get out of the claustrophobic environment that many weathering yards are, or they're simple thrown to the fire and given no transition time. With a more calculated approach, as outlined above, I haven't had many issues. The main thing to avoid is scooping the bird up from the perch outside if it gets a bit wild. Worst case scenario if I really screwed up and overestimated the bird's confidence, which I've done before, I'll sit near the bird, as this seems to reduce bating, and try my best to crawl in with a big piece of juicy meat and step it from the perch that way. Usually, more time spent tidbitting on the perch or a tad bit more temporary weight reduction solves this right quick. Make the mistake of scooping a bird up while it's bating away just once or twice, and it's easy for this behavior to become ingrained.

2. Countercontrol. There have been many studies done with monkeys on this subject. In one study, a group of macaques were given food, water, toys, etc. on an ad-lib basis, for free. They were just thrown in the cage. The second group were trained to pull a rope in order to get these items. The second group of macaques were not only more active and displayed more signs of well-being, they were also far more resistant to developing a fear response of a wind-up toy monster that was introduced to both groups later on. Simply having the power in their environment to perform a behavior and earn consistent rewards gave them generalized confidence.

This isn't falconry, but it's a good example: I recently did a film project with some hawks in which they had to be trained to fly to me, harnessed in the back of a pickup truck going about 30 mph. Some approaches might be to feed the bird, get nearer and nearer, begin feeding the bird in the bed with the engine running, etc. You can imagine the steps thereafter. Rather than do that, I just performed repetitions flying to the glove for tidbits with me in the back of the truck and it already running. The birds would make a few passes over the glove at first, but then finally landed, ate the tidbit, and promptly took off. With each repetition, however, the flee response weakened. The birds were following the truck the very next day, happily sitting the glove with no anklets or equipment by their own volition. They simply new they had the power to escape if things got dangerous. Birds that are given this power early on seem to take life in stride and have a generalized confidence to everything new. Birds that are jessed and forced to be exposed to "scary" things tend to have just the opposite-- they have a generalized sensitization response and bate/ fly away from everything, from the stray dog in the field to the new hat the falconer just bought and wore for the first time.

More to come.

[JRedig]

I like this thread, it goes right along with what i've used on my current gos to make progress with what i've thought is a difficult bird in the past. A lot of this also parallel's what I used for my coops last fall.

Just a couple quick thoughts/short summaries:
-Don't mess with a new bird just because you have it. The bird should be worked with in sessions and when hungry. I've only ever attempted waking with 1 bird and didn't see the gains over avoiding negativity and short positive sessions. I've never been a fan of starvation, better to keep their metabolism going and rely on hunger not weight.

-The countercountrol is very powerful. This is probably the primary tool that has allowed me to make more and more progress with my gos. Approaching him until he becomes uncomfortable, CR or CR/tidbit and retreat gives him control of me. Almost totally removed his anxiety at approach within a couple days and proved to be an extremely useful tool for salvaging situations that were problematic/falling apart in the field. It's really important if you start using this to ALWAYS honor their cues and be conscious of them.

Edit: Layman has used the hawk whispering for a long time, that's what i'm doing. I see it as a form of the countercontrol that is extended to the falconer and flexible outside the mews.

[Dillon]

Great thoughts, as always, Jeremy.

One of the dividing lines between falconers is always weight control. What I respect about Jeremy and others here is their desire to fly their birds as heavy as possible. One of the biggest benefits of giving a falconry bird countercontrol (power over its environment) is that they can be flown at extremely high weights. This is simply because the falconer hasn't become a cue (discriminative stimulus) for punishment/ negative reinforcement. The bird hasn't had the jesses grabbed and hasn't been forced to do things, so those things don't weigh in in the bird's decision making process (a bit anthropomorphic, I know). When the falconer uses traditional training, the falconer often has to negate all of these negative experiences with more weight control. Hungrier birds are more prone to mantle, foot the falconer, scream, and they also won't have the muscle or energy that their heavier counterparts have. When the weight of these birds is increased, their field response goes down the toilet and they begin looking at the horizon, weighing other options.

One more thing I thought I'd add is that even though I've tried to explain some of the science behind these techniques, they're certainly not my ideas. The way I do things has been influenced largely by the writings of falconers like Ed Pitcher, Ken Tuttle, and Harry McElroy. Harry was using the free-flight system earlier than almost anyone, and there's no coincidence that he's had such success with difficult birds like cooper's hawks. The magic in his method is the inherent lack of restraint.

[wyodjm]

I'm liking this thread Dillon. You raise some interesting notions. Very little, if any of the skills I've learned as a falconer are of my own original thought. They were passed down to me from other falconers. Perhaps molded and shaped to fit my particular situation but, the ideas didn't start out as my own.

I am very interested in becoming as skilled as I possibly can be with passage golden eagles and goshawks. I've even entertained the possibilities with a passage prairie falcon. But I truly love passage eagles and goshawks.

To anyone who's been around a bit, none of this stuff is really rocket science. Someone long ago once told me that, with passage birds, you gently lead the bird on in a straight line. Positive reinforcement. You don't really change what you're doing with different passage birds, but you change the pace sometimes, being observant and sensitive to an individual bird's behavior during the manning process. This keeps you from getting stuck in a rut.

In the beginning, my passage birds live in the hood. The hood only comes off when I feed the bird on the fist. To be able do this more often, I feed multiple small meals on the fist at different times during the day. I don't give any casting during these times. Once a bird is comfortable feeding on the fist outside, I work on approach training while the bird is on the ground. I'm also becoming a fan of rope conditioning/training where the bird isn't on a creance but on a long rope that uses resistance. It's a great tool because the bird really doesn't know it's being restrained. At least not by you. It is a great tool for approach training passage birds.

The first few times out hawking a new passage bird, I feel as though I'm on top of the world and have achieved my goal when I bring the bird home with me at the end of the day! :)

And then there is the pair bonding relationship you build with a passage eagle as this whole process unfolds and develops.

[jal4470]

The way I like to transition to outdoors with my redtails is this:

When I think they are ready, I do a normal training session indoors, but when I pick them up the last time I hood them and take them to the mews/weathering area where they are free lofted. The next day I go in, wait for the bird to calm down and follow the same basic approach as when they were indoors, approach, tidbit, back away until they are comfortable with that, then step to the glove, then hop. they are free in the mews until they are flying the length of teh mews with good response. The trick here is it is tough to weigh them as I don't restrain them at all until I am ready to take them outside, you need to pay really close attention to what they are eating and how they are responding. My favorite thing about this routine is if I screw up and the bird is too high to behave, I turn around and walk away and try again after a little while. There is no need to collect the bird as she in already 'away' as it were. Provided previous steps of manning and training indoors were done well this works very well for me.

[MrBill]

Dan,

Don't you seel your birds? If so, Dillon, would that be considered the type of negativity that you are suggesting we avoid, or no???

Also, Dillon, would you please encapsulate the advantages of this approach over the traditional approach. Thanks.

Bill Boni

[Saluqi]

• Minimize bating and rehearsal of escape-avoidance behavior through the use of the hood, especially early on. When I first unhood a new passager, it is in a dim, quiet room with no commotion. Unfortunately, this tried and true advice of the masters of old has fallen to the wayside, and an increasing number of falconers are attempting to man their birds outside or with commotion right away.
The goal is to get the bird eating as soon as possible. The sooner it is eating, the quicker the counterconditioning process can occur. Distractions won’t help here. If the bird is repeatedly bating or shows no interest in eating, it is re-hooded. Feeding can be attempted again in a few hours with smaller birds or those trapped in thinner condition, or the next day with large, robust hawks.


My question is, why did this simple approach to manning fall out of favor here in the US? Is it because most folks start with redtails, and even if you man handle them you can still end up with an acceptable hunting partner? Or is because sponsors are ignorant, or don't give a crap? Or maybe because in order to do this, you need a proper fitting hood from the get go and most people wouldn't know a good fitting hood from bad? Look through the stacks of posts here on NAFEX of people with freshly trapped redtails, all unhooded leaning back, hackles up, mouths open and wings spread, it's almost too bad redtails are so forgiving, if they were a little more intolerant then I think people would be better falconers overall. My sponsor started out over 50 years ago with a Cooper's hawk, he's never flown a redtail, and he always starts a new bird in the dark. I'm not picking on anyone, if NAFEX were around when I started you would have seen my first redtail doing all of the things that I just described above. Live and learn...

[Dillon]

Dan,

Don't you seel your birds? If so, Dillon, would that be considered the type of negativity that you are suggesting we avoid, or no???

Also, Dillon, would you please encapsulate the advantages of this approach over the traditional approach. Thanks.

Bill Boni

Hi Bill,

I've never personally seeled a bird and like to avoid talking about it in a public forum because it's such a polarized topic. What I will say about it, however, is that I'm all for anything that minimizes negative experiences between the bird and the falconer, and seeling does this. Ed Pitcher sums it up pretty well in his book.

I'll try and give a more concise, pro vs. con follow up on the advantages of this approach tomorrow when I have a bit more time...

Thanks,

[sugezwolf]

Excellent post Dillon - thanks for sharing.

Gerry x

[wyodjm]

Dan,

Don't you seel your birds? If so, Dillon, would that be considered the type of negativity that you are suggesting we avoid, or no???

Bill Boni

Hi Bill:

Yes, I seel my passage birds. It's not negative. If it was, even in the least, I would have never kept doing it all these years. I'm sure you and I have had this discussion several times over the years.

However, if you would like to discuss it again privately I'd be happy to. But not here. I don't want to ruin Dillon's thread. I hope you understand.


Hi Bill,

I've never personally seeled a bird and like to avoid talking about it in a public forum because it's such a polarized topic. What I will say about it, however, is that I'm all for anything that minimizes negative experiences between the bird and the falconer, and seeling does this. Ed Pitcher sums it up pretty well in his book.

Thanks,

I agree on seeling being a polarized topic. In addition to Pitcher, Ken Riddle discusses it in his book also.

Best,

[MrBill]

>I've never personally seeled a bird and like to avoid talking about it in a public forum because it's such a polarized topic. What I will say about it, however, is that I'm all for anything that minimizes negative experiences between the bird and the falconer, and seeling does this. Ed Pitcher sums it up pretty well in his book.

Dillon, my comment was not directed at the process of seeling (to each their own). I was addressing it in relation to what you have written about the importance of non-negative experiences, particularly during the early stages; so, I do think the question has merit in terms of your well-defined position statement, but we'll let it go, as I am certainly not trying to provoke any sort of contest.

Dan, the only reason I used you as a launching pad for my question was because you said you "hood" your passage birds, and, of course, I know that what you really meant to say was "seel."

>I'll try and give a more concise, pro vs. con follow up on the advantages of this approach tomorrow when I have a bit more time...

Great! I would like to read them.

Bill Boni

[wyodjm]

Dan, the only reason I used you as a launching pad for my question was because you said you "hood" your passage birds, and, of course, I know that what you really meant to say was "seel."
Bill Boni


Hi Bill:

With all due respect, that is not what I really meant to say. I know exactly what I said. I do hood my passage birds. Seeling is only a brief part of the process. The whole thing is a process.

May I suggest you read the literature. I'd start with Pitcher's and Riddle's books.

All my best,

[Dirthawking]

My question is, why did this simple approach to manning fall out of favor here in the US? Is it because most folks start with redtails, and even if you man handle them you can still end up with an acceptable hunting partner? Or is because sponsors are ignorant, or don't give a crap? Or maybe because in order to do this, you need a proper fitting hood from the get go and most people wouldn't know a good fitting hood from bad? Look through the stacks of posts here on NAFEX of people with freshly trapped redtails, all unhooded leaning back, hackles up, mouths open and wings spread, it's almost too bad redtails are so forgiving, if they were a little more intolerant then I think people would be better falconers overall. My sponsor started out over 50 years ago with a Cooper's hawk, he's never flown a redtail, and he always starts a new bird in the dark. I'm not picking on anyone, if NAFEX were around when I started you would have seen my first redtail doing all of the things that I just described above. Live and learn...


My sponsor taught me the hood and darkened room until eating way. My first two birds were trained this way. Hooded on a perch inside for as long as it took the bird to start eating. Then the bird was still hooded but had a radio or tv on low 24/7 during manning and training. Never outside in the mews until hunting.

I will admit on my third bird I took the easy way and did the "flooding" approach. Everything at once, all at once. I personally did not like the results and will go back to the way I was taught.

[Joby]

Gary Brewer now uses a very similar approach when working with a new RT. He mentioned to me that he initially turns it loose in large mew and then brings food into it daily, placing it in the same location each day. He sits in there with the bird and it finally starts eating, usually quicker and quicker each day. Before too long the bird is waiting for his approach and will even come to the glove for it's food. Pretty amazing, really.

My question is how might one be able to use this with a CB HH and would it help to control the potential for creating a screamer? Or could it exacerbate (sp?) it?

[Dirthawking]

My question is how might one be able to use this with a CB HH and would it help to control the potential for creating a screamer? Or could it exacerbate (sp?) it?

I treated my HH no different really then I would a fresh trapped RT.

[Tom Smith]

My question is, why did this simple approach to manning fall out of favor here in the US? Is it because most folks start with redtails, and even if you man handle them you can still end up with an acceptable hunting partner? Or is because sponsors are ignorant, or don't give a crap? Or maybe because in order to do this, you need a proper fitting hood from the get go and most people wouldn't know a good fitting hood from bad? Look through the stacks of posts here on NAFEX of people with freshly trapped redtails, all unhooded leaning back, hackles up, mouths open and wings spread, it's almost too bad redtails are so forgiving, if they were a little more intolerant then I think people would be better falconers overall. My sponsor started out over 50 years ago with a Cooper's hawk, he's never flown a redtail, and he always starts a new bird in the dark. I'm not picking on anyone, if NAFEX were around when I started you would have seen my first redtail doing all of the things that I just described above. Live and learn...

Dillon's description of manning a passage falcon or goshawk is the method I have used with minor differences and I learned it from the old falconry books. It is also the reason I have stated with a lot of disagreement that red tails are not the best beginners bird as they tend to get the novice off on the wrong foot.
I'm a perfect example of that, having trapped and trained probably half dozen passage RT's before my first passage falcon. I was lost with her, but not all lost, I had to do some quick back studying. Luckily I didn't ruin her because I was keeping her hooded all the time except when working with her on the fist or coming to the lure. Fortunately I was doing the right thing as I came to learn with subsequent passage birds.
One thing from my experience with prairie falcons that kind of goes against tradition is they seem pretty anxious in a dimly lit room as opposed to other falcons that have been reported to be calmer. I think prairies may have learned that their biggest threats will come at night rather than in full daylight. I recently bought a strobe light but so far I haven't had call to try it, but I'm eager to check it out.

[Falconer54]

This is a very interesting post. There are some things on here I can try. I have had great success with the traditional way. However after reading some things here, I can see trying some other methods. One thing a lot of people do, is rush in full speed on your newly trapped bird. They have to believe they are going to die. They do remember your face. One can walk in on them slowly. They panic and struggle less. Some birds will stand up on a pigeon or the net and face you down. Usually as you get low and close, most fall over and watch, ready to foot you. First impression. I do believe one needs to be picky with passage Prairies. I do cut my down quickly and only handle them when they are hungry. The better they act, the sooner the hood is off more. I freefly most birds within two weeks, dropping their weight hard, but then raising it quickly also. I have raised some birds weight, and left the free in a room only approaching them while they were feeding until they wouldn't let me approach them closer. It took quite a bit longer to fly these birds. I do develop relationships with my birds, as I want them to be part of the team. Passage birds when cut very low get very nervous, and tend to resort to doing what will save their life. They do seem to calm down quite quicky once free flying. We fly birds for enjoyment, so if a bird is quite difficult and doesn't want to accept captivity, it is easier for all if that bird is put back in its natural environment. Like was pointed out, the birds respond better, have more open minds when they have active minds learning. Every training day, do something different. How does some of this training work with eyass? Most people get a chamber raised bird where the bird is netted or grabbed with gloves out of the chamber. I really need help with chamber raised birds. They are more difficult to me than passage birds. I hack my eyas, so no restraints for a long time. Do you do the same with Chamber raised birds as passage birds?

[JD Parker]

>It’s the old nature versus nurture argument, and to put it in a different perspective, consider the following: If your child was having difficulty with spelling or math, would you rather have his or her teacher adopt a “nature” approach—that is, the child is just not naturally gifted, so is not worth the effort of teaching—or the nurturing approach which contends that with the right approach, the child can not only learn these skills, but excel at them?

Dillon, this example is way too anthropomorphic. Of course we would prefer the nurturing approach, but there is a vast difference between a child having difficulty with spelling or math and a hawk trying to make sense out of captivity. And, as you know, having obviously read the nature versus nurture debate, the “nurture” in this argument refers to humans, specifically childern during the developmental stage. Again, we are talking apples and oranges.


Bill Boni

This is an apt analogy. There is a vast amount of factual, repeatable, empirical evidence concluding that we humans differ from one and other in our ability to do stuff. Everyone is familiar with the graphical representation of the range of human abilities in the form of a bell curve. In math (to use one of Dillon’s examples), about half of us perform at a below-average level. About half perform above average. Regardless of the “approach” employed in teaching children math, half of them will never achieve an “average” level of performance. Are we to believe that similar ability bell curves do not apply to individual members of species other than humans? I think not.

Now, I’m being kind of nit-picky here about what is probably a minor point in the discussion. But it leads up to this: I tend to think that Dillon might be nearly correct when he contends “…any … raptor can be trained to take game, respond well in the field, and otherwise be well-adjusted in captivity.” (Although I doubt such a contention could ever be proven and I will excuse, for now, the tabula rasa nonsense). But where does that level of performance fall on the bell curve of raptor-for-falconry ability?

For me, it falls well below the minimum level of acceptable performance. Am I then, as Dillon suggests, a less “accomplished” gamehawker because I “blame” and reject some birds? Am I missing out on some “life-long learning” because of a belief that some birds are not suited to be falconry companions?

I would argue that the excellent manning techniques detailed by Dillon in his OP will naturally occur to reasonably-minded falconers as they gain experience in terms of time and number of birds trained. Even if they do lean more toward the “nature” side of the biological scale.

Thanks to Dillon for starting this stimulating and thought-provoking topic.

[AxelFortWorth]

I really am enjoying this discussion. Thank you Dillon. I cannot wait to try some of it on my next PFRT.

Here is my question. What kind of different approaches are out there to get your hawk to make that first leap of faith and take the first bite?

I have only trained four birds so far, but I used the same technique each time. I have the hawk sit inside the house on his perch and present him/her with a juicy piece of meat.
One variable I changed was the size of the meat. I found that if I make it a bigger piece the hawk has a harder time to ignore it.
Another variable I guess was that I placed the meat on my fist while the bird was hooded. Once un-hooded I let him see it and go for it.

Any input on this will be appreciated. Obviously my approach worked, but that does not mean that there is not a better one involving Dillon's approach of manning a bird.

[AxelFortWorth]

Both of my MHH are put up for the season. Keeping Dillon's concept in mind, how do you feed your hawks/falcons during the off-season?
Do you just toss the food in the mew/WY or do you take them out and make them work for it?

[Dillon]

Whoa boy, I'm going to try my best to keep up with this topic. If I don't reply for a day or so, I'll catch up.

Bill, I'm going to try to address your post without cluttering it up by directly quoting you. Also, I'm trying to be as concise as possible, so please don't read any of this as being purposefully disrespectful-- on the contrary, I have an enormous amount of respect for you, based on your book. Online debates tend to take insidious turns for the worst, even with the best intentions. Here we go:

First, I guess I should've qualified that by "tabula rassa," I was referring to having never been in captivity before. Yes, some passage birds will have individual quirks, but not like a hand-me-down that's been manhandled. Passage hawks have very little negative experiences with people, so although their prey preference and hunting tactics will vary with experience, I don't believe it has anything to do with general tameness level. In fact, it's my experience that passage birds tend to tame quicker than their chamber-raised counterparts, but that's a different topic I have no desire to start right now.

Second, this is a new thread that was splintered from another, and in that original thread I did say that I agree that there are some birds not worth training. I've had birds that were mediocre when it came to gamehawking, but nothing I would consider "not good candidates for captivity." As an aside, I'm not nearly as accomplished as some on here in regards to specialization of certain species, but I've trained hundreds of raptors for falconry, abatement, and shows of all species commonly (and uncommonly) held in captivity. In addition to that, I've trained hundreds of other birds for free flight shows (corvids, hornbills, cranes, parrots of all types, storks, on and on), and as a behavior consultant at over a dozen zoos, have helped keepers train just about every animal held in captivity. I point this out only in case you were skeptical of my experience base. So, yes, some falconry birds won't be stellar because of their genetic predisposition, but I argue that with the correct approach, they can all adjust well to captivity. We'll have to agree to disagree, for reasons I'll elaborate on below.

Third, Harry isn't quoted as saying that "only ten percent of hawks are worth hanging onto;" he says that there are a top ten percent that make up the best of the best performers, and that a falconer is lucky to fly one or two of these individuals during their entire falconry career.

To address your anthropomorphic comment-- yes, you will see that I admitted it was in my original post, and I also mentioned that comparing a child to a hawk obviously doesn't hold the same value. Anthropomorphism serves only to help us get in touch with how we "feel" about something, and I used the example to illustrate that. I prefer oranges over apples. How about them apples?

Also, along those lines, the nature vs. nurture argument doesn't just apply to children. There have been numerous studies done on non-human primates and dogs on this subject. Most of what we theorize about in human psychology has come directly from behaviorism lab experiments with animals. You'd hate Watson, I'm sure, but I'm in his camp. I'm sure you know about the "Little Albert" experiments?

All behavior is modifiable. It might not be worth it in the eyes of some, but to make blanket statements on this subject is simple ignorance. Amazing things have been done with desensitization processes, counterconditioning, response blocking, etc., in human animals that are far more complex than our birds.

At the end of the day, I'll never blame an animal for behaving the way it does if I am the one who has brought it into captivity. It's a cop out. It's one thing to come to the conclusion that, after countless slips, a certain falcon just isn't that good at catching, say, grouse. Some falconers will stick with it, some will choose to move on. That's never what I argued about (Chindgren, BTW, said that his famous falcon Jomo was horrible in his first few seasons-- in stark contrast to B.B. and Kalakak, who were natural performers-- and Jomo went on to hold his legendary status). I started this because the prairie falcon mentioned in the original thread barely made it to the free-flight stage, and the consensus was that the bird just sucked. I won't accept that. What I want others to recognize is that mistakes are just an opportunity to start again with more information for success, and that the lack of success with this bird was still extremely valuable to the falconer-- should he focus on what he learned instead of choosing to blame the bird for simply not being good in captivity and destined to fail in falconry.

I'll address questions asked by others in a bit, and will address seeling (am I a masochist, or what?)

Gotta run!








Hi Dillon,

You write:

>Most falconry literature mentions that occasionally—despite a falconer’s best efforts—individual birds will not work out for use in falconry. These birds never tame down, these authors contend, and will not respond to glove, lure, or even game without weight being cut to the bone. Many falconers also believe that the traits of a bird are largely inborn rather than learned or cultivated, and that there are a percentage of birds (especially wild eyasses that lack a pedigree) that are destined to fail due to genetic fate.

This is a complex statement, Dillon. I can only speak for myself and say that having trained a ton of passage hawks I can categorically say, without hesitation, that there are birds that are not good candidates for captivity, and it really has nothing to do with the falconer. They are just difficult birds. Passage hawks are not tabula rasa birds, as you suggest, as they all have their quirks, with some having more than others. They might be trainable, as you say, but they are more trouble than they are worth (IMHO). And those that have not experienced birds of this nature, have not trained enough birds, as they truly do exist. You mentioned Harry McElroy, he is a big believer that only ten percent of hawks are worth hanging on to.

>It’s the old nature versus nurture argument, and to put it in a different perspective, consider the following: If your child was having difficulty with spelling or math, would you rather have his or her teacher adopt a “nature” approach—that is, the child is just not naturally gifted, so is not worth the effort of teaching—or the nurturing approach which contends that with the right approach, the child can not only learn these skills, but excel at them?

Dillon, this example is way too anthropomorphic. Of course we would prefer the nurturing approach, but there is a vast difference between a child having difficulty with spelling or math and a hawk trying to make sense out of captivity. And, as you know, having obviously read the nature versus nurture debate, the “nurture” in this argument refers to humans, specifically childern during the developmental stage. Again, we are talking apples and oranges.

>Why is it that a falconer who makes mistakes along the journey of raising an imprint is forced to publicly accept the consequences of mistakes during the raising process, yet those dealing with passagers or chamber-raised individuals are permitted to wantonly disregard potential mistakes or incongruent techniques, and instead place the blame on the animal?

Because those dealing with imprints are, in fact, very involved with the “nurturing” aspect which, of course, has a profound effect on how birds turn out, while this is not the case with the older birds.

>Aside from exponentially increasing the chances that the bird will be successful, this philosophy also fosters an environment conducive to life-long learning, in which the falconer will only become more analytical, self-critical, and ultimately a more accomplished gamehawker.

I, definitely, agree with what you say here as it pertains to imprints. To be successful with these birds you have to maximize your potential in all the areas you have identified above, which is why I don't mess with imprints--I just don't feel I have the ability, nor the desire, to do them justice.

I'll quit here until I have an opportunity to read the benefits of your training method over the traditional method.

Bill Boni

[MrBill]

>Bill, I'm going to try to address your post without cluttering it up by directly quoting you. Also, I'm trying to be as concise as possible, so please don't read any of this as being purposefully disrespectful-- on the contrary, I have an enormous amount of respect for you, based on your book. Online debates tend to take insidious turns for the worst, even with the best intentions.

Dillion, my very best falconer friend is Harry McElroy, and me and Harry have had some disagreements over the years, but he is still my very best friend. So, I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me. What I detest is when that disagreement is based upon personal feelings about someone, which happens quite often in the falconry community, unfortunately.

Speaking of Harry, you are absolutely right, he was speaking of the most desireable birds. And, as we all know, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, so Harry's view of the top ten percent might be different from mine or yours. The point I was trying to make was that, when it comes to nature versus nurture, Harry is solidly on the Nature side of the house, as it pertains to wild-caught hawks. And, frankly, he may feel the same way about imprints as well; in other words, he may feel that nature is a more powerful determiner of behavior than nurture.

>I point this out only in case you were skeptical of my experience base. So, yes, some falconry birds won't be stellar because of their genetic predisposition, but I argue that with the correct approach, they can all adjust well to captivity. We'll have to agree to disagree, for reasons I'll elaborate on below.

I was not skeptical of your experience base, but I am glad you pointed this out for the sake of others. And, yes, we will very definitely have to agree to disagree on this point; in fact, I feel so strongly about this that I am surprised that someone with your experience would take this position.

In terms of Watson, if you are talking about his suggestion that there is no distinction between humans and other animals when it comes to behavior, yes, I would have to agree with you. But, keep in mind that most of his studies and writing revolved around children, not animals, including, of course, "Little Albert."

>I started this because the prairie falcon mentioned in the original thread barely made it to the free-flight stage, and the consensus was that the bird just sucked. I won't accept that. What I want others to recognize is that mistakes are just an opportunity to start again with more information for success, and that the lack of success with this bird was still extremely valuable to the falconer-- should he focus on what he learned instead of choosing to blame the bird for simply not being good in captivity and destined to fail in falconry.

I wasn't part of that original thread, so I don't have all the facts, but, I will say that you are right suggesting that we learn from our experiences with these birds; however, I don't "blame" a hawk that I feel is not worth the effort, and I don't know that other people do either. Some of us just have limitations, and there is nothing wrong with that, at all (IMO). I remember a conversation I had with Tom Coulson years ago. We were talking about the passage Cooper's hawk, and as I recall the conversation, Tom could not understand why people would mess with the demands of this little hawk when they could fly a HH with a lot less effort. For Tom falconry was about enjoying yourself as much as possible; it's hard to argue against that logic. In fact, I have written an article about this topic to be published in the August Hawk Chalk. I hope you will read it.

Please don't forget to share with us the advantages of your training method over the "traditional" method. Thanks.

Bill Boni

[jal4470]

I have a couple of questions, for anyone who feels like answering. But first an observation. I think some of the participants in this conversation might be talking across each other. There seems to be a slight misunderstanding about the phrase 'unsuitable for captivity' Some seem to feel this means a bird cannot be maintained in captivity, with no further criteria, others seem to add an implied 'in a falconry setting' to the phrase. I think it is completely reasonable to say that any wild raptor can be kept successfully in captivity, while also saying that some hawks of species commonly used for falconry are not really suitable to be kept for falconry. Having said that here is my question: Does it matter? Is there a correlation between birds that train well using a particular method, and ones that work out in a falconry setting? If there is a correlation between a particular method or philosophy and a higher percentage of suitable game hawks then it makes sense to use that philosophy, regardless of how many hawks it doesn't work for. Conversely if there is no correlation between philosophy and falconry success it makes sense to adhere to a philosophy that turns out the highest percentage of hawks that do well in captivity, then their suitability for falconry can be evaluated separately. I am especially interested in hearing from people who have undergone a change of philosophy in their manning and training of hawks but feel they were as good at implementing their old philosophy as they are at implementing their new philosophy.

[schwartze]

My head hurts!

Steve

[Joan Marie]

I'm speechless over this post, haven't posted in awhile. Picked up a sponsor, building a mews, and brain exploding with insights and imaginings. THIS post centered me.

[FredFogg]

My head hurts!

Steve

Yeah, I can understand that! I think the point some folks are missing on this thread and even the originator of the thread is that it isn't about my way is the best way or your way is why this or that happens but that there are different ways to view things and different ways to do things. I think the discussion needs to be not trying to disprove what Dillion is saying but to understand why he is saying what he believes and how we can use these methods if we so choose. I know this thread isn't going to make some people change their way of manning but for some, it might make them think about what they are doing and maybe tweek things a bit if not change them completely.

I enjoy reading how others do things because the more I can see how others do things, the more I can analyze what I am doing and hopefully, I can make my own way accordingly because none of us are ever going to do it exactly the same way as the next guy. That is the reality of falconry with different birds, different parts of the world and different game for our birds to chase.

[passagejack]

Great post Fred!! Dillon is making some think out side the box. That's a good thing IMHO ;) Nothing wrong with trying new things.

[mainefalconer]

I just read through this thread with great interest, as I'm a big fan of using Behaviorism in a falconry setting. Bill keeps asking Dillon to explain why his training philosophy is "better" than the techniques that most of us think of as traditional.... In many ways, there is a lot of cross-over between what Dillon has described above, and what falconers have been doing for centuries. But to me, it seems that the most obvious ways Dillon's suggestions are possibly "better" is that he is advocating methods and an overall approach that will create less stress and therefore better health for the birds in question.

Like Dillon, I have had the opportunity to train many more hawks and falcons than most other falconers that I know, and consequently, I've done a lot of experimentation with various manning methods. I've done everything from getting birds jessed up and on the fist with no hood in full daylight two minutes out of the net, to extremely cautious trauma avoidance with strobe light, etc., to traditional seeling and waking with friends for days at a time, and on and on... All of these birds "worked out" and became successful game hawks, but the point, for me at least, was in trying something new and hopefully learning along the way.

In the end, as others here have already said, falconry is supposed to be fun, and as long as we're keeping our charges healthy and in good plumage, I can only see the positive side of experimentation. I think it's great that Dillon has sparked so much interest and provoked a lot of fresh thinking for some of the readers here.

[MrBill]

Dillin,

I went to bed thinking about your comments (which was a mistake :-) and based upon your experience training birds, I think you are coming more from an imprint perspective in terms of the importance of nurture, which makes sense, while I am looking at your behaviorist approach from purely my experience with passage hawks. I hope this is at the heart of our difference; if not, I will lose all faith in you :-)

Fred writes:

>Yeah, I can understand that! I think the point some folks are missing on this thread and even the originator of the thread is that it isn't about my way is the best way or your way is why this or that happens but that there are different ways to view things and different ways to do things.

Fred, Dillon's original post invited discussion as it pertained to his "philosophy." He didn't specify any restrictions, so I don't see anything wrong with questioning his basis; this happens all the time when people present thoughts and ideas on a given subject; in fact, it has been going on since Socrates. It is not an attempt to discredit anyone. But, it is probably not a discussion for everyone; however, one of the great things about these lists is that you don't have to read the posts.

Scott writes:

>But to me, it seems that the most obvious ways Dillon's suggestions are possibly "better" is that he is advocating methods and an overall approach that will create less stress and therefore better health for the birds in question.

I think you are right, Scott, but we won't know until Dillon tells us. I guess my position is, we are all trying to get to the same point with a hawk, and--as Fred says--there is more than one way to get there. So, what I would like to know is how Dillon's way is more advantageous than others, and how I might be able to improve upon a method that has worked for me for many years, and why I should do so. So, I think my question has merit within the context of this discussion. But, again, perhaps this discussion should be just between me and Dillon?

Bill Boni

[Mandragen]

Although I too do not have the experience that most of you have, I hope to bring some of my past experience with training other animals into this hobby. I have had a chance to work with many great professional animal trainers and some not so great. The best part about training animals is that there are as many different ways to go about it as there are trainers.


It is also true that no matter the experience level of a trainer, the more experience doesn't always make you "better". More experience is just that, more experience. You have more "tools" to use, more situations to relate to, and this can be a very valuable thing. However, there are so many factors that go into one animal training another that it is strictly based on how well the two work together regardless of passed experiences. My best college professor could have been your worst, not because of how long he had been a professor but because we "clicked". His way of teaching worked for me. It is also possible that two people could use the exact same technique on one individual and get different results. It's not just about what you are doing but in the delivery as well. The only thing that I have found to hold true is that the great trainers are always ones that are open minded enough to listen, take criticism, think outside the box, and use all the information at their disposal to make their own decisions.

I appreciate what Dillon has brought to the forum, it takes guts to share your opinions and thoughts publicly. I think the last thing this should become is a debate about "better" but a discussion about "why" and understanding the OP. Sometimes we forget we are also training each other and the last thing we want to do is keep people with new ideas from posting them for others to read. We should be reinforcing new ideas with excitement.

[MrBill]

Hi Oliver,

You write:

>I appreciate what Dillon has brought to the forum, it takes guts to share your opinions and thoughts publicly. I think the last thing this should become is a debate about "better" but a discussion about "why" and understanding the OP.

I agree wholeheartedly that it takes "guts" to share "honest" opinions and thoughts publicly, and Dillion should be commended for doing this. But, I do think "better" is important for obvious reasons--if someone is training a bird better than we are, then we should seriously consider changing our ways of doing things, rather than being a stick in the mud. And, as you suggest, "why" is always important, and is what I am most interested in, but you need to consider why and better are tied together; in other words, we may very well change our traiing method, or do something, because it is a "better" way of getting things done.

Bill Boni

[Mandragen]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that what's working for Dillon might not work for you, or as work as well. Again, it's possible for you to train exactly like DIllono and be better or worse. In that case, why doesn't have anything to do with better. He can only put it thoughts and theories out there for us to use as a tool in our training.

Once you understand what he is doing, how he is doing it, and why, you have to make the decision on whether or not it's going to work better for you than what you are doing. It's also important to note that if it doesn't work better for you then that doesn't mean it's worse than what you were doing before. You also have to think about this with each individual bird and within each individual training session. It is possible that you are training two birds, but the way Dillon is training will work best for one and the way you are training will work best for the other.

Let's take a dolphin example, in some cases you have to teach them to swim under certain platforms or through gates. Being open water animals this isn't something that is always comfortable at first. Believe it or not even the presence of a thin platform that runs down the center of a pool would be enough for some to keep them on one side or the other, even if there wasn't a physical barrier there. Sometimes you could wait until they did it on their own (giving them control of their environment), sometimes it took the use reinforcement on the other side which made it a positive experience, sometimes you had to use a big splash, or the presence of an object coming towards them that they wanted to get away from on their side. It would be impossible for me to say which is better as long as the outcome is the desired behavior and the animals appear to be no worse for it. As long as the animals health and stress level are in good shape, the desired behavior is acheived, and training is enjoyable for you and the trainee then that is great training session and to say there might have been a better way to do it is in some ways a waste of time.

[MrBill]

>It is possible that you are training two birds, but the way Dillon is training will work best for one and the way you are training will work best for the other.

But this brings in a variable that Dillon would be uncomfortable with in terms of his contention that you can train any hawk to be a good gamehawk, you just need to "nurture" them along and they will get over all their hangups. So, this leaves no room for my way of training being better; that's why I am interested in the advantages.

>As long as the animals health and stress level are in good shape, the desired behavior is acheived, and training is enjoyable for you and the trainee then that is great training session and to say there might have been a better way to do it is in some ways a waste of time.

I can only speak for myself, but I try to do things better. I think most of us do.

Bill Boni

[JRedig]

>It is possible that you are training two birds, but the way Dillon is training will work best for one and the way you are training will work best for the other.

But this brings in a variable that Dillon would be uncomfortable with in terms of his contention that you can train any hawk to be a good gamehawk, you just need to "nurture" them along and they will get over all their hangups. So, this leaves no room for my way of training being better; that's why I am interested in the advantages.

Bill Boni

I think it would be best if you guys let dillon respond and not speak on his behalf. These idea's can take time to explain and discuss, just because he's not here responding to every post immediately doesn't mean a point has to be discussed anyway.

Just trying to keep the train on the tracks...:)

[passagejack]

I think it would be best if you guys let dillon respond and not speak on his behalf. These idea's can take time to explain and discuss, just because he's not here responding to every post immediately doesn't mean a point has to be discussed anyway.

Just trying to keep the train on the tracks...:)

Good point Jeff. I know Dillon will elaborte when he has time. I just got done with another merathon brain oozing talk with Leyman this morning. As always we spoke of new smoother transitions of getting a wild hawk back to the "field". I have been hesitant to respond or elaborate as well due to wanting to get all of my hawks in a "row" so to speak. I will throw my hat in soon on how I approach the whole manning process as well. I'm very pleased to see the responce from so many on how to make the transition from wild to captivity a smoother one for new birds. We owe that to them and as our time is valuable, to ourselves as well.

[MrBill]

>I will throw my hat in soon on how I approach the whole manning process as well.

There you go :-)

Along these lines, I think falconry is a lot like golf in the sense that you don't have to be an excellent golfer to have an good understanding of the complexities involved; in other words, many of us (including myself) are better at explaining than doing.

Bill Boni

[jal4470]

>

But this brings in a variable that Dillon would be uncomfortable with in terms of his contention that you can train any hawk to be a good gamehawk, you just need to "nurture" them along and they will get over all their hangups.
Bill Boni
He has actualy NOT said this, in fact he has said quite the oppisite, post #35 in response to you:

"I've had birds that were mediocre when it came to gamehawking, but nothing I would consider "not good candidates for captivity."

His contention is that any hawk can be suitiable for CAPTIVITY, not that any hawk can be a good game hawk

[Dillon]

Sorry for starting this thread and not being to keep up on it as often as I'd like. it is getting difficult to field questions without writing a book, but again, I'll try to keep as concise as possible. After this post, I'm not really interested in debating "my" way against anyone else's method. And, as has been pointed out by myself and others, the way I do things is very, very similar to approaches that have been around for centuries-- I just want to explain WHY these techniques work, as supported by pragmatic behaviorism, and thus are often more advantageous than other methods. I've already attempted to do this in the very first post on this thread, but I guess I need to elaborate more and stay away from the woo-woo philosophy. What I really want to write is going to be impossible without pulling out the books, citing specific studies, and getting into some deep jargon and concepts. No one wants that (especially me, I'm done with school). I'm a minimalist by nature, and firmly believe that simplicity equals sophistication, and this is getting needlessly convoluted over the general philosophy. Let's abandon that.

Seeling. I'm not going to waste any real time on this because I've never done it. I'm just not confident enough because my diet of daytime caffeine and nighttime liquor habits don't make for the steadiest hands. Some falconer vets sedate their birds to seel them; others, like Pitcher, do it in the dark with a flashlight to minimize stress. In any case, the few minutes it takes to perform this procedure and the potential negative associations are minimal compared to the disastrous fear conditioning that other techniques can cause. Hooding is simplified by seeling, and the hawk is gradually introduced into its new captive world at a gentle, inherently desensitizing pace. The key to shaping behavior is to use the smallest approximations possible, and seeling can facilitate this. All this being said, it does take a little attention to make sure the bird stays hooded, lest it scratch at the stitches and pull them loose. I'm not sure that many falconers I've met are responsible enough or have the time for this; because of that-- and because I have no direct experience-- I can't recommend it personally, but I'm not against it. It's the same stance I take with homosexuality ;). I crack myself up sometimes. Anyway, moving on.

Before I get into the nitty-gritty, consider this-- Some here have claimed that certain hawks are destined to fail as falconry birds and aren't suitable for captivity, then they go on to cite their direct experience doing things differently than the approach I (and others) have outlined. This proves-- in my own mind, and as cocky as it may come off-- that those methods can condition a certain percentage of birds to maladapt to falconry. In other words, it's not the birds, it's the training. I can only deduce this from my own experience base, and from hanging around other falconers (much better game hawkers than me, I might add) who produce excellent birds year after year-- no excuses.

I've racked my brain on how to do this, and there’s no way to tackle this, really, without writing a book on the subject, and familiarizing everyone with learning and behavior terms and concepts. It's not ideal, but for the sake of time and energy I’m going to take a narrative approach.

Let's imagine we trapped a fresh prairie falcon. This is going to be one of those birds that is a difficult one. We'll call the modern manning approach that is common these days Plan A, and the approach I use now Plan B. These are actually two ends of the spectrum that are semi-autobiographical, meaning that yes, I’ve tried things both ways.

TRAPPING AND INITIAL ENCOUNTER:

Plan A: Bird is trapped, pulled out of the trap, and the falconer's buddy snaps a few pictures of him holding her like an ice cream cone, hackles up, mouth agape, every instinct in the deep recesses of her little brain telling her that she's about to be killed by this giant creature that captured her. She's socked, and the buddy holds her in his lap, unhooded, hoping to get her used to things quickly. The bird struggles at first, then slowly begins to look calmer and seems to start taking things in stride. Called “shock” by some, this is the beginning of learned helplessness. In short order, the bird has learned that-- at least while socked-- it cannot escape, so it stops attempting to do so. It’s mother natures way of making sure that animals don’t die from stress alone. You know-- myocardial infarctions and the like.

Pro: Some individuals might indeed start to adjust in certain aspects of the flooding procedure and attempt to bate less once the sock is removed. Cons: Flooding doesn’t work unless the animal is continuously exposed to the aversive until it permanently stops responding to the stimulus. This is why “waking” does indeed tend to work, but it can’t be half-assed. Also, imagine all of the frightening stimuli that the falcon is going to be exposed to. It is almost impossible to expose the bird to all of these things to the point of flooding actually taking hold, and the hawk tends to sensitize to these things. This is why Edmund Bert points out the importance of exposing the passage or haggard gos to everything it will encounter later on-- carts, horses, busy streets, etc., on a NONSTOP basis for a minimum of 3 days. No breaks. In any case, more than likely any reduced bating a falconer experiences with this method is due to short-term habituation, and this may reduce bating during the training session, but the next day the bird will often bate just as badly, and sometimes worse.

Plan B: The first thing the falconer does is throw a towel over the newly trapped falcon to minimize an immediate negative conditioning. Some falconers might even be paranoid enough to tie a handkerchief around their face or wear a mask. In any case, as soon as the feet are secured, the falconer gently and quickly hoods the bird. She is socked for the drive home, hooded.

Pros: Little to no chance of initial negative conditioning of the falconer. Con: You can’t stare longingly into those Mexican Mocha eyes while your new captive stares at you, utterly terrified.

FIRST TRAINING SESSION:

Plan A: The falconer calls his buds over, and they sit on the back porch and drink some brews while the falcon is strapped on the glove, unhooded, and bating incessantly. Dogs are running around in the back yard while the kids are engaged in various levels of grab-ass and other shenanigans. Soon, the falcon learns that no matter what, she can’t escape, so she starts bating towards the falconer’s face and throws wings. On one hanging bate she bites his forearm! He tries to offer the bird some food, and she refuses. Well, it is fat, after all-- there’s no arguing that from the condition of the keel. It’s been a good 4 hours, so the bird is tethered to the pole perch for a bit. She's bating worse now, with her new perspective of things and some distance from the falconer; in the mind of the falcon, this is her opportunity to escape! The falconer begins to worry about feather and scale wear, so she is scooped off the perch while screaming in the histrionic fashion that only a prairie falcon can muster, and hooded upside down. What a day.

Pros: The bird has learned the restraint of the jesses. Had fun showing off the new falcon to the buds. Cons: Falcon is fat, and has no interest in food. Only negative conditioning has occurred, and the falcon has rehearsed bating away from the falconer, from dogs, from other people, and has resorted to some aggression. She has, after all, tried the “flight” approach, but since she is strapped to the glove, she had no choice but to “fight.” The falcon has learned that all of those things-- bating, aggression, etc.-- led to her survival. She is likely to perform these same behaviors in the future.

Plan B: The falcon is jessed and removed from the sock, still hooded. She has no crop, and the falconer cannot feel the casting sitting at the bottom of her digestive tract, just between the legs above the cloaca, so it’s fairly safe to assume she does not have to cast. He will check again a bit later, and is using a modern hood that will likely allow the bird to cast if he’s wrong. If in doubt, the bird is tethered unhooded in a completely light-tight room instead and allowed time to cast. She is in “fat” condition, and her mutes are white and clean. He decides to leave her hooded for 24 hours. If she’ll allow it, he picks her up periodically to get her used to riding the glove while hooded and to expose her to different sounds. He might perch her in the living room with the TV on-- since she’s hooded, negative conditioning isn’t likely, unless she is hissing and bating, even while hooded. Our falcon happens to be a difficult one, so she’s left alone to calm down in a dark room, in case she manages to throw the hood.

Pros: No negative conditioning as of yet. Con: Didn’t get to see her eyes.

COAXING TO EAT ON THE GLOVE:

Plan A: More of yesterday. Bates less, screams more, bites more. Still no interest in food.

Pros: Less bating due to the negative reinforcement conditioning. Cons: More negative conditioning of the falconer. Sensitization towards certain things are likely. The bird could develop the habit of bating through doorways, at the sight of dogs, at the sight of the hood, or learn to hang upside down while tethering to the pole perch. The rule in operant conditioning is that any behavior that is repeated is being reinforced in some way or another. Reinforcement increases or maintains behavior, that's the definition.

Plan B: Our falconer prepares a dim room with a chair and a dead pigeon. The room isn’t too dark, as he’s gotten the advice recently from a great falconer that falcons likely have an instinctive fear of the dark, so that's kept in mind. But, there’s no daylight visible or windows open. He may decide to use the strobe light method, but for now, he’s decided to position himself near the light switch to kill the lights if things get out of hand quickly.

He’s removed the feathers from the breast of the pigeon and exposed the meat, so as not to feed casting (since the bird will likely be hooded relatively constantly for up to a week), but it will be an instantly-recognizable food item. He may decide to spray the falcon down with water to dissuade bating. Settled in, with pigeon in glove, he unhoods the bird. It reacts, of course, and bates a few times. The falconer remains still and makes no eye contact. After a few minutes the falcon sits there, and the falconer starts gentling moving the pigeon, making squeaking noises. The falcon grips instinctively, but then looks at the falconer and bates away. She regains the fist, her mouth open in protest, so the falconer tries one last tactic: he pinches off a piece of the breast meat and slowly places it in the open beak of the bird. She snaps at his finger, but he has a decent tolerance for pain (and would rather eat cat $#!+ than use forceps). The bird spits out the meat and bates again. He turns the lights out and hoods the bird. It’s been 10 minutes. Too heavy for this lesson.

Pros: Attempted counterconditioning with food, but the bird had no desire. Minimized negative experiences, within reason. Not a time suck, so he didn’t have to use vacation time. Cons: While minimizing negative associations, there’s no doubt that there is negative reinforcement at play when the bird bates. The goal, however, is to minimize rehearsing this and also give the bird a fair chance to eat. Plan B prairie falcon has now bated less than a dozen times since her trapped day, Plan A falcon had bated a hundred times or more.

SUCCESSFUL EATING ON THE GLOVE

Plan A: Well, it’s been roughly a week, but the falcon is finally eating consistently. She's bating less when on the glove and when tethered to the pole perch, but she has developed an annoying habit of bating away from the falconer on his approach, during tethering, and sometimes when hooding is attempted. It doesn’t take too much to set her off early on, but after a while she settles in.

Plan B: On day 2, there was less bating and she noticed the pigeon. About 5 minutes into the session, the falconer was able to get the falcon to bite at some pieces of meat held in the fingertips and swallow them. After about 5 bites, she began bating, so the lights were turned off and she was hooded. On day three, she began taking the tidbits from the fingertips with less aggression. The falconer was able to slowly lower his hand to get her to bend down and take the pieces lower and lower until she began tearing at the breast meat of the pigeon. He allows her to eat a bit, but not too much-- needlessly putting weight back on the bird at this stage will only serve to decrease the value of the positive reinforcement (she won't be as focused on the food) especially when using pigeon breast with the slow-metabolic rate of the prairie.

Pros: Eating on the glove after 30 minutes of net unhooded time. Minimal rehearsed bating or negative associations before the counterconditioning process has started. Cons: ???

FINAL PRODUCT

Plan A: Hopping to the fist and lure introduction didn't go as well as planned. The bird seems spooky for no apparent reason, and needs to be increasingly sharper to get any sort of cooperation. This bird is officially in "thin" condition, is batey, and has begun mantling a bit on the glove when eating. The falconer no longer offers tidbits from the bare hand, as the biting has gotten worse rather than better. Hey, it’s a prairie falcon. She bates upon the approach, more often than not. Sometimes it’s towards the falconer because she is genuinely hungry, other times it is away. It’s all so reactionary.

At this point, falcons go one of two ways: Some begin flying around right overhead and become somewhat aggressive, can scream, mantle more often than not, and clip the daisies. They won't put any distance between themselves and the falconer-- all they care about is food. The falconer decides to kite the bird. He needs to raise the weight in order to give her the energy to go up, but as soon as the appetite edge is taken off, this falcon becomes a royal turd to deal with. The others usually maintain little or no response to the lure, despite their keen condition. A dead lure or bag has to be used. This falcon remains aloof and despises the falconer; it only sticks around because it doesn’t have the energy or muscle to guarantee survival in the wild.

Plan B: Bating simply isn’t in the repertoire of this bird. She's experienced being checked by the jesses while on the glove maybe two dozen times in her life. Hooding, and a gentle, slow approach ensured that this wouldn’t be a conditioned behavior. This bird never had to lose too much weight, and now that she is free-flying, her general tameness level increases every day. In fact, during the last free-flight, she seemed a bit more concerned about the food than normal, even though she’s already an ounce above her lowest weight. In order to retain perfect manners, the falconer decides to give her an extra 20 grams of food once back home. Her weight is slowly increased all season. In fact, the only reason the scale is needed at all is because if she misses her quarry when flown at ad-lib weight, she’ll refuse the dead lure and fly upwards of an hour, demanding another chase, before coming down. That’s a pain.

CONCLUSION:

I realize I’ve made some broad assumptions here, but these are actual experiences of mine. The falcons I’ve trained with the “Plan B” method all turn out the way described, and I’ve even had some that could be flown at true fat weight. I flew a gyr/barbary and a female anatum, in particular, that could be flown every day, even after being fed to repletion. It takes some getting used to-- stepping a falcon up off a kill or the lure and having it sit there with no immediate concern to eat. I walk them to the car and let them step off with the food and ride bare-headed in the back of the truck to pluck. By the time we get home, the food is still only be partially eaten, so I’d have to let the falcon have it in the mews and eat it at their leisure. These are the birds that I would consider genetically predisposed to succeed. Those that were a little more naturally ornery needed to have diets controlled a bit more, but don't turn out like the Plan A bird. Don't get me wrong, however-- most birds trained "plan A" will work out, but none of the problem birds will.

Tomorrow, when I'm back in the office, I'll type up some hard science directly from the books, without voicing my opinion at all.

Everyone, please feel free to debate what you will, but I’m bailing on that aspect of this thread. If anyone has any specific Operant Conditioning questions and wants my take, I’m more than happy to help, but I’m through debating the merits of the different ways of training.

Thanks for the audience, all.

[MrBill]

>Everyone, please feel free to debate what you will, but I’m bailing on that aspect of this thread. If anyone has any specific Operant Conditioning questions and wants my take, I’m more than happy to help, but I’m through debating the merits of the different ways of training.

I am sorry to read this, Dillon, but I understand, perfectly. BTW, that's quite a Plan A you have developed to contrast Plan B. Yikes! I can't quite put myself into that plan. I guess there must be different versions of Plan A :-) Since you don't want to discuss the merits of your methodology anymore, there is no sense me talking to myself; however, I have attached an article I wrote that is somewhat on topic regarding a RT that I was unsuccessful with and why (at least as far as I was concerned). But, admittedly, this article is looking at things from a nature persepctive rather than a nurturing one, so shame on me :-)

Thanks, again, Dillon for putting it out there, not everyone has the gonads to do that.

Bill Boni

[RyanVZ]

Before I get into the nitty-gritty, consider this-- Some here have claimed that certain hawks are destined to fail as falconry birds and aren't suitable for captivity, then they go on to cite their direct experience doing things differently than the approach I (and others) have outlined. This proves-- in my own mind, and as cocky as it may come off-- that those methods can condition a certain percentage of birds to maladapt to falconry. In other words, it's not the birds, it's the training. I can only deduce this from my own experience base, and from hanging around other falconers (much better game hawkers than me, I might add) who produce excellent birds year after year-- no excuses.

My thoughts exactly. We've both trained birds that "couldn't be trained." Both now and at the former employer...

I also wanted to add a side note that I've seen Dillon train a haggard Marshall eagle to be flown in front of thousands of people. This bird was being smuggled illegally into the US and was confiscated. The Feds gave the bird to a facility we were working at. So you can bet that bird had a very "rough" start with mankind but turned the corner in the right hands.


You can’t stare longingly into those Mexican Mocha eyes......


HA! You've lived in southern Arizona too long my friend. Now I'll never be able to look at a Prairie's eyes and not think "Mexican Mocha" ever again.

[passagejack]

Bill I read your article. I have a couple of questions. How did you make in to the freshly trapped bird? Could you (a potential predator) walking in on the bird while it was in a very comprimising position have caused it to distrust you completely for the 12 days you had it? You mentioned "avaiodance behavior". First year birds going through a mental change that lends to them becoming more difficult to man. How would you explain why it well known to some that haggard birds can often be easy to man and get with the program very quickly? It has even been written about at lenght in old literature.

[MrBill]

Jeremy,

To answer your questions, if you are asking if I covered my face approaching the bird on the trap, the answer is, "No." In terms of "avoidance behavior," I have no explanation. I have read this also in the old literature; and, I must admit, that as a raptor rehabilitator years ago, I had an opportunity to train a haggard Cooper's (of all birds), and it came around a lot better than I thought it would.

Bill Boni

[rcklmbr2586]

It's funny how you failed to mention that one of ur training strategies with yo ho, was to cast him unhooded, and hold him under your arm for a bit....

[JRedig]

Can someone please tell me where the notion has come from that Plan A is the norm? I certainly don't see that around my falconry circles...

[Falconer54]

This is a great thread. I have trained second hand birds that people got rid of because they couldn't be trained. Most turned out to be decent game hawks. I didn't have a bird at the time and was hard up. All were pains in the ass, and took time because we had to build a relationship. All were eyass. My main point in this conversation is I pretty much am picky about passage birds. I only had one passage Prairie I could not get going after many months. I am sure I much to attribute to that. But, I have had most free flying in a few weeks, and like some other falconers, have been lucky to have one of the 5% that is destined to be a great bird from the start. If a bird doesn't like its environment and is very slow, it isn't much fun. It is a great investment of time and energy. It is our choice which bird we have. I think as a team member the bird should have some say also. If the bird really doesn't want tobe part of the team, it shouldn't need to be. This is all I am saying. Not all want to be on team Falconer. I have had and seen passage Cooper hawks die within a half an hour after trapping from fits while hooded. We have realeased some when we thought they may not agree with captivity. Passage Prairies have very strong minds and can be very stubborn. I spent five years with Cooper Hawks, and can say Passage Prairies can be a lot more difficult. The question above about making in to a freshly trapped passage bird, is to be calm and patient. I never rush in and jump on them. As you get closer, most will face you, or flip on their backs. I just scoop them up and sock them. I usually reel in the drag line while I am walking to them in the net. One peregrine was on a pigeon and I circled her while she was on the pigeon as if she was a newly trained passage falcon. She let me get right up to her and didn't even bate away. Tried to only move in when I was close when she reached down to eat. I just remember she acted so good I thought I would make a game of it. Yes, many haggards seem to be better behaved and train easier. I think it has to do with patience and intelligence. They tend to not to react as much, but observe more. They seem to know hanging upside down or turning your back on a predator is more dangerous. Since they observe more and react less, with some patience and slow movements they can deduct there is less harm coming their way. I have no scientific eveidence, just a few years of experience, and it seems to work for me. With all of this talk about training birds, it seems to me one of the most important aspects is the feel. Your instinct what you feel and what you see is working. Every bird has its own personality. I have see passage Prairies that were with the same two people everyday, but yet they hated one of them even if the other person had only given the bird food and rarely handled it. It has already been said, but yes pretty much all birds can be trained, but it isn't worth it for some. I know I am looking for a team player, so we can all go out and fly and have a good time. If I screw some up, it is my fault. I would like to believe that some of the birds I feel didn't make the team were better off back in their natural environment. There are plenty that embrace Falconry, and turn out to be great birds in a short time. I am looking for greatness. I am looking for pleasure. Plan B looks so much less stressful, and that is one of the main things that needs to be done with a passage bird. A manned passage bird is quite trainable. The less stress and negativity, the better it goes for all.

[Falconer54]

Bill, hope it goes well and like it is supposed. I am sure it will be a major inconvienence for some time. I have already been long winded. I have tried the hooding, seeling, keeping socked unhooded and other methods. The main thing I have learned is every bird is different and we need to be flexible. I have had some birds unhooded the day after trapping and only hooded them to fly. These birds acted fine and trained quickly. Others were only out of the hood 1/2 an hour a day, as that is all they could handle. The several wild caught Prairies that could be left unhooded from the start, were free flying in less than a week. I have found that many passage Peregrines are over trained. There has been talk about giving birds freedom and choice, and then it is up to us to know how to keep up with them. I took one bird out and I always remember my friend saying, you aren't going to turn that bird loose are you? Like Dillion said about the creance. I haven't used a creance with a passage falcon since the 70's. It actually hinders them and usually ends up with a negative ending. Many birds make a pass, then turn around and do what they were intending to do. Many try to catch and carry, but once they bind and secure, one can make in just fine. Pulled down by a creance, and then the bird reverts and tries to get away, as Dilion has said in previous posts. Main thing, is being flexible, feeling your bird out, and understanding the bird. These birds are quite intelligent.

[MrBill]

Oops! Jacob, I apologize, I juist noticed your post.

You write:

>He has actualy NOT said this, in fact he has said quite the oppisite, post #35 in response to you:

"I've had birds that were mediocre when it came to gamehawking, but nothing I would consider "not good candidates for captivity."

>His contention is that any hawk can be suitiable for CAPTIVITY, not that any hawk can be a good game hawk

Here's what Dillon wrote, and what I was responding to:

>I contend that with the right early interactions with the falconer, any tabula rasa raptor can be trained to take game, respond well in the field, and otherwise be well-adjusted in captivity.

I would say that this defines a decent gamehawk, but it is a moot point now.

Bill Boni

[MrBill]

>Bill, hope it goes well and like it is supposed. I am sure it will be a major inconvienence for some time.

Thanks, Rick.

I am TOTALLY in your corner regarding every bird being different, and that's why I don't think there is an end all way to train hawks. They all react differently, and have their own quirks, at least in terms of passage hawks. I don't know about imprints.

One thing, and I have to go to bed, some folks put their newly trapped hawks in a hood and/or keep them in a dark room for a day or two before they begin manning; this is an age-old concept, as you probably know, in the sense that Japanese falconers would put their passage goshawks in a darkened cage for three days before they would begin training. I have been thinking about trying this for a long time. The only thing that stops me is hooding. I REALLY think it is important to begin the hooding process early on, in real terms. And, I'm not sure that introducing the hood in a darkened room accomplishes the mission, like doing it in full light; in other words, once you begin actually hooding the bird in full light, you might be starting all over again, and that would not be a good thing (IMHO).

I've got to go to.

Bill Boni

[Falconer54]

Yes Bill this is true, and with passage Prairies just going from indoors to outdoors sometimes can make a big difference. Tidbitting with passage birds is a key thing. They will literally leave a kill to get a tidbit off of the fingers. I am not big on hooding. My eyass birds are only hooded when I fly them. I hack my birds, but only hood them whem I am flying them. I feel it is a restraint. But flying is their fun time, so they will hood as they know they are going flying. Passage birds prefer to be unhooded also, so I like to be able to keep them unhooded as much as possible. But, what I do may not work for others. There are some things that are basics and foundation we need to have, but we need to be flexible per individual bird. I pretty much train imprints the opposite I train passage.

[Dillon]

Can someone please tell me where the notion has come from that Plan A is the norm? I certainly don't see that around my falconry circles...

Jeff, I never said it was the norm, but it does happen quite a bit. "Plan a" is extreme, yes, but there are variations thereof that all contain the same elements to a degree. I've directly witnessed falconers using that manning process on numerous occasions, have had many conversations with falconers who do things that way, and there are quite a few threads here and on the international falconry forum talking about the merits of that. A picture of a falconer digging holes with a post hole digger while his Harris' hawk is tied to his glove is something I saw on this forum that will forever be burned in my mind.

There seems to be regional customary differences in certain parts of the country, though. One of the articles that influenced my thinking years ago was written by Ben Ohlander in a NAFA journal years ago on the passage gos-- maybe the influence of Ben and other successful falconers in that area working with difficult birds like the passage gos is why more extreme methods aren't much used in your circle.

[Dillon]

I really am enjoying this discussion. Thank you Dillon. I cannot wait to try some of it on my next PFRT.

Here is my question. What kind of different approaches are out there to get your hawk to make that first leap of faith and take the first bite?

I have only trained four birds so far, but I used the same technique each time. I have the hawk sit inside the house on his perch and present him/her with a juicy piece of meat.
One variable I changed was the size of the meat. I found that if I make it a bigger piece the hawk has a harder time to ignore it.
Another variable I guess was that I placed the meat on my fist while the bird was hooded. Once un-hooded I let him see it and go for it.

Any input on this will be appreciated. Obviously my approach worked, but that does not mean that there is not a better one involving Dillon's approach of manning a bird.

Hi Axel,

I've used all sorts of tricks to get a bird to take the first "leap of faith." Like you, I use a big piece of meat to try and coax them early on, and then use tidbits once jumping to the glove has been conditioned. Here are a couple things I've done in the past to hasten the process:

-Build "behavioral momentum" by stepping the bird off the perch for the food repeatedly, before asking it to jump.

-Try jumping the bird UP if jumping horizontally isn't working.

-Make sure your arm is distended away from your body so you are less intimidating to the bird.

-If the bird won't hop a short distance, try it leash-length right away. Falcons, especially, don't like to hop, but would rather fly. Others get confused and are convinced they can stretch out to reach the food without flying to the glove. A bit of distance prevents this.

-Teach this lesson from a perch that the bird is unlikely to get a firm grip on. If you use a bow perch, branch, or anything soft, I often see the hawk grip down on the perch instinctively, which prevents flying. I use a thin fence or a flat surface like a stump or even a table top with a piece of astroturf for traction.

-Consider teaching the bird to jump from one perch to another rather than straight to the glove. This is probably very unorthodox to most, but I've used it quite a bit. You set up two perches of the same height, about 18 inches apart. They should be chest-high. Then you simply place tidbits on the perch, and have it hop back and forth between the two. After the bird does this without hesitation, hold your glove on top of the perch for a few hops. The bird should start hopping from the perch to the fist in short order.

[MD Hawkman]

Excellent thread Thanks to all who posted ! All about Karma
clapp Best of Luck Bill
Happy hawking
Bob Fraser

[Dillon]

Okay, here are some random snippets of real science-- no opinions. I took these out of the PowerPoint presentation I've given on animal behavior at various zoos. I've given some examples to relate specifically to falconry-- the main focus being the pitfalls of having a hawk bate-- but it's more thought provoking if you use your own imagination and experience base. This info is all readily available in all of the major Learning and Behavior books. If anyone wants a serious read (more complicated than "Don't Shoot the Dog," but still "beginner" level, check out "The Principals of Learning and Behavior" by Domjan. Here we go:

Minor fears and anxieties tend to develop into major fears and phobias if experienced during times of high stress.

“Incubation” is the strengthening of a conditioned fear response as a result of brief exposures to an aversive stimulus. A hawk that bates away from a person will often develop stronger and more consistent bating. What starts off as moderate fear can evolve over time to severe fear.
Learned helplessness is defined as a decrement in learning ability, resulting from repeated exposure to uncontrollable events. This decreased learning ability is easily generalized, and can inhibit a hawk’s ability to learn anything from hopping to the glove, flying to the lure, etc.
The use of jesses and the consequent bating that occurs can be positive punishment or negative reinforcement, depending on what behavior is evaluated. We will evaluate the jesses as punishment, as an attempt to decrease bating/ escape behavior. Here are the inherent problems with punishment:
1. Punishment of inappropriate behavior does not directly strengthen the occurrence of appropriate behavior.
2. A generalized reduction in behavior (apathy) is likely. Maybe all that manning on the glove is why some falconers have to cast their falcons off the fist?
3. Escape-avoidance behavior is likely. This is an easy one—animals learn to avoid things that punish them. Some falconers then use weight control to overcome this aversion, and they end up creating weak, mantling, screaming, aggressive messes.
4. The falconer can become a discriminative stimulus (cue) for punishment. Even after learning that the falconer can provide positive reinforcement (food), the hawk also has learned that he can cause punishment. Again, weight control is the typical (wrong) answer.
5. Punishment often elicits (and later conditions) aggressive behavior. Aggression is easily generalized and usually increases in frequency and magnitude. Animals rehearsing aggression often stop exhibiting the body language precursors that warn of this—the cooper’s hawk stops raising its hackles and now just attacks your face with no warning.
6. By definition, punishment works, and therefore it reinforces the falconer using it.
7. Punishment is likely to elicit a strong “emotional” response. Think of the screaming falcon or the whirlwind bates of a passage cooper’s. A distressed animal is not in an ideal state of mind to learn anything when worked up.
8. An animal trained with aversives will only work at the level necessary to avoid the negative stimulus. Think of a hawk that bates away from the hood repeatedly before finally allowing it to be placed on to avoid more bating and hanging upside down.
9. It is easy to noncontigently punish an animal. In other words, it can be difficult for a relatively unintelligent animal such as a falcon to understand the contingent consequences. Noncontingent punishment often results in learned helplessness and/ or neurotic behavior. Unpredictable aversives can create restlessness, agitation, apathy, and phobias. In the early stages before the hawk is eating on the glove, the falconer is an inherently and completely aversive stimulus. His unpredictable arrival and training session length can easily create some of these effects.
10. Over time, animals tend to habituate to lower magnitude aversive stimuli. This is why hawks almost NEVER learn to stop bating. Even the best birds will bate occasionally when tethered to a perch—either towards the falconer, at game, in an attempt to get to a different part of the weathering yard, etc.
11. Because animals tend to habituate to some levels of aversive stimuli, the need to escalate the punishment is likely. The hawk bating away from the hood once or twice then begins to hang upside down in an attempt to avoid it. Some start trying to bite or foot the hood.

On the subject of giving falconry birds control and reducing restraint, consider this: We spend weeks and sometimes longer conditioning our charges to free fly, and later hunt with us, yet wild pigeons, sparrows, shore birds, etc. will fly to the hand of a person holding a crumb of bread. These are the same animals that get harassed all day long by people—they are chased by children, have rocks thrown at them, etc., but they still have better recall than many falconer’s birds. Why is this? It’s simply the fact that they are confident because they have the power of choice. When we take that away from our hawks, we pay the consequences.

I usually only have time to read this during lunch, but I'll be sure to check back daily until this thread burns out.

Cheers,

[MD Hawkman]

Excellent thread Thanks to all who posted ! All about Karma

"All living beings have actions (Karma) as their own, their inheritance, their congenital cause, their kinsman, their refuge. It is Karma that differentiates beings into low and high states." Bhudda
clapp Best of Luck Bill

[Dillon]

Ryan VZ,

Thanks for the accolades! That Martial Eagle was a challenge-- especially because he was screwed around with so much before he came to us. While never a perfect dream bird, he did turn out pretty damn well and would've been scary on jacks from a soar. You're a much more serious gamehawker than I am, though! I wouldn't want to enter a falcon-training contest with you.

Maybe if I get bored, I'll write about the approach I took with the female harpy that was put up to breed for 3 years and then had to become a sweet glove bird again. Remember when she grabbed your shorts? lol! Few things scarier than a confident, bitchy female harpy.

[wyodjm]

Hi Axel,

I've used all sorts of tricks to get a bird to take the first "leap of faith." Like you, I use a big piece of meat to try and coax them early on, and then use tidbits once jumping to the glove has been conditioned. Here are a couple things I've done in the past to hasten the process:

-Build "behavioral momentum" by stepping the bird off the perch for the food repeatedly, before asking it to jump.

-Try jumping the bird UP if jumping horizontally isn't working.

-Make sure your arm is distended away from your body so you are less intimidating to the bird.

-If the bird won't hop a short distance, try it leash-length right away. Falcons, especially, don't like to hop, but would rather fly. Others get confused and are convinced they can stretch out to reach the food without flying to the glove. A bit of distance prevents this.

-Teach this lesson from a perch that the bird is unlikely to get a firm grip on. If you use a bow perch, branch, or anything soft, I often see the hawk grip down on the perch instinctively, which prevents flying. I use a thin fence or a flat surface like a stump or even a table top with a piece of astroturf for traction.

-Consider teaching the bird to jump from one perch to another rather than straight to the glove. This is probably very unorthodox to most, but I've used it quite a bit. You set up two perches of the same height, about 18 inches apart. They should be chest-high. Then you simply place tidbits on the perch, and have it hop back and forth between the two. After the bird does this without hesitation, hold your glove on top of the perch for a few hops. The bird should start hopping from the perch to the fist in short order.

Hi Dillon:

This is good stuff. I've done a few of the things mentioned above with passage eagles. My last male passage eagle ate on the fist for multiple small meals daily for almost two weeks. Multiple small meals gave me an excuse to work with him multiple times during the day. When I walked up to him one day while he was on his perch with some food on the fist, he just stepped up and started eating. I put him down and walked away and put some food on the fist and walked up to him again. He hopped to the fist right away. It was so easy. The next day he was flying half way across the hawk house to eat on the fist. It's as if a light went on in both of our heads! :) Why be in a hurry when the investment will pay big dividends in the long run? You're talking about a bird that could be living with you a long time.

I've had about eight passage golden eagles that manned very well and were very sweet in their dispositions. Eagles are very smart and figure things out if you go in a straight line with them. I also teach an eagle to eat submerged food from the bottom of a small bowl of water to get them to drink early on. I really like getting water to a passage bird as early as possible. Teaching them to drink from a bowl while they're on the fist really pays off during the winter here when water freezes so fast outdoors.

I liked your comments on seeling and agree wholeheartedly. I've seeled all of my passage eagles. For different amounts of time based on the the progress they made while being seeled. I've also seeled many other peoples' eagles. Also passage goshawks. Mine and other falconers. The birds turned out wonderful and all became great game hawks.

Best,

[MrBill]

still alive. typing with one hand and high on pain killer. here is another short article i wrote similar to dillon's; for what it is worth. dillon, your latest post, once again, seems to be most applicable to CB birds, imho. and, would you define 'punishment,' please; that would help to strengthen what you have written by clarifying an important point. is this the same as 'negative teinforcement? And, do you feel that the traditional method of training that you spoke to earlier invovrs punishment?


What’s This Thing Called, “Conditioning?”

Despite a rather romantic notion of wild hawks being capable of developing some sort of emotional attachment to falconers, there is little doubt that passage hawks return to us after only a few weeks of training, and continue to return to us throughout the season because of conditioning, with food being the reinforcement. And, because of this conditioning, we know that these hawks can be released back into the wild and yet return to the fist days later; for example, Tasha Leong released a passage red-tail only to have it return to her fist, having not seen it for eleven days. Eric Fontaine had a passage goshawk remain in area and return to his home multiple times over a two year period. He called her to the lure and fed her off the fist regularly.
It seems the longer they are in captivity, the more profound the conditioning. Like Eric, another falconer released a four time intermewed RT on his property at the end of the hawking season. The hawk remained in the area, and he was able to pick it up off a fence post in the fall, and hawk it for another two seasons. Charles Warwick released a three-time intermewed red-tail in his back yard, and it also hung around for months; in fact, it continued to hunt with Charles when he took his dogs for a walk, and eventually took on a mate in the area.
But, even more intriguing are the numerous incidents when passage hawks have been released miles from their mews and yet find their way home. For example, Dana Brenfleck had a passage red-tail return home after being released 30 miles away. Charles lost the previously mentioned red-tail 25 miles from home. Three months later it showed up at his house, and came right to the fist. There are enough similar stories to ask why these passage hawks continue to return to the fist and seek familiar distant territory? Can conditioning be that strong and lasting, or is there something beyond conditioning that prompts them to return? This article will explore these questions.
These associative behaviors suggest the presence of a certain amount of intelligence; and, for animal intelligence to be present, there must be cognition. According to Sara Shettlesworth, “cognition refers to the mechanisms by which animals acquire, process, store, and act on information from the environment. These include perception, learning, memory, and decision making" (Cognition, Evolution, and Behavior (5)). Since it’s clear, through their behavior, that passage hawks perceive, learn, remember and make decisions, they demonstrate a certain level of cognition, and, therefore, a degree of intelligence that negates the idea that these birds return to us because “they are dumber than a rock.” They make a clear decision to return to a distant location or to the fist, particularly after being free for any length of time. But, again, the question is why, particularly after being free long enough to realize that they are on their own, and fully capable of surviving?
Much of what a hawk learns in the wild comes from conditioning brought on by “associative learning.” Associative learning is based on the assumption that life experiences reinforce one another and can be linked to enhance the learning process. So, a red-tailed hawk begins to associate rats brought to it by its parents with food. This association carries over once it fledges, and it begins to catch rats in order to survive. The process of pursuit and catching becomes linked (through association) with what the rat represents—food. And for lower level intelligence, such as with raptors, associative learning is paramount for survival, particularly since it must catch its food in order to survive. As a result, hawks, as predators, are very receptive to associative learning (particularly if it has to do with food), which is central to the conditioning process used by falconers during initial training, and is the main reason why passage hawks respond so quickly. A good example of how receptive hawks are to associative learning and how much it impacts their behavior is demonstrated in another experience by Eric Fontaine. A couple of passage goshawks were decimating his pigeons, so he trapped them and released them two mountain ranges and over 100 miles away from his home. He flagged them prior to release. One returned to his home seven days later and the other ten. So, again, this associative learning, particularly when it involves food, is very significant to a hawk, whether it comes about by virtue of a falconer during the training process, or not.
In terms of training a hawk for the purposes of falconry, two types of conditioning need to be identified; the first of which is often attributed to training hawks—“operant conditioning.” Operant condition refers to the use of consequences to modify behavior. The classic example is rewarding a rat with food for pushing a lever. The food, of course, is the “reinforcer.” So, when a hawk comes to the fist and is rewarded with food for doing so, operant conditioning is being used.
The other form of conditioning is called “classical,” or “Pavlovian conditioning.” This form of conditioning attempts to get a desired response by using a stimuli that is unrelated to the target behavior; for example, Pavlov got dogs to salivate simply by ringing a bell. To a certain extent, an example of classical conditioning in falconry would be conditioning a hawk to come to the fist based upon a whistle, rather than food, but the predominant type of conditioning used by falconers is operant in nature through the use of food as reward.
Either “continual reinforcement” and “partial reinforcement” is necessary for both forms of conditioning. Using the rat example of operant conditioning, if the rat is continuously rewarded (constantly reinforced) for pulling the lever, it will continue to do so; but, if the reward stops, the rat will quit pulling the lever almost immediately. Most falconers have experienced this behavior in the field with birds that have been continuously rewarded for coming to the fist. It doesn’t take long for the hawk to not come to the fist if constant reinforcement ceases completely. On the other hand, the rat will work much harder, even to the point of death, pulling the lever if it is rewarded only on random occasions (partial reinforcement). So, if a falconer continuously rewards his/ her bird with food for coming to the fist in the field, using classical conditioning, it will be much less likely to continue coming to the fist when deprived of food, than if it was only rewarded on occasion. But, understanding the intricacies of the conditioning process still does not explain why a hawk would return a falconer after an extended period of time in the wild.
It’s obvious from the behaviors of hawks described by falconers after release that these hawks have long term memory; that’s a given, or they would not recognize the falconer. And, there are a number of stories told by falconers that these hawks remained receptive to their presence even after they refused to come to the fist, which suggests that hawks are not only receptive to conditioning through associative learning, but, once conditioned in this way, the conditioning experience and resultant behaviors seem to be somewhat indelible; however, this is not to suggest that this conditioning cannot be reversed. We know from our rat example that while a hawk might return to the fist after an extended period of time, if this behavior is not reinforced, it will cease to do so; for example, I released a passage RT at the end of its first season in a field that we had hawked fairly consistently. For the first week, I would return every couple of days and feed her. I then extended the time away to three days, at which time, she began to do a number of fly bys when offered food before she would land, but when she did come to the fist, she would keep her wings extended for awhile, which indicated that she was beginning to struggle with being in close proximity of me. But, like Charles’s red-tail, she would continue to hunt with me and the dogs. When I extended the away time away to five days, she was nowhere to be found. This experience is what I would expect—a reversal of her conditioning and a slow transition back to her preconditioned state, in the absence of at least some reinforcement.
It appears that if a hawk that continues to return to the fist, after being released for an extended period of time, it does so, because of continued partial reinforcement, and pure, unadulterated conditioning, particularly if the hawk is in good weight. Some might argue that weight has nothing to do with it. They are coming to the fist because they are hungry, regardless of how heavy they might be; in other words, there is a difference between hunger and weight. While this observation is accurate, there still has to be a reason that allows a hawk to even consider coming to the fist, after an extended period of time, particularly if it has been surviving without being fed by a human; otherwise, we could just wave food at any hungry hawk and expect it to come. So, once again, the reason for this return is a direct result of conditioning.
Another factor contributing to a passage hawk’s receptivity to coming to the fist after release is length of time in captivity. Based upon some of the foregoing examples, and others, not mentioned, there appears to be a direct correlation between time in captivity and willingness to come to the fist after release—the longer the bird has been in captivity, the longer the period when it will come to the fist without the benefit of reinforcement.
So, what does all of this mean? It means,
1. That passage hawks are intelligent;
2. That passage hawks are very receptive to conditioning based upon associative learning involving food;
3. That this conditioning can be lasting, depending upon time in captivity, and can override any avoidance factor as it pertains to the presence of a familiar person or dog known to the hawk.
4. That hawks have navigational abilities that allow them to find familiar territory, which could an interesting topic for another day.

bill boni

[andy hall]

Bill,
Punishment is a consequence that reduces the frequency of a behavior.
Negative reinforcement is a consequence that increases the frequency of a behavior. So they are opposites as far a functionality goes.

Andy Hall

[Dirthawking]

Punishment is a rolled up newspaper. Not that anybody would ever recommend doing that to a bird.....

[mainefalconer]

There seems to be regional customary differences in certain parts of the country, though. maybe the influence of Ben and other successful falconers in that area working with difficult birds like the passage gos is why more extreme methods aren't much used in your circle.

Just a little reminder Dillon.... don't assume that Jeff's "falconry circle" is strictly regional. He and I live quite a distance away from one another, and I would consider myself part of his "falconry circle." (and him a part of mine) Speaking regionally however, I can say that aside from a few of the experiments that I have personally carried out, nobody up here is manning birds in the way that you described in "A." In fact, most of the folks I know are using the same/similar techniques that you described in your "B plan."

My suggestion is that good falconry practice is operant conditioning revamped for our specific purposes/goals. Whether or not the falconer(s) in question realizes that they are using behaviorism is another thing entirely. And maybe that's the up-side to this thread. It puts this stuff into the forefront of our thoughts while we've got nothing else to do but wait for our birds to moult. Let's face it,... training raptors to work with us and kill game is a pretty easy goal to accomplish. But the nuances and the minutiae of it all, are where it gets interesting. One of Steve Layman's first suggestions to me (during the summer of 1995) was to read and thoroughly understand Karen Pryor's, "Don't Shoot the Dog." He insisted that falconers should understand the principles that she plainly outlines in that book. All it did for me was teach me how to "train" my future girlfriends. Maybe this thread, in contrast, will put a positive spin to the training methods that some of us use.

[andy hall]

Punishment is a rolled up newspaper. Not that anybody would ever recommend doing that to a bird.....

That is kindling.
Andy

[MrBill]

mario writes:

>Punishment is a rolled up newspaper. Not that anybody would ever recommend doing that to a bird.....

Mario, I know seasoned falconer in PA that had a very aggressive CB HH in the mews. one day she swatted the bird with a newspaper when it was coming after her, not hard, so please don't go off the deep-end. it worked, and did not negatively effect the birds relationship with her; in fact, i think she still has her. also, years ago a falconer, knowledgeable of GE's took on an immature GE that became aggressive towards him, and he got a little physical with that bird to establish dominance (his words, as i recall) and, again, it worked out without the bird resenting him. Now, i'm not advocaying this approach, but i do feel, for the sake of discussion, that these incidents are related to the discussion as it pertains to andy's definition of punishment.

back to the pain killers

bill boni

[JRedig]

Just a little reminder Dillon.... don't assume that Jeff's "falconry circle" is strictly regional. He and I live quite a distance away from one another, and I would consider myself part of his "falconry circle." (and him a part of mine) Speaking regionally however, I can say that aside from a few of the experiments that I have personally carried out, nobody up here is manning birds in the way that you described in "A." In fact, most of the folks I know are using the same/similar techniques that you described in your "B plan."



Took the words right out of my mouth buddy, thanks!peacee I've actually never read any of ben's articles or even really talked with him about training stuff.

[RyanVZ]

Maybe if I get bored, I'll write about the approach I took with the female harpy that was put up to breed for 3 years and then had to become a sweet glove bird again. Remember when she grabbed your shorts? lol! Few things scarier than a confident, bitchy female harpy.

That was easily the scariest moment of my life. A matter of inches and my hamstring would have been ripped out. I'll never take my eye off of any eagle after that day. lol.

[kitana]

Punishment is a rolled up newspaper. Not that anybody would ever recommend doing that to a bird.....

Punishment is anything that reduces the likelihood of a behavior happening again, and it IS used in falconry a lot. What you described is punitive punishment, when you add (+) an unpleasant consequence after the bad behavior. The bird bates? The anklets hold it by the legs, putting pressure and creating discomfort which (hopefully) lessens the likelihood of bating. Negative reinforcement is a reward that happens when the unpleasant consequence is removed after a good behavior. The hawk goes back to the fist or perch, removing (-) the pressure/discomfort and rising the chances of returning to the perch/fist.

There is also negative punishment, when you remove(-) or don't give a pleasant consequence after the bad behavior. Negative punishment is also highly used in falconry: you come back sloppily when called? No food. You don't succeed at catching that prey? No food.

Punishment can be very subtle, much more subtle than a rolled newspaper...

Dillon, this thread is awesome and resumes my thoughts about manning and flooding. I was much more careful with my 2nd bird than my 1st, but will be even more in the future.

[JRedig]

Punishment is anything that reduces the likelihood of a behavior happening again, and it IS used in falconry a lot. What you described is punitive punishment, when you add (+) an unpleasant consequence after the bad behavior. The bird bates? The anklets hold it by the legs, putting pressure and creating discomfort which (hopefully) lessens the likelihood of bating. Negative reinforcement is a reward that happens when the unpleasant consequence is removed after a good behavior. The hawk goes back to the fist or perch, removing (-) the pressure/discomfort and rising the chances of returning to the perch/fist.


Hi Audrey,

Do you really think the reason a bird discontinues a single bate or bating is because of pressure and discomfort on their legs? I have a hard time connecting the dots on that one. A new bird that hasn't learned to regain the glove will hang, the last thing on their mind is the discomfort of pressure on their legs. Once they have learned to regain the glove, it becomes habit when they don't "Get away" to turn and return to the fist, depending on the reason for the bate that duration can vary.

How would that theory explain coops and such that will destroy their legs/scales to the point of blood and skin damage but continue bating? They are definitely not making that connection. I've seen pictures of birds in the middle east restrained by practically kite string that has worn through the skin and they are sitting looking like my gos with a foot tucked, no apparent recognition of the pain/damage.

[Dillon]

What some of you are focusing on leads me to question whether some readers don't have the attention span to read my posts closely enough, have poor reading comprehension, or just don't like what I'm saying and want to begin debating on irrelevant tangents.

For those of you so caught up on my "plan a" outline, you should read up on some of the posts here and see for yourself, as I've already suggested. I'm not going to name anyone, but there are quite a few falconers on here that man their birds pretty damned close to "plan a," including some pretty prominent falconers. In fact, some on this very thread have alluded to doing the "everything at once" approach. And I've already claimed to have directly witnessed or spoken with quite a few falconers who subscribe to that flooding method, so I'm confused. Jeff and Scott, I assure you that I'm not lying or exaggerating for the purpose of creating drama. Yes, most falconers fall somewhere in between the two methods, but my hope was that the reader could pick out a similarity or two in the more extreme method outlined and consider the alternative approach.

[Lee Slikkers]

My head hurts!

Steve

clapp

LOL, I'm with you Steve and I've only read pg 1 of this thread so far but I'm a glutton for punishment so I've diving back in at the top of pg 2.

[FredFogg]

Dillion, I understand your explanation of Plan A. I have never done those things to the extreme that you put out there but like many here, I have done it to a lesser extent. The attitude of expose a bird to everything so it will get over it seems to me to be very common in the falconry world and I have to admit, I always thought that was how you get the bird past those fears. The Recipe (which I followed and now know isn't the best way to go) is a good example of this. I think what you are saying is yes, the bird has to be exposed to everything but not with negative consequences. I believe I have always had pretty good birds but some of what you have put out here has given me options and I hope others too. There are a lot of ways to skin a cat but doing it in a way that doesn't make the cat scream is better. LOL :D

[JRedig]

Jeff and Scott, I assure you that I'm not lying or exaggerating for the purpose of creating drama.

Dillon, I never meant to imply either of your above suggestions, was just curious where it comes from. I read just about everything that comes up here along with being fairly involved locally and knowing people around the country and don't have that impression, that's all. From my position, it seems like a lot of effort to put all this out there for something that didn't appear to be common or a norm, so call it curiosity. Hope that's ok!;)

[Dillon]

Hi Audrey,

Do you really think the reason a bird discontinues bating is because of pressure and discomfort on their legs? I have a hard time connecting the dots on that one. A new bird that hasn't learned to regain the glove will hang, the last thing on their mind is the discomfort of pressure on their legs. Once they have learned to regain the glove, it becomes habit when they don't "Get away" to turn and return to the fist, depending on the reason for the bate that duration can vary.

How would that theory explain coops and such that will destroy their legs/scales to the point of blood and skin damage but continue bating? They are definitely not making that connection. I've seen pictures of birds in the middle east restrained by practically kite string that has worn through the skin and they are sitting looking like my gos with a foot tucked, no apparent recognition of the pain/damage.

Now this is a constructive question. There's a way of analyzing behavior called the Premack Principle that can start to explain elements of this question. In regards to reinforcement, the Premack Principle basically states that animals will perform less reinforcing (low probability) behaviors in order to gain access to more reinforcing (high probability) behaviors. In other words, high-probability behavior can be used to reinforce low-probability behavior. For instance, a hawk will fly to the falconer's glove (low probability behavior/ less desirable behavior) in order to gain access to the behavior of eating (high probability, more reinforcing behavior). It's also called "Grandma's Rule"-- the behavior of doing homework (low probability) can be rewarded with access to playing video games (high probability).

Now let's focus on Premack's Principle as it relates to punishment, which will help explain aspects of the cooper's hawk that bates constantly. In reference to punishment, Premack states that a low-probability behavior can be used to punish a high probability behavior. Imagine a hawk that is both hungry but afraid of the falconer. The presence of the falconer can punish the behavior of eating-- that is, the hawk is more likely to eat if the condition of the falconer didn't exist. Consider that reinforcement and punishment is subjective, and behavior does not exist in a vacuum-- animals are always learning, and reinforcers/ punishers are constantly fluctuating. So, if a hawk isn't hungry, the behavior of eating becomes low-probability. Likewise, if it is more punishing (low probability behavior, given a choice) for a cooper's hawk to be standing cooperatively on the falconer's glove than it is to attempt to escape (high probability behavior), then the the hawk is merely proving that it prefers the aversive of the jesses to the proximity of the falconer.

This stuff is an interrelated and complex web. In my bullet point list previously posted, I pointed out that animals tend to habituate to punishment, which is one of the many reasons bating continues to occur. Also, keep in mind that the definition for punishment is that it "decreases" behavior. Let's say a cooper's hawk is shown the hood, bates 10 times, then sits the glove and accepts the hood. What elements of behavior are at play? Tons. First, the behavior of sitting on the glove has temporarily become more reinforcing than hanging upside down, winded--Premack's principle. Second, you may have short-term habituation at play, and the hawk is temporarily habituated to being on the glove and the shown the hood. In the way that a person's startle response to a second popped balloon decreases, so does the response of the hawk when shown the hood again. Third, in this case, the hood has become a discriminative stimulus (cue) for something punishing-- the hawk has learned that when the hood is visible, it will be subjected to wearing it, and obviously would rather not. The hawk finally accepts the hood because the combination of negative reinforcement, positive punishment, habituation, and the beginning of learned helplessness. Bating has been punished (decreased), albeit temporarily. The act of sitting the glove has been negatively reinforced--again, temporarily-- by relieving the pressure and allowing the hawk to rest, so sitting the glove will increase or maintain. Finally, the reaction of bating due to the cue of the hood has temporarily stopped due to short-term habituation and the fact that the hawk has learned from past experiences that no matter how much it bates, it will still be hooded. The hawk has learned that whatever behavior it offers, it cannot affect the outcome. Hawks that hang upside down, refusing to be hooded upright, are telling the falconer that hanging by the jesses is preferable to being hooded.

I've got to go back to work, which is a shame, as there's so much more to this. More later.

[Dillon]

Dillion, I understand your explanation of Plan A. I have never done those things to the extreme that you put out there but like many here, I have done it to a lesser extent. The attitude of expose a bird to everything so it will get over it seems to me to be very common in the falconry world and I have to admit, I always thought that was how you get the bird past those fears. The Recipe (which I followed and now know isn't the best way to go) is a good example of this. I think what you are saying is yes, the bird has to be exposed to everything but not with negative consequences. I believe I have always had pretty good birds but some of what you have put out here has given me options and I hope others too. There are a lot of ways to skin a cat but doing it in a way that doesn't make the cat scream is better. LOL :D

Gotta run, Fred, but before I do, keep in mind that this stuff does NOT apply to imprints. The goal with them is to expose them to as many stimuli as possible before the fear response develops. More later.

[Lee Slikkers]

Dillon, I was wondering if this thread would ever wander down the topic road of an Imprint...and since you brought it up I would gladly love to hear some of your thoughts in regards to that process, for longwings if it makes a difference in your approach.

Thanks, this has been and continues to be a very informative and helpful thread...at least in my eyes.

[Goshawk635]

Dillon, I was wondering if this thread would ever wander down the topic road of an Imprint...and since you brought it up I would gladly love to hear some of your thoughts in regards to that process, for longwings if it makes a difference in your approach.

Thanks, this has been and continues to be a very informative and helpful thread...at least in my eyes.

Lee, I am with you. Loving this! Dillon, I am tracking well with your prose. Keep it coming please.

Phil Smith

[wyodjm]

Punishment is anything that reduces the likelihood of a behavior happening again, and it IS used in falconry a lot. What you described is punitive punishment, when you add (+) an unpleasant consequence after the bad behavior. The bird bates? The anklets hold it by the legs, putting pressure and creating discomfort which (hopefully) lessens the likelihood of bating. Negative reinforcement is a reward that happens when the unpleasant consequence is removed after a good behavior. The hawk goes back to the fist or perch, removing (-) the pressure/discomfort and rising the chances of returning to the perch/fist.



Hi Audrey,

Do you really think the reason a bird discontinues a single bate or bating is because of pressure and discomfort on their legs? I have a hard time connecting the dots on that one. A new bird that hasn't learned to regain the glove will hang, the last thing on their mind is the discomfort of pressure on their legs. Once they have learned to regain the glove, it becomes habit when they don't "Get away" to turn and return to the fist, depending on the reason for the bate that duration can vary.

How would that theory explain coops and such that will destroy their legs/scales to the point of blood and skin damage but continue bating? They are definitely not making that connection. I've seen pictures of birds in the middle east restrained by practically kite string that has worn through the skin and they are sitting looking like my gos with a foot tucked, no apparent recognition of the pain/damage.

Yes, I agree. A passage goshawk or golden eagle wouldn't last very long if it was allowed to bate repeatedly until it learned not to. I think they'd come pretty close to killing themselves first. They can do an incredible amount of damage to themselves in a very short period of time.

I've always tried to remove the reason for bating to keep a bird from bating in the first place. Or at least keep it from bating as much as possible.

[wyodjm]

What some of you are focusing on leads me to question whether some readers don't have the attention span to read my posts closely enough, have poor reading comprehension, or just don't like what I'm saying and want to begin debating on irrelevant tangents.

Hi Dillon:

This is probably very common on Internet forums. Everyone has an opinion. Which is fine, there's nothing wrong with that.

I'm not sure you're aware of this but there are several private discussions going on about this thread, behind the scenes. One of my friends made the statement about seeling a few days ago that we can not debate the subject. That is why we call beginners apprentices rather than students. The apprentice is gaining exposures to all falconry procedures. Once they are shown, they understand. Many of these folks are pretty defensive, because they have had a falconry permit for decades and they haven't accomplished very much..

I appreciate your efforts Dillon. Thanks again.

[kitana]

Hi Audrey,

Do you really think the reason a bird discontinues a single bate or bating is because of pressure and discomfort on their legs?

Jeff, no I don't think so. It was an example. Dillon subsequent post on Premack principle really address what could happen with bating...

On the other hand, in applied operant conditioning, we often forget that it's not the trainer who determines what constitutes a reward or punishment, it's the animal itself. As stated before, a punishment decreases the likelihood of an unwanted behavior to happen again. If it doesn't work, then it is not a punishment. If you whack your dog with a rolled newspaper every single time he barks and he does not stop barking, then hitting with the newspaper is not a punishment to him. So what we want to use as a reward or punishment has to be field tested, and it will depend entirely on the individual animal you are training and the situation you are in. What can work with one animal can be a mess with another one.

[mainefalconer]

. I'm not going to name anyone, but there are quite a few falconers on here that man their birds pretty damned close to "plan a," including some pretty prominent falconers. In fact, some on this very thread have alluded to doing the "everything at once" approach. And I've already claimed to have directly witnessed or spoken with quite a few falconers who subscribe to that flooding method, so I'm confused.

I'll give you that one.... I truly wasn't aware of folks using flooding as their own personally prescribed manning technique. I haven't seen it, or heard of it here in the northeast, (except for a redtail that I did it with a few years ago) but to be fair, I don't read the "hawking journal" threads here on NAFEX because accounts of days in the field with a play-by-play re-cap of what happened tend to bore me to tears. I can't stomach that crap. If I'm not there in the field to witness it first hand, I don't want to hear about it. Though I DO occassionally check in on the threads that Redig and Gagne keep, because they're friends of mine and they fly goshawks, which is where my interests lie. Anyway.... I'm getting off topic.

As a quick aside though, the redtail that I "flooded" turned into an exceptional game hawk and took nearly 100 head of game during the legal season, despite being trapped late, (November) proving that some hawks are fine candidates for the "all at once" method. Would I try it with a passage gos?... Heck no. But there are times when certain versions of "Plan A" can work out really nicely.

I'm not trying to be combative here.... I'm just saying that there are lots of good/applicable/appropriate ways of training passage raptors. And I'm also saying that what you've outlined here in all of your academic textbook-level jargon is antiquated information. Falconers have been using the very same methods that you describe in "Plan B" for a very long time, but we haven't been talking about it in the terms commonly employed by behaviorists. So it's a good and fun thing that you're using a relatively unfamiliar slant to paint a picture of basic falconry for us. It gets people thinking about elementary practices through a lens of a different color.

It's a fun conversation. One of the more interesting threads that I've seen here in a long time....

[FredFogg]

Gotta run, Fred, but before I do, keep in mind that this stuff does NOT apply to imprints. The goal with them is to expose them to as many stimuli as possible before the fear response develops. More later.

Dillion, I would think it would apply to imprints also. You say the goal is to expose them to as many stimuli as possible before the fear response develops but don't you think how you expose them to that stimuli could dictate whether they develop a fear response sooner rather than later or if at all. This is all very interesting to me and I have to admit, really has me thinking about the way I do things. So if anything, this thread has hopefully done that for everyone! clapp

[Dillon]

Thoughts on Imprints and Imprinting

Hi all,

I've been incredibly busy-- sorry about abandoning this thread for the last few days! I thought I'd share some thoughts on imprinting.

First, let me say that I have ALMOST ZERO experience with imprints and falconry. Until very recently, I always preferred the passage hawk; as I'm getting older and my understanding of behavior has become a bit more lucid, that has changed. There are true masters of the imprint here on this list and in literature. Kent Christopher and Vic Hardaswick's book really nails it, IMO. My best imprint was a goshawk that was raised via the McDermott method that was insanely great on game, but was a screamer. I have my own thoughts on how I would do things differently, but I won't go into that because I don't have enough experience in that facet of falconry yet.

I do, however, have a ton of experience comparing imprinted and non-imprinted birds in zoo and show situations. I've raised a good number of raptors, corvids, psittacines, gruiforms, softbills, etc., and have worked with the parent-reared counterparts of almost all of these taxa. Mind you, these were all for free-flight bird shows or aviaries in zoos.

First, my personal opinion of an "imprint" is that it cannot show any fear response when first taken; it has to be a bobble-headed ball of white fuzz. Anything after that age and the falconer will be dealing with other complications. For example, I ordered an "imprint" tiercel gos years ago from a breeder (I know, lazy), that came to me at 21 days old. The breeder supposedly pulled him early enough to imprint, but when he came to me he already showed fear of the hands and avoided the hood. The same thing happened to me with a gyr/peregrine tiercel. It's important to realize that raptors are altricial, and do not truly "imprint" like precocial birds, such as ducks. Even though "imprinted" raptors will act very tame and will go on to copulate with humans, this doesn't mean too much, considering human fetishes and the way they are thought to develop.

Anyway, back to the topic. First, remember that stimuli that are reinforcing and stimuli that are punishing are subjective and learned. For instance, one house cat might detest being held, yet another purrs in the arms of the owner. For me, sushi is one of my highest reinforcers; for others, it would be incredibly punishing to force them to eat a piece of sashimi maguro. Why is this? Well, behaviorists-- and those who subscribe to behaviorism like myself-- attribute it to early learning. While some of our inherent tastes and predisposition might be genetically linked, there is an incredibly amount of scientific studies supporting that early learning and initial exposures play a far more influential role than genetic predisposition. Consider the hand-raised eyas that learns to like chasing a tennis ball or enjoys falling asleep in the falconer's lap, and compare that to the other hand-raised eyas that is simply never given the opportunity to chase a ball or fall asleep in the lap of the falconer. It will likely not occur once the bird is older, especially the nap time part.

Now, let's speak briefly about reinforcers. There are two types: Primary-- or unconditioned, and secondary-- or conditioned. I'll refer to them as UR (unconditioned reinforcer) and CR (conditioned reinforcer) from here on out. UC's are things that are inherently rewarding, regardless of learning, and are REQUIRED for survival: food, water, shelter, and sex (sex is required for survival of the species, not the individual, though I could debate otherwise XD). Behaviorists are also making a strong case for control over one's environment as being an UR, but I've addressed much of that already. In contrast, CR's are learned. That means that every single other thing in an animal's life other than those 4 primary reinforcers are learned; in other words, they are reinforcing because they have been associated with some primary reinforcer. The converse also exists for this-- there are primary punishers as well: things like pain, excessive heat, cold, and loud noises. Likewise, there are secondary punishers-- stimuli that have a conditioned punishing effect (punishment decreases behavior) due to the association with a primary punisher. Telling a child (or an animal, for that matter) "No!" is a conditioned punisher: It decreases behavior because the animal learns that if it does not comply, then some sort of positive punishment (pain, for those of you who hit your kids or animals) or negative punishment (restriction, time-out in their room, no allowance, etc.) will be a consequence.

Where I am going with all of this is that the manner in which an animal is exposed to a certain stimuli early on will affect its reaction to it later-- imprint or not. With an imprint, there is a period of time when the bird can be exposed to stimuli before the fear response develops, causing "response blocking." The stimuli will never elicit any sort of negative reaction. This can be the case with certain imprints-- say a gyrfalcon-- that is put in isolation for years without seeing people, but the falconer finally enters the mews years later and no reaction (other than maybe some chupping) occurs. Now consider the imprint accipiter. Most austringers familiar with shortwings, even imprints, wisely advise that the hawk be relatively constantly exposed to certain stimuli in order to ensure that a fear response-- whether it be fear aggression or escape-avoidance-- does not occur. Imagine tethering an imprint cooper's in the weathering yard, and every two weeks you mow the lawn right around the yard with no reaction. Then winter hits, and there's a good 5 months of no lawn mowing. Spring arrives, and the mower is pulled out again, but this time the cooper's goes bat$#!+ crazy, as if it has never seen the lawnmower before! Why is this? Some might say, "because it's a cooper's hawk," and they are in some ways correct. As myself and others pointed out, sensitivity is not always needed with more congenial species like certain red-tails and Harris' hawks, but other species-- such as accipiters, prairies, and the like-- have a much higher chance of not working out do to small transgressions in training. So, beside the fact that cooper's tend to be more reactionary than other species, what else is going on? Long-term habituation. By raising an imprint and exposing it to certain stimuli whilst young, the habituation process has effectively and powerfully been implemented. The fear response has yet to develop, and even if a slight reaction occurs initially (a hiss, for instance, of a falcon pulled just a bit too young) the bird is immobile and cannot rehearse escape-avoidance behavior. This is the exact same parallel with our passage bird: by minimizing escape behavior through use of the hood, you are preventing phobic behaviors and negative associations from becoming ingrained. For the imprint, the "hood" is just the developmental phase of being young and fearless.

Some stimuli are difficult to habituate an animal to, regardless of how early on the exposure begins. For instance, the good advice of many-- if not all-- experienced falconers is to avoid lifting an eyas by the body. This is because young hawks have an instinctual fear of falling out of the nest, and if repeated, this can cause negative associations with the hands. Aversive associations cause fear and/ or aggression, and it's the falconer's goal to avoid this. It's the same reason why accipiters in particular are so difficult to make to the hood, even when imprinted. Hooding is an inherently aversive stimuli, and sooner or later, most begin to fight it, unless they are a particularly easy-going bird or the falconer is damned skilled. At this point, some force through it, others abandon the hood. With a skilled balance of pairing the hood with positive consequences and a desensitization process, skilled falconers can work through and continue to hood these birds; for others falconers, however, it's really not worth the potential negative side effects, and the hood is smartly abandoned.

One final thing about imprints, is that the "miracle" of the tame-hack is the direct dividend gained from giving these young animals countercontrol over their environment at a young age. This countercontrol develops an inordinate confidence and positive relationship with the falconer, that in my mind, is worth the risk. Tame hacking doesn't teach pole-sitting or laziness-- the falconer does.

Hopefully this incites some discussion and comments. I'm back to the grind!

Cheers,

[Falconer54]

Dillion, your last paragraph is absolutely true. I have ended up with birds that have imprint behaviours. The bird I have now acts like an imprint. A very social bird that quickly adapted to Falconry, and now we ae an extended family, Falcon, dogs and me. But, the main point is, she was out to hack for almost 8 weeks and was 4 weeks old when pulled from the wild. I have never purposely pulled an imprint, nor do I want one, but have ended up with some. I will say, they hack the best. The area they hack in becomes their domain. They bond to the Falconer and area, and are less inclined to leave. Their wingbeat, flying powers and footing are exceptional. They develop physically quite well, while also developing menatally into stronger birds. They do have more confidence, and will control their environment more. I have a pole at the corner of my property, overlooking the river bottom to the east, and creek bottom to the north. They become dominant, chasing off hawks, chasing gulls and Ibis that pass by. They are not lazy because they sit on a pole. I walk out into my neighbors field with pigeons, and they will wait on several times a day to chase pigeons without landing. It is fun and helps them develop, plus build the hunting relationship we will have later. Impring or not imprint, but the birds that are imprints, are really a pleasure to hack. I tame hacked 16 to 21 day old cooper hawks, who were not imprints, but were as tame as imprints. They also took control of their environment, and had great confidence and did not fly like some imprints.

[Rob Rainey]

Dillon:

Really interesting and thought provoking piece Dillon.

Thanks very much for taking the time to share this and start this discussion.

Best Regards,

Rob

[accipitterpatter]

I've just found this thread recently and find it very thought provoking. I've trained two hawks so far using 'traditional' methods and have been reasonably successful, but I am super interested in finding other ways in which to train a hawk. From what I understand, OC allows you to communicate more fluently with the hawk, something that I find to be particularly intriguing. One aspect of manning that hasn't been covered much in this thread that I am especially interested in is handling the hawk on a kill. What are some ways to get a hawk comfortable with you nearby while it's feeding on a kill? I just thought I'd ask.

[kitana]

What are some ways to get a hawk comfortable with you nearby while it's feeding on a kill? I just thought I'd ask.

Repetition of a pleasant experience, over and over and over again, will do the trick. The variations are infinite as long as your intervention isn't an aversive to the bird and it is done often enough to be generalized in the hawk's mind, you are on your way. Personally I love practicing on a frozen prey item before doing it with a live catch, if the only novelty is the "liveliness" of the prey and all the rest of the intervention, namely the approach, dispatching and transferring, are routine, chances of success are quite good.

[Dillon]

I've just found this thread recently and find it very thought provoking. I've trained two hawks so far using 'traditional' methods and have been reasonably successful, but I am super interested in finding other ways in which to train a hawk. From what I understand, OC allows you to communicate more fluently with the hawk, something that I find to be particularly intriguing. One aspect of manning that hasn't been covered much in this thread that I am especially interested in is handling the hawk on a kill. What are some ways to get a hawk comfortable with you nearby while it's feeding on a kill? I just thought I'd ask.

Hi Maureen,

A common misconception is that a falconer can choose to "use" operant conditioning or not. Every interaction you have with an animal-- human, dog, hawk, etc.-- uses some component of OC, whether or not you realize it. That's why reading up on it just a bit will make any falconer a better trainer-- it may not help with your intuition, but it certainly can help you trouble shoot behavior problems and prevent them from occurring.

How a bird acts on a kill really reveals a lot about the falconer's skill level. IMO, falcons should never mantle on a kill, and no raptor in general should mantle on the glove. If they do, then the falconer has made an error somewhere along the way.

In any case, I like my hawks to eat at least part of the kill. In cases where I've used the Mr. Frosty method with repetitions on/ off the frozen carcass and have not allowed birds to eat anything from the kill, I've ran into problems. I've had individual birds get a little aggressive towards the glove, leave kills early, or start mantling on the glove when I've stepped them off the kill before allowing them to break in. I also firmly believe that birds that get to eat off the kill become more aggressive hunters. Also, feeding off of kills allows the falconer to utilize "anticipatory contrast" and appropriately meliorated consequences without losing field control. For example, if I'm flying a falcon and it fails to catch something and we're done for the day, I'll call it down to the lure and still give it a full crop, but it will be of thawed food. I like to fly my birds as fat as possible, and this retains instant response on the lure. The only other option is to pick the bird up for a small piece of food, and this is likely to cause a reduced response to the lure and/ or bating away/ dodging the hood. Then the falconer has to drop the weight to compensate, and then your pitch deteriorates and the bird starts mantling and it becomes a downward spiral. If, in contrast, the bird is always given a good meal for coming to the lure, then you won't lose response. Then, when the bird catches something, it gets an even more desirable reward-- eating warm, bloody meat.

There are a ton of good ways to get a bird off a kill, but I can give you a quick lowdown on what I do. Most of it is based on Harry McElroy's writings and Kent Christopher/ Vic Hardaswick.

Stay way back and don't even bother approaching until the hawk has broken in and is eating. If it is a large prey item (bunny, jack), then I'll run in and dispatch it quickly, then immediately walk away. I don't hawk rabbits anymore, but when I did, I had a 12" sharpened screwdriver and would pith the rabbit and stake it right into the ground. This can help reduce any tendency to move around with the quarry or drag it under a bush, which all hawks will instinctively try. Don't approach the bird at all until it has broken in, started eating in earnest, and this is important-- NO LONGER MANTLING. Creep in, low and slow, and ALWAYS facing the bird. Walking in from behind or the side encourages carrying and mantling. If the bird stops eating or droops its wings, freeze or step back. Once I've successfully made in, I treat imprints and non-imprints differently.

Imprints should be used to having the hands around while they are eating, so I simply jess and leash them up, tether to the hawking bag or whatnot, and let them take their fill. Later, if the kill is made near the vehicle, I'll pick them up, quarry and all, and let them finish eating on the drive home to save time. As long as the imprint learns you won't rob them, they usually do great with this-- most of the time they won't even eat in the field anymore because they WANT to go to the safety and privacy of the vehicle to eat. If I can't allow a full crop because I want to go hawking the next day and the temperature is too warm, then I'll tear a piece of the game animal off (usually a leg) and tie it securely to the lure, and have them transfer to that.

Non-imprints can be handled the same way, but I've always preferred to feed them on the glove to save time. I follow the same steps as far as the approach goes, but once at the kill, I'll offer tidbits from the bare hand-- either the organ meat from the kill, or some breast meat I have tidbitted specifically for this. I tidbit, walk away, and repeat the approach about 4-6 times. Early on, I'll pick the bird up with the entire prey item. Later, when I'm no longer gorging on kills, I'll tear off a leg and step them up for that, once they've taken about half a crop. If you allow a bird to settle down and get some food in their system, they are much more cooperative about stepping off, especially if you are still using warm meat for the trade.

Once completely conditioned to the approach, I just waltz right up, tear a leg off the quarry, step up the bird, then rip off another leg or a wing with attached breast meat and add that to the glove. I pull out the heart, lungs, and liver, and tidbit the bird while its eating on the glove as well. Contrary to popular belief, in regards to non-imprints, adding more food to the glove or tidbitting while it is eating a bigger portion on the glove WILL NOT cause mantling or footiness. If this occurs, then the falconer has made an error somewhere along the road--usually, the bird is either too hungry and its weight needs to be brought up, or the falconer rushed the kill and the bird is still wound up over it. I usually make it back to the car while the bird still has food left, and I'm lazy, so I just tether them to the perch in the back of the truck and let them finish eating in peace while I drive home. Again, even non-imprints usually grow to prefer this. It's really satisfying-- to me, at least-- to step a bird off a kill and have it not even bother eating a single bite until we get to the car, which the hawk must regard as some sort of plucking post on wheels.

If a falconer has ever seen wild hawks and falcons on prey (tons of videos on youtube), then you'll see that they aren't all that concerned about eating in the wild. They are calm, casual, and don't mantle. They eat slowly. It's only through falconry that we sometimes create such an artificial anxiety and rush in regards to eating that they start to lose their inherent elegance. Once that poise is gone, it's difficult to reclaim, and at least for me, the bird is ruined.

Hope this was a good read!

[accipiter007]

I remember the gdood ol days when i used to man birds and it was a fairly simple process it seems any more i skip the maning process and go right into training. As far as a bird manteling on a kill or the lure i believe its not always a lack or skill or poor training or a bad falconer although in some cases this is absolutly the case but it also has to do with the species of bird. Not all birds have the same temperment or atitude. I have seen some birds mantle a kill and lure and some not sakers tend to be more agressive on a kill or lure then barbarys and peregrines i i have peregrines that will step of a kill or lure as soon as i am close, with out manteling or showing any sign of agression and otheirs that were not aw willing all with the same method of trainig . It seems to me that when you over compenecate or try to make a thing do complicated you loose something in the middle. The simpler you keep a process easier it is and the more fun it is. at least for me.

[MrBill]

>How a bird acts on a kill really reveals a lot about the falconer's skill level. IMO, falcons should never mantle on a kill, and no raptor in general should mantle on the glove. If they do, then the falconer has made an error somewhere along the way.

Dillion, this is exactly what my mentors told me when I first started in falconry; so, I was very careful not to provoke mantling with my first bird. But, try as I may, the bird mantled, and I was devestated. I felt like such a failure. But, as time went on, I became less and less concerned about mantling, because I could not understand the logic behind how it equates to the level of a falconer's skills in any sort of meaningful way . . . . but then, my skill level has never been that high.

David, you write:

>The simpler you keep a process easier it is and the more fun it is. at least for me.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Bill Boni

[Mthawker]

A very interesting and thought provoking thread here. And educational on several different levels.....:)

[Dillon]

Bill and David,

Yep, it's true that I certainly like to analyze things to the nth degree. I wish I was the kind of falconer who could relax a bit, but it's just not me. My perspective isn't for everyone, that's for sure, and at the end of the day this sport is indeed about having fun, and I would never expect another falconer to hold their birds to my standards or vice versa.

All that being said, this thread is about using operant conditioning to stack the odds in the favor of the falconer that the bird will turn out as close to perfect as possible. I've said it over and over in this thread, but I'll never accept putting the blame on individual birds-- even for something as simple as mantling. I really can't comprehend how someone can observe wild hawks on a kill, then watch a mantly-@$$ falconry bird and say its the bird's inherent nature that causes mantling; if it were, then you'd see it in the wild. Check out this video that's been posted here before-- specifically the 10 minute mark. These are wild falcons on kills, and even in circumstances where other hawks and falcons are attempting to rob them of the kill, there's no mantling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-FZdIrKyBk

[MrBill]

>I really can't comprehend how someone can observe wild hawks on a kill, then watch a mantly-@$$ falconry bird and say its the bird's inherent nature that causes mantling.

Not long ago, I set a trap under three passage Cooper's (sore hawks). One of them came down to the trap with gerbils in it and didn't quite know what to do with these mammals. They probably had not eaten anything but birds before. It stood there for a long time with one foot on the trap watching the gerbils move around. Occasionally, he would mantle over the trap. I imagine it was when he saw one of his siblings. And, more than once, while hawking I have had hawks mantle when they saw another hawk overhead. So, Dillon, I struggle with your contention that mantling is not inherent. I don't have videos of this incidents, so you will have to accept my word on it :-)

BTW, as to your comment about mantling being a reflection of a falconer's skills, there are some damn good falconers that have been hawking a long time, a few of whom you know, who have flown and fly birds thant mantle.

Dillon, I wrote an another article on operant conditioning; it will be published in the August HC. Feel free to comment on it in this forum. I would be interested in your input.

Bill Boni

[accipiter007]

Dillon,i respect yoir thoughts but to say birds the wild do not mantle is way off base. Manteling,iw a natural instinct that you and no body else can ever curve. some birds are going to have this instinct. This is not an excuse its a fact and the only way to stop it is to get a new bird the statements are fairly bold and i am wondering one where you came up with this philosiphy 2 how long have you ben a falconer and how many birds you have personaly trained. These questions are not ment to be argumentitive i am just curious.

[Dillon]

[/QUOTE]Not long ago, I set a trap under three passage Cooper's (sore hawks). One of them came down to the trap with gerbils in it and didn't quite know what to do with these mammals. They probably had not eaten anything but birds before. It stood there for a long time with one foot on the trap watching the gerbils move around. Occasionally, he would mantle over the trap. I imagine it was when he saw one of his siblings. And, more than once, while hawking I have had hawks mantle when they saw another hawk overhead. So, Dillon, I struggle with your contention that mantling is not inherent. I don't have videos of this incidents, so you will have to accept my word on it :-)

BTW, as to your comment about mantling being a reflection of a falconer's skills, there are some damn good falconers that have been hawking a long time, a few of whom you know, who have flown and fly birds thant mantle.

Dillon, I wrote an another article on operant conditioning; it will be published in the August HC. Feel free to comment on it in this forum. I would be interested in your input.

Bill Boni[/QUOTE]

Hi Bill,

Yes, it's impossible for me to cover every tiny "but what about this" when I respond to these things. It's utterly exhausting. What I'm referring to is the fact that there is no reason a wild hawk should mantle away from a human. When they are hanging around in very young sibling groups, or Harris' hawks are on a kill, then yes. They are competitors and not a threat to life and limb, so they will mantle in these circumstances. Hawks mantle when they regard the falconer as a threat to their food. Plain and simple. If the hawk regards you as a threat to the food, then you've done something to make it perceive that.

No one is perfect, Bill. I know that some great falconers fly some birds that have flaws. It's really a difference in philosophy between you and I: you blame the bird, I blame myself and try to learn from my mistakes. Have you read Ed Pitcher's/ Ricardo Velarde's book?

In any case, I haven't said anything that hasn't been said before. This isn't new stuff, and falconers will disagree with each other until the end of time. I'm not interested in debating; I'll never convince you, and you certainly will never convince me. I'm interested in sharing operant conditioning with interested parties and having thought provoking conversation about it.

[Dillon]

the statements are fairly bold and i am wondering one where you came up with this philosiphy 2 how long have you ben a falconer and how many birds you have personaly trained. These questions are not ment to be argumentitive i am just curious.

Hi David,

See post #33.

Thanks,

[accipiter007]

Dillon here are a 2 cases that have happend to me several times both,on a lure and on a kill what about when a wild peregrine comes in and circles 20 to 30 ft above your bird with you standing 3 to 4ft from your bird at this point is mantleing the wild bird takes off but your bird is now in a different state of mind. How would you change your birds mind set at this moment

[Dillon]

Dillon here are a 2 cases that have happend to me several times both,on a lure and on a kill what about when a wild peregrine comes in and circles 20 to 30 ft above your bird with you standing 3 to 4ft from your bird at this point is mantleing the wild bird takes off but your bird is now in a different state of mind. How would you change your birds mind set at this moment

Hi again David,

I wouldn't be concerned with a peregrine mantling in this circumstance since it isn't mantling away from me. When I say hawks shouldn't mantle, I'm specifically referring to the behavior of mantling occurring due to the presence of the falconer.

[Dillon]

Bill, as you requested, here's some feedback on your article. Please don't mistake the clinical tone of it as anything other than constructive. I can see what you are exploring, and it's really straightforward if one is familiar with the concepts and terminology of learning and behavior.

Just to forewarn the rest of you, if you don't like my previous posts and my approach, save yourself the trouble and don't bother reading this, as it's more "over-complication," as some of you would put it.

*My comments are underlined and italicized*

Despite a rather romantic notion of wild hawks being capable of developing some sort of emotional attachment to falconers, there is little doubt that passage hawks return to us after only a few weeks of training, and continue to return to us throughout the season because of conditioning, with food being the reinforcement reinforcing stimulus. Just nit picking. And, because of this conditioning, we know that these hawks can be released back into the wild and yet return to the fist days later; for example, Tasha Leong released a passage red-tail only to have it return to her fist, having not seen it for eleven days. Eric Fontaine had a passage goshawk remain in area and return to his home multiple times over a two year period. He called her to the lure and fed her off the fist regularly.
It seems the longer they are in captivity, the more profound the conditioning. Like Eric, another falconer released a four time intermewed RT on his property at the end of the hawking season. The hawk remained in the area, and he was able to pick it up off a fence post in the fall, and hawk it for another two seasons. Charles Warwick released a three-time intermewed red-tail in his back yard, and it also hung around for months; in fact, it continued to hunt with Charles when he took his dogs for a walk, and eventually took on a mate in the area.
But, even more intriguing are the numerous incidents when passage hawks have been released miles from their mews and yet find their way home. For example, Dana Brenfleck had a passage red-tail return home after being released 30 miles away. Charles lost the previously mentioned red-tail 25 miles from home. Three months later it showed up at his house, and came right to the fist. There are enough similar stories to ask why these passage hawks continue to return to the fist and seek familiar distant territory? Can conditioning be that strong and lasting, or is there something beyond conditioning that prompts them to return? This article will explore these questions. Behavior that is repeated is being reinforced, or conditioned. There isn’t anything “beyond” conditioning, so I’m not sure what the premise of the article is at this point...
These associative behaviors suggest the presence of a certain amount of intelligence; and, for animal intelligence to be present, there must be cognition. According to Sara Shettlesworth, “cognition refers to the mechanisms by which animals acquire, process, store, and act on information from the environment. These include perception, learning, memory, and decision making" (Cognition, Evolution, and Behavior (5)). Just a general comment: all animals have cognition and learn, including simple organisms like insects and even slime mold. Since it’s clear, through their behavior, that passage hawks perceive, learn, remember and make decisions, they demonstrate a certain level of cognition, and, therefore, a degree of intelligence that negates the idea that these birds return to us because “they are dumber than a rock.” They make a clear decision to return to a distant location or to the fist, particularly after being free for any length of time. But, again, the question is why, particularly after being free long enough to realize that they are on their own, and fully capable of surviving?
Much of what a hawk learns in the wild comes from conditioning brought on by “associative learning.” Associative learning is based on the assumption that life experiences reinforce one another and can be linked to enhance the learning process. So, a red-tailed hawk begins to associate rats brought to it by its parents with food. This association carries over once it fledges, and it begins to catch rats in order to survive. The process of pursuit and catching becomes linked (through association) with what the rat represents—food. And for lower level intelligence, such as with raptors, associative learning is paramount for survival, particularly since it must catch its food in order to survive. I personally wouldn’t regard the importance of associative learning as more or less important when it comes to general “intelligence.” Associative learning is the ability of an organism to discriminate and generalize like and unlike stimuli, and that correlates directly to intelligence, so I’m not really following this thought. If associative learning were indeed more important to a species like a raptor that has to catch its own food, than say, a parrot or corvid that forages, then a raptor would have developed superior associative learning skills. As a result, hawks, as predators, are very receptive to associative learning (particularly if it has to do with food), which is central to the conditioning process used by falconers during initial training, and is the main reason why passage hawks respond so quickly. Again, I don’t follow. You’re saying that hawks in general are innately receptive to associative learning, but for some reason passage hawks are more so than a captive-bred hawk? A good example of how receptive hawks are to associative learning and how much it impacts their behavior is demonstrated in another experience by Eric Fontaine. A couple of passage goshawks were decimating his pigeons, so he trapped them and released them two mountain ranges and over 100 miles away from his home. He flagged them prior to release. One returned to his home seven days later and the other ten. So, again, this associative learning, particularly when it involves food, is very significant to a hawk, whether it comes about by virtue of a falconer during the training process, or not. Is it really remarkable that a hawk will return to a proven food resource? Many animals of far lower intelligence will do the same.
In terms of training a hawk for the purposes of falconry, two types of conditioning need to be identified; the first of which is often attributed to training hawks—“operant conditioning.” Operant condition refers to the use of consequences to modify behavior. The classic example is rewarding a rat with food for pushing a lever. The food, of course, is the “reinforcer.” So, when a hawk comes to the fist and is rewarded with food for doing so, operant conditioning is being used.
The other form of conditioning is called “classical,” or “Pavlovian conditioning.” This form of conditioning attempts to get a desired response by using a stimuli that is unrelated to the target behavior; for example, Pavlov got dogs to salivate simply by ringing a bell. To a certain extent, an example of classical conditioning in falconry would be conditioning a hawk to come to the fist based upon a whistle, rather than food, but the predominant type of conditioning used by falconers is operant in nature through the use of food as reward. This isn’t correct. Classical conditioning is reflexive behavior that occurs without any decision making. Yes, the whistle can elicit salivation in hawks, just as with dogs, and be associated with food, but if you whistle and the hawk flies to the glove even in the absence of a food reward, it relates to intermittent reinforcement.
Either “continual reinforcement” and “partial reinforcement” is necessary for both forms of conditioning. Using the rat example of operant conditioning, if the rat is continuously rewarded (constantly reinforced) for pulling the lever, it will continue to do so; but, if the reward stops, the rat will quit pulling the lever almost immediately. It depends. If the reward stops early on when the rat has only a brief history of reinforcement, then it won’t take many repetitions before it realizes that the lever is on a nonreinforcement schedule. However, the longer the history the animal has with being reinforced for a behavior, the more resistant to extinction it becomes. Most falconers have experienced this behavior in the field with birds that have been continuously rewarded for coming to the fist. It doesn’t take long for the hawk to not come to the fist if constant reinforcement ceases completely. On the other hand, the rat will work much harder, even to the point of death, pulling the lever if it is rewarded only on random occasions (partial reinforcement). So, if a falconer continuously rewards his/ her bird with food for coming to the fist in the field, using classical conditioning, operant conditioning. See previous explanation. it will be much less likely to continue coming to the fist when deprived of food, than if it was only rewarded on occasion. If I wasn’t familiar with behavior, this sentence would have completely lost me. A better way to explain this would be that if the falconer wants to increase response due to intermittent reinforcement (which you refer to as “partial”), then the number of calls to the glove that are not reinforced should be gradually introduced; for example, calling a hawk 5 times to the glove without a reinforce is likely to decrease response quickly. Introducing a 9:10 ratio of reinforcement (9 out of every 10 responses are reinforced) and then gradually introducing a 7:10, then a 6:10, etc., should show an INCREASE in response. But, understanding the intricacies of the conditioning process still does not explain why a hawk would return a falconer after an extended period of time in the wild. Yes it does for the reasons I've hit on already and for more that I will elaborate on...
It’s obvious from the behaviors of hawks described by falconers after release that these hawks have long term memory; that’s a given, or they would not recognize the falconer. And, there are a number of stories told by falconers that these hawks remained receptive to their presence even after they refused to come to the fist, which suggests that hawks are not only receptive to conditioning through associative learning, but, once conditioned in this way, the conditioning experience and resultant behaviors seem to be somewhat indelible; however, this is not to suggest that this conditioning cannot be reversed. What is happening here is the hawk has been counterconditioned, and now relates the falconer to positive experiences rather than aversive ones, it has been long-term habituated, and there is a history of positive reinforcement. We know from our rat example that while a hawk might return to the fist after an extended period of time, if this behavior is not reinforced, it will cease to do so; for example, I released a passage RT at the end of its first season in a field that we had hawked fairly consistently. For the first week, I would return every couple of days and feed her. I then extended the time away to three days, at which time, she began to do a number of fly bys when offered food before she would land, but when she did come to the fist, she would keep her wings extended for awhile, which indicated that she was beginning to struggle with being in close proximity of me. But, like Charles’s red-tail, she would continue to hunt with me and the dogs. When I extended the away time away to five days, she was nowhere to be found. This experience is what I would expect—a reversal of her conditioning and a slow transition back to her preconditioned state, in the absence of at least some reinforcement. Of course. First, habituation can wear off quickly without consistent exposure. Second, reinforcers fluctuate in importance depending on associative history, appetitive drive, and the access to other reinforcers. A passage hawk that is released and has access to hunting wild game has other reinforcers available, and they realize they have all day to attempt to gain those reinforcers. The bird will likely also be heavier because of no weight control. I would contend that the more history that a passage hawk has of being restrained on the falconer’s glove, the less likely it will be to fly to the glove in a wild situation.
It appears that if a hawk that continues to return to the fist, after being released for an extended period of time, it does so, because of continued partial reinforcement, not accurate. It would only be partially reinforced if the falconer called the wild hawk down for no reward on one day, and then called it down for a reward on a subsequent day. I think what you’re referring to is that the results of counterconditioning and habituation continue to maintain or strengthen behavior, even when access to other reinforcers are available. and pure, unadulterated conditioning, particularly if the hawk is in good weight. Some might argue that weight has nothing to do with it. They are coming to the fist because they are hungry, regardless of how heavy they might be; in other words, there is a difference between hunger and weight. While this observation is accurate, there still has to be a reason that allows a hawk to even consider coming to the fist, after an extended period of time, particularly if it has been surviving without being fed by a human; otherwise, we could just wave food at any hungry hawk and expect it to come. So, once again, the reason for this return is a direct result of conditioning. I like it. The hawk is coming for an easy, guaranteed meal, that’s it.
Another factor contributing to a passage hawk’s receptivity to coming to the fist after release is length of time in captivity. Based upon some of the foregoing examples, and others, not mentioned, there appears to be a direct correlation between time in captivity and willingness to come to the fist after release—the longer the bird has been in captivity, the longer the period when it will come to the fist without the benefit of reinforcement. That’s due to a longer history of reinforcement. Like the rat pressing the lever, the longer the history of reinforcement, the more resistant to extinction the behavior becomes. As far as tameness goes, the longer the animal is exposed and remains long-term habituated to stimuli, the longer it takes to fade away.
So, what does all of this mean? It means,
1. That passage hawks are intelligent; I don’t think they’re any more intelligent than captive bred birds. They certainly have learned more from their experiences in the wild, so that’s an advantage.
2. That passage hawks are very receptive to conditioning based upon associative learning involving food; All animals are very receptive to conditioning involving food. Food is a primary reinforcer.
3. That this conditioning can be lasting, depending upon time in captivity, and can override any avoidance factor as it pertains to the presence of a familiar person or dog known to the hawk. I wouldn't go as far as saying "any," but yes, for all the reasons mentioned.
4. That hawks have navigational abilities that allow them to find familiar territory, which could an interesting topic for another day.

[MrBill]

Yikes, Dillon! I haven't read what your critique yet, but the article I was talking about is not published yet :-) I guess you have been chomping at the bit to write this for some time. I can't imagine why :-) Now, let me read what you have said. I'm sure it has all been written without any malace of forethought, and simply for the sake of discussion :-)

Bill Boni

[accipiter007]

So dillon how long have you ben a falconer, just courious.

[MrBill]

Dillion,

>There are enough similar stories to ask why these passage hawks continue to return to the fist and seek familiar distant territory? Can conditioning be that strong and lasting, or is there something beyond conditioning that prompts them to return? This article will explore these questions. Behavior that is repeated is being reinforced, or conditioned. There isn’t anything “beyond” conditioning, so I’m not sure what the premise of the article is at this point...

I guess I was a bit vague here. I am sorry, Dillon. I was thinking that perhaps these hawks form some sort of attachment to a particular area over time and are able to home to that area, somewhat like hawks returning to their nesting sights each year. Last fall, I had a Cooper's hawk for about six weeks and and released her here at the house. She hung around for quite awhile. And, I have had that happen with other hawks, as well. Anyway, this is what I was thinking about when I wrote that.

>Just a general comment: all animals have cognition and learn, including simple organisms like insects and even slime mold.

I understand this; truly I do, Dillon. And I don't think I wrote anything to contradict what you say here.

I personally wouldn’t regard the importance of associative learning as more or less important when it comes to general “intelligence.” Associative learning is the ability of an organism to discriminate and generalize like and unlike stimuli, and that correlates directly to intelligence, so I’m not really following this thought. If associative learning were indeed more important to a species like a raptor that has to catch its own food, than say, a parrot or corvid that forages, then a raptor would have developed superior associative learning skills.

You should probably go back and read what I wrote again. I did not say that associative learning was more important. Frankly, this is what happens, Dillon, when one's comments are motivated for reasons other the constructive dialogue.

As a result, hawks, as predators, are very receptive to associative learning (particularly if it has to do with food), which is central to the conditioning process used by falconers during initial training, and is the main reason why passage hawks respond so quickly. Again, I don’t follow. You’re saying that hawks in general are innately receptive to associative learning, but for some reason passage hawks are more so than a captive-bred hawk?

Dillon, Dillon, my goodness, my man. Where did I say in my commentary that passage hawks are innately more receptive to associative learning than captive-bred hawks. I don't know if I am going to be able to make it all the way through this, Dillon.

Is it really remarkable that a hawk will return to a proven food resource?

[MrBill]

I thought I had better breat this up a little, as it was getting a bit long.

Is it really remarkable that a hawk will return to a proven food resource?

It's remarkable to me, Dillon (even though it may not be to you) or I would not have said it.

This isn’t correct. Classical conditioning is reflexive behavior that occurs without any decision making. Yes, the whistle can elicit salivation in hawks, just as with dogs, and be associated with food, but if you whistle and the hawk flies to the glove even in the absence of a food reward, it relates to intermittent reinforcement.

Thanks for pointing that out, Dillon, and you are certainly right.

It depends. If the reward stops early on when the rat has only a brief history of reinforcement, then it won’t take many repetitions before it realizes that the lever is on a nonreinforcement schedule. However, the longer the history the animal has with being reinforced for a behavior, the more resistant to extinction it becomes.

Thanks for the qualifier. I guess I should have said, "Depending upon the rats history pulling the lever . . . ".

If I wasn’t familiar with behavior, this sentence would have completely lost me. A better way to explain this would be that if the falconer wants to increase response due to intermittent reinforcement (which you refer to as “partial”), then the number of calls to the glove that are not reinforced should be gradually introduced; for example, calling a hawk 5 times to the glove without a reinforce is likely to decrease response quickly. Introducing a 9:10 ratio of reinforcement (9 out of every 10 responses are reinforced) and then gradually introducing a 7:10, then a 6:10, etc., should show an INCREASE in response.

I guess I could have written this better. My apologies, Dillon. I am not the best writer in the world, but I do try. BTW, I am not sure how this helps, since I don't intend to rewrite the article, but thanks anyway.

What is happening here is the hawk has been counterconditioned, and now relates the falconer to positive experiences rather than aversive ones, it has been long-term habituated, and there is a history of positive reinforcement.

Thanks for the added information, Dillon, most appreciated.

Of course. First, habituation can wear off quickly without consistent exposure. Second, reinforcers fluctuate in importance depending on associative history, appetitive drive, and the access to other reinforcers. A passage hawk that is released and has access to hunting wild game has other reinforcers available, and they realize they have all day to attempt to gain those reinforcers. The bird will likely also be heavier because of no weight control. I would contend that the more history that a passage hawk has of being restrained on the falconer’s glove, the less likely it will be to fly to the glove in a wild situation.

Thanks for this information as well, Dillon; that's good stuff. BTW, I think you are probably right about hawks that have been restrained, as I have found that most passage hawks don't like to be restrained, so they probably would be disinclined to come to the fist in this sort of situation.

not accurate. It would only be partially reinforced if the falconer called the wild hawk down for no reward on one day, and then called it down for a reward on a subsequent day. I think what you’re referring to is that the results of counterconditioning and habituation continue to maintain or strengthen behavior, even when access to other reinforcers are available.

You are right, again, Dillon. I could have probably said it better.

That’s due to a longer history of reinforcement. Like the rat pressing the lever, the longer the history of reinforcement, the more resistant to extinction the behavior becomes. As far as tameness goes, the longer the animal is exposed and remains long-term habituated to stimuli, the longer it takes to fade away.

That explains it, Dillon. I have often wondered about this. Thanks.

I don’t think they’re any more intelligent than captive bred birds. They certainly have learned more from their experiences in the wild, so that’s an advantage.

Now Dillon, again, I didn't say this. You are assuming this.

Anyway, thanks, Dillon for taking the time to go through my article. Again, perhaps you would not mind doing so when you have had a chance to read my article in the August HC.

Bill Boni

[MrBill]

Dillon,

I forgot to say thanks for clarifying and adding to what I had written also. I certainly what to give credit where credit is due.

Bill Boni

[Tom Smith]

So dillon how long have you ben a falconer, just courious.

David, figure it out, how long would it take to train hundreds of hawks at lets say two or three a year. I would be curious to know what you come with. How old would the person have to be.

Some people claim to have trapped hundreds (that's plural, indicating at the very least 2 hundred) of some species of hawks, I can believe that if the person is a bird bander.

[Dillon]

David, figure it out, how long would it take to train hundreds of hawks at lets say two or three a year. I would be curious to know what you come with. How old would the person have to be.

Some people claim to have trapped hundreds (that's plural, indicating at the very least 2 hundred) of some species of hawks, I can believe that if the person is a bird bander.

::Sigh::

Okay, I'm going to take a bit of my own advice after this one and ignore ridiculous remarks and questions. Number of hawks trained is of absolutely no relevance when it comes to applying operant conditioning to behavior-- it's an application based on quantifiable observations from 80 years of experiments. Is this an attempt to discredit my expertise on a topic based on an assumption that I've lied about my experience? I never claimed to have caught game with hundreds of raptors; I claimed to have trained hundreds of raptors and hundreds of other birds as well. I claimed to be an ardent observer of falconry and pretty damn good at analyzing behavior in order to understand it, predict it, and modify it. Just to quell the curiosity, I've been a falconer for going on 16 years, and I've been training animals professionally for about the same amount of time. I've been the behavior manager of very large collections of birds at various major zoos ad other animal facilities. If you want specifics or my resume, look for me on LinkedIn.

Yes, 16 years is not a long time compared to many on here, but that's not the point. This isn't an attempt to make a name for myself or start a pissing contest about who can train a better hawk or who has more experience-- although that's now been brought up independently by at least 3 falconers.

Now, if anyone has any positive points of discussion, I'll check back later. I've wasted way too much time on this today.

[accipiter007]

Well to answer your first question tom at 4 birds a yr it would take 50 yrs. 75yrs for three a yr and at 2 a yr it would take 100yrs rember i said i cant spell math is a whole dirrerent ,pl Rember dillon is in abaitment so he most likley trains far more than those numbers in a given yr. I know this because in the last 4 yrs i have trained 20plus birds for my work. I also spent a great portion of my life traping a bird training it free flyingu it then fattening it up and releasing it and doing the same prosess byiearing this in mind it is possiable to train far more than your statistics might imply.

Dillon i wish you all the luck, and hope that your time in falconry delivers you expect from it. my question were not for a pissing contest or to discredit you.

What you expect from it. I dont know what happend to that what in the previous post.

[RyanVZ]

Dillon is not in abatement.

[accipiter007]

Sorry i thought he said he trained abaitment birds i quess they were for other people. Sounds like a good gig.

[Tom Smith]

Well to answer your first question tom at 4 birds a yr it would take 50 yrs. 75yrs for three a yr and at 2 a yr it would take 100yrs rember i said i cant spell math is a whole dirrerent ,pl Rember dillon is in abaitment so he most likley trains far more than those numbers in a given yr. I know this because in the last 4 yrs i have trained 20plus birds for my work. I also spent a great portion of my life traping a bird training it free flyingu it then fattening it up and releasing it and doing the same prosess byiearing this in mind it is possiable to train far more than your statistics might imply.

David, It is not my question it was your question and I was suggesting a way you could answer it yourself.

So neither Dillon or you get on my case. I said in a previous post that I agreed with Dillons methodology because it is essentially, whether the writer or Dillon knows it or not, is the way nearly every falconry book ever written explains the training process. I see nothing new here.

When somebody says they have trained hundreds of hawks immediately the picture of a very very old person comes into my head. Dillon's avatar shows a picture of a younger looking person, in my falconry experience it is hard to visualize the circumstance that it would take to have trained hundreds of hawks. Even in the middle east where one person may have many hawks that person also has a falconer for each bird, I suppose in that circumstance one guy could have trained several dozens of birds over his lifetime. I don't think that one would enjoy his current bird much if what he was doing was trying to set a record of how many birds he could train.

I realize that a person might say figuratively that they have trained hundreds of hawks, but hearing that blows their credibility in whatever else they say at least for me.

[MrBill]

>Yes, it's impossible for me to cover every tiny "but what about this" when I respond to these things. It's utterly exhausting.

Oh, come on, Dillon, it can't be that laborious of a project. I think you might be over-dramatizing it a bit. You don't want to be perceived as a wimp do you :-) And, you have to cover every tiny "what about this?" because you set yourself up for having to do that when you make catagorical statements; it's the nature of the business :-)

In terms of mantling, I guess what you are saying (please correct me if I am wrong) is that this behavior is not inherent, it's learned in the nest at a point in time when the siblings are getting big and competing for food that is brought in. They "learn" to use their wings like arms to protect their food. I'm, of couse extrapolating a bit from what you said, but I think it would be a good argument for mantling not to be inherent as you have suggested (in no uncertain terms). With this being the case, then I would suggest that falconers are really up against it, when it comes to mantling, so much so that I, again, cannot see how it somehow defines a certain skill level in terms of "falconry."

You also write:

You also write:

>I'm not interested in debating; I'll never convince you, and you certainly will never convince me.

I think you should read my August article before you make a determination that I need to be convinced of anything. And, I'm sorry you are not interested in debating. Good, honest, debate (in the spirit of Socrates) is how knowledge is expanded. But it's not easy; I'll give you that, particularly on a falconry list :-)

Take care,

Bill

[accipiter007]

I understand what you are saying at least i think i do. But,you never know the circumstances. Sometimes credability should come from being seen and not read. Because it doesnt sound credible doenst always mean its not. One thing in life i have come to live by is 90 percent of people are more than willing to incapsulate and constrain others with their limitations, most people are held down by this. I would not be the person or dad or granddad that i am today if i allowed this to happen to me. When i hear thats imposible or you can't do that, all i hear is that person has set limits for them self and that it has nothing to do with me or or my limits. This is not aimed at any one this is my personal way in how i approach everything life has to offer.

Well played mr bill i agree completly. And if mantleing is related to skill there are a lot of people who are going to have to go back to the drawing board. As for me i dont know where i sit cause some of my birds mantle and some dont. I must say my best flyers can mantle from time to time.

[Chris L.]

David,

Please stop multiple posting. Post all of your thoughts in one post. It really clutters the thread up when you have multiple posts one after the other... I will be merging all of your posts

Everyone else, please take a deep breath. This thread is getting off track and on the verge of being closed. I see some back handed comments being made and I don't think it needs to be this way. If you don't like what someone is writing, reply once about it and let it be. If said person doesn't respond to you, take the hint , it means they don't want to respond and stop egging the person on.

[MrBill]

>Yes, 16 years is not a long time compared to many on here

Dillon, I think 16 years is a decent amount of time in the trenches, particularly since you came along during the era of information technology, in addition to tons of written material, as well as videos, etc., that were/are available. There was a time, in years gone by, when experience was truly valued because there was so little information out there, but nowadays newer falconers can get up to speed very quickly, and go on from there. So, I imagine that in 16 years you have learned quite a bit. But, back to mantling, as I don't want Chris to close the thread.

My take on what you said earlier (realizing that I was putting words in your mouth to some extent) was that mantling was a learned behavior from their experiences in the nest early on in that they "learned" to extend their wings to protect their food from their siblings. My response was that this makes it difficult for those falconers who are concerned about mantling, because the birds learn this behavior very early. I am, of course, being somewhat antrhopormorphic and assuming that early experiences in a hawks life form strong behaviors later in life. With this being said, years ago when I was trying to sort out this mantling thing, I couldn't for the like of me figure out what I was doing wrong. I was flying rabbit hawks at the time, and it dawned on me that when I made in and grabbed the rabbit to dispatch it, the hawks perceived me as a threat and began mantling, in short order. There is probably something I could have done better, but, by then, I had beat myself up enough about it, and moved on. Unlike you, I don't see it as all that important in the grande scheme of things pertaining to hunting with hawks. But, "to each their own." You will read these words again, Dillon :-)

Take care,

Bill Boni

[accipiter007]

I think that some birds mantle in the wild or a falconry bird to hide from sight of other preditors, takeing a low profile. And that its not always somthing learned in the nest, mantling can be trigerd by a multude of reasons. As far as hunting hawks and falcons mr bill is right. Well it may be nice to see a bird eat tight off the lure or glove or not mantle on a kill, it should be at the bottom of the list of concerns. If it flys well kills game and gets on the glove long enough to clip it off and it goes home with you at the and of the day your not doing to bad.

[keitht]

I have often watched the local Cooper's hawks bring down pigeons in my back yard. They don't mantle over them, but look around nervously instead. Then they will drag the prey to the bushes where they are covered. I've always considered this as just an improved method of mantling - mantling with bushes.

I've seen mantling in falconry birds from one end of the extreme to the other. Some birds don't seem to mantle at all. The worst of the worst are those that every time the falconer moves, they go into that extreme mantle where their whole bodies seem to shake as they spread their wings.

I consider mantling a "natural behavior" but one that with a careful hand can be conditioned out.

[RyanVZ]

I think that Dillon is trying to say is that a bird should not mantle because it feels threatened by the falconer. Of course if the bird feels threatened by something in its environment it will mantle over food, that is innate. What is being said is that the falconer should not be that something that is threatening. ie Birds get robbed by the falconer often will often give the mantling response to the falconer.

A bird that mantles every time a falconer is feeding it on the fist, is threatened by the falconer. A bird that rarely mantles and then only when a wild hawk flies by is defending it from competition from the wild hawk. Essentially the falconer should be no more threatening to the raptor and its food than say a rock or a tree.

[accipiter007]

I have to respectfuly disagree. Once the mantleing button is pushed its somthing that might stick with the bird for somtime, even with out being riped off or being threatend. Say you are on a hunting trip and a cold snap comes through and your bird drops in weight, just the drop in weight can cause a bird that has never mantled before to mantle on that day and the bird minght take some time to stop this as it sticks in their mind. And in my opinion this has nothing,to do with the falconer or the falconer threatening the bird or the bird getting riped off. And you dont have the luxery of saying i would just compinsate for the weather as it is very unpredictable. This is just my opinion

[MrBill]

Ryan,

I think, by now, we all understand what the root cause of mantling, and that it is learned behavior (thanks to Dillon). And, of course, I think we all realize that there are degrees of mantiling, and that mantling can certainly be brought on by "robbing" a hawk (that's a given), but it can also be brought on by other less envoking reasons, particularly if, in their formative stage, they had to compete for food with their siblings; in other words, I don't think judging falconers because their bird mantles on game determines anything within the parameters of falconry. If that were the case, a whole bunch of falconers who have been successful over the years hunting with hawks would have to reconsider . . . . maybe we should? Maybe it's that important? BTW, don't let me see any of your hawks mantling :-)

Bill Boni

[Tom Smith]

I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to this thread because of the obvious difference of opinions.

When we are talking about mantling are we actually talking of two different behaviors "mantling" and "covering"? Which are different and display themselves differently but look very similar and as most behaviors BOP's display can be made a vice or I should say a bad habit, emphasis on habit.

Mantling seems to me rooted in sibling social interaction and play. Covering is what raptors will sometimes do when another raptor appears overhead. An experienced bird on the ground won't do it knowing it will attract the raptor overhead probably having learned it from sibling play now unwanted.

To cause a bird to mantle can take the form of mimicking sibling social behaviors. To mimic those social behaviors and cause a bird to mantle is exactly what falconers do not want to do, but inadvertently do it anyway not being familiar with post fledging behavior of a family group in the wild.

Frequent calling to the fist can start it, pulling away food can start it, along with other teasing things that siblings around the nest do to each other out of play instincts. Anyway that is my opinion and I'm sticking with it. I'm to old to argue and I'm sorry I haven't read much of this thread to know what others have said on this subject.

[RyanVZ]

Ryan,

I don't think judging falconers because their bird mantles on game determines anything within the parameters of falconry. If that were the case, a whole bunch of falconers who have been successful over the years hunting with hawks would have to reconsider . . . . maybe we should? Maybe it's that important? BTW, don't let me see any of your hawks mantling :-)

Bill Boni

I could care less if someones bird mantles or not. Some falconers strive to achieve no mantling and some don't. It matters not to me, to each there own. The purpose of the thread was for Dillon to express his thoughts on manning and training. Doesnt really matter who agrees or disagrees. Nothing he has said can be proven wrong. Only opinions and feelings. No one has to agree here, that why the thread is called "Thoughts on Manning," not "Facts on Manning."

Yes, Dillon is my friend and former coworker so I'm on board with much of what he has written. No one ever said that anyone has to do anything like he or I or anyone else does. Heaven forbid we have some information as to the why instead of just the how.

BTW my example about robbing was just an example, the simplest one, of course there are many reasons that a bird can/will mantle I didnt realized that I had to list them all to make my point.

[accipitterpatter]

Dillon,

Thanks for the detailed description and for mentioning where you originally got the ideas from (now I can look that up too). I think this forum works best when we can use it as a source of information to better our falconry.

Unfortunately, I don't think I'm one of those falconers that have an intuitive understanding of all the interactions between the falconer and the hawk involved in training and hunting. So, breaking down my behaviors towards the hawk and the hawk's behavior to me increases my understanding AND my fun. I have the most fun when my hawk is most comfortable with the interaction of the hunt that we share.

[MrBill]

>Of course if the bird feels threatened by something in its environment it will mantle over food, that is innate.

Why couldn't it be learned behavior as I described, Ryan? I'd have to go back and look at he posts, but as I recall, Dillon seems to think that mantling is learned behavior also. I guess what I am trying to understand is how you made the determination that this behavior is innate. Thanks. If it is innate, that would make mantling an even bigger challenge IMO.

BTW, sorry if I upset you on my last post. I certianly didn't intend to to do so.

Bill Boni

[RyanVZ]

I personally feel that it is innate to mantle when the bird feels that its food is threaten, guess I should clarify that. Not a strong opinion, I could probably be swayed other way after reading some studies. I also feel that it doesnt matter innate or learned, the falconer shouldnt make the bird feel threatened if one wants to have the best relationship with that bird.

Dillon can think what he wants, I said that I only agree with most of what he says. :D

Whether is it innate or not doesnt change the fact that the falconer is not another bird of prey so the falconer should not be perceived as a threat. It is more difficult to avoid this behavior in imprints since they think that they are human or you are a bird, but its still not impossible. If the bird sees you as a threat to its food, however misguided we feel that it is, the bird is right and we as falconers have to change that relationship in the bird's mind if you truly want to get the most trust out the human/hawk relationship

Trust me Dillon and I have had many many lengthy discussions about all manner of things back in the day. When it comes to training any living thing to do about anything, there are few that can do it better than he.

Just my opinion, I really don't care how others do things as long as they are happy with the results they are getting.

[accipiter007]

falcons and hawks do not have to consider you as another bird of pray to feel you are a threat. I do agree that the falconer should be looked at as a safe place to be and in no way to,be a threat. But birds of pray for the most part see most things as a threat to their food. There are coyoty's, foxes , cats, dogs and the list goes on. Say a stray dog are somone walking their dog and it runs up,to you while your bird is eating off a kill or lure, its going to mantle once this takes place the birds frame of mind iw all screwd up and now your birds defensive about everything when it comes to food. I think that the trust relationship between man and falcon is in a good place when he ie a few thousand ft up and comes back to you. And you make it home again to do it the very next day yr after yr.

[Pretty Hawk Woman]

Bill and David,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-FZdIrKyBk

The video was nice, it's like an all you can eat buffet for falcons/raptors.

[accipiter007]

Thats a cool video, but i seriously hope that the theory wild raptors dont mantle was not based on this video.

[Dillon]

Ryan,

Thanks for your thoughts-- they concisely conveyed exactly what I'm trying to express.

Just to clarify, IMO, mantling is learned. Behaviorists will tell you that everything other than Fixed Action Patters, involuntary reflexes and a few other ethological behaviors are learned, and I tend to agree. For mantling to be innate in my mind, it would have to be impossible to raise an imprinted raptor without having it mantle. It's difficult to do, but there are plenty of falconers who've managed to do just that.

That being said, I really don't think it matters. Frankly, I'm appalled that American falconry is obviously devolving in standards. I grew up reading and rereading all the classics: Stevens, Bert, Frederick II, Mitchell, Gilbert, Blaine, etc. I devoured this stuff, and these were gentlemen of the sport who held their birds to the highest standards. They expected birds that hooded well, took game, were feather perfect, and didn't mantle. Their birds were a reflection of themselves, their attention to detail, and their respect for the birds. Sadly, this doesn't seem to be the case for many these days. Maybe it's just a small minority of falconers that I'm picking on, but for the most part I see (either in person or on the multiple list servs I read just about daily) falconers who don't care about anything other than catching game. Yes, this is about having fun, and I'm with Ryan-- I don't give two $#!+s if your bird mantles, screams, or is an otherwise living terror. But, I won't stand for blaming an animal for these behaviors when they are the product and responsibility of the falconer. It's simply about setting aside ego and having the confidence to accept that none of us are perfect, recognize that the animal's behavior is a reflection of our own skill, and be confident enough to embrace that and learn from our mistakes. It's that simple. And again, that's the reason I started this thread, to help those interested falconers learn to analyze behavior scientifically and apply sound operant conditioning techniques to minimize behavior issues and help fix problems that may already be ingrained.

Bill and David, I respect your opinions and we can disagree, but you two are obviously so fundamentally different that I would never voluntarily choose to interact with you in person, let alone this forum. I wish you the best in your falconry.

[accipiter007]

Dillon i respect your take on these matters. But you say you read all these books and devoured the info but did you ever see their birds in the field. Its easier to write a perfect falcon than to make one. To the point of being different. You say you strive for perfection well we most all do. My imprints do not mantle at all and my bird hood so well that if a bird throws a hood in the truck all i have to do is put it back on while its on the block. But i live in the real world and know that not all birds come out of a cookie cutter and take them as they come. Not the kinda person that just gets rid of a bird thats a little more diffacult. And cherry pick only the ones that make me look good. Most of my birds are as well mannerd as they come and that came from a lifetime of hands on experiance not other peoples writings. Take hooding to me its an art form, and somthing me and my birds are exelent at, but i didnt get that way by analizing it i learned it by doing it over a course of time. When it comes to personal interaction the feeling is mutual. And a pointless comment, i hawk alone or with my wife also a falconer. I do hope you all the best when it comes to this sport and that in time you learn that you dont always have to reinvent the wheel.

[Montucky]

I think it is needed look at our bird's behavior and point the finger at ourselves. Having said that there are three aspects to a birds behavior under the charge of a falconer:


Its history before the falconer got the bird
The falconer's goals and objectives
The falconer's skill


Certain behaviors like mantling are clearly innate part of a raptor's behavioral repertoire brought about by handling that may mimic sibling or parent interaction in the wild. The old books don't talk much about it as everyone flew passagers and haggards...and I dont think Bert for example would have produced a non-mantling imprint goshawk...he just would not have ever flown one if given the choice because it would not have EVER been able to produce the score (and performance) on partridge he would have expected. Game success matters:D As far as hooding, yes it may be a reflection of skill, but it is not a reflection of poor falconry necessarily. The only criteria to which a falconer should be measured is (In my humbly realistic opinion):

Good health
good feather
good facilities and perches
regular hawking on suitable game.


A falconer can easily achieve these things being a poor hooder, with a mantling, food begging game terrorist of a hawk.

Falconry is a hunting sport; advanced training techniques and skill aides in this but it is secondary to the pursuit in the field with a healthy bird that is well cared for. At the end of the day, the details of training this or that all come out the same in the wash if the falconer is a hawking fanatic and knows how to produce game for his bird.

[Dillon]

John,

I agree that there are behaviors that are VERY difficult to condition/ extinguish if the bird has had previous history in captivity with other falconers. Believe me, I've worked with more than my fair share of these birds and they aren't perfect, but they were at least salvageable in some ways. This entire thread, however, is about preventing problems from occurring in pristine passage or captive-bred birds.

In regards to your comments on the literature, you're off base and need to re-read some of these. Yes, hacking and passage birds were popular, but so were late-taken eyasses, and most of these authors go into detail on preventing mantling and screaming. And I know Bert is a pain to read, being in old English and all, but he actually said in his treatise that an eyas can outscore and be superior in head count to even the best haggard with time and patience. That just goes to show that even to Bert who was out to catch as much game as possible with his goshawks, he valued a quiet, well-mannered bird over anything else.

I've mentally checked out of the discussion of what does/doesn't make a good falconer and bird. I've said it a few times before on this thread, but just because I hold myself to a certain standard doesn't mean I always achieve this or that I expect anyone else to hold to the same; I am, however, willing to exchange dialogue with those falconers who DO hold the same high standards, are constantly pursuing perfection, and continue to seek ways to minimize undesirable behavior in their hawks.

Maybe I'm a bit pretentious, but if a falconer has an ill-mannered bird but catches a ton of game with it, I still regard the falconer the way I regard a parent who has an out of control, bratty child. When a kid is throwing a tantrum in public, I blame the parents, not the child. I'd rather share a dinner table with a kid who learned to dine with some manners instead of the one who smacks, chews with his mouth open, etc. These are anthropomorphic parallels, but I'm using these examples so that others can see where I'm coming from.

In any case, I'm pretty much done defending my personal standards, so I won't respond to those questions. Maybe someone can create a separate thread about these other things so it doesn't detract or clutter up this one? I've just run out of interest.

Regards,


I think it is needed look at our bird's behavior and point the finger at ourselves. Having said that there are three aspects to a birds behavior under the charge of a falconer:


Its history before the falconer got the bird
The falconer's goals and objectives
The falconer's skill


Certain behaviors like mantling are clearly innate part of a raptor's behavioral repertoire brought about by handling that may mimic sibling or parent interaction in the wild. The old books don't talk much about it as everyone flew passagers and haggards...and I dont think Bert for example would have produced a non-mantling imprint goshawk...he just would not have ever flown one if given the choice because it would not have EVER been able to produce the score (and performance) on partridge he would have expected. Game success matters:D As far as hooding, yes it may be a reflection of skill, but it is not a reflection of poor falconry necessarily. The only criteria to which a falconer should be measured is (In my humbly realistic opinion):

Good health
good feather
good facilities and perches
regular hawking on suitable game.


A falconer can easily achieve these things being a poor hooder, with a mantling, food begging game terrorist of a hawk.

Falconry is a hunting sport; advanced training techniques and skill aides in this but it is secondary to the pursuit in the field with a healthy bird that is well cared for. At the end of the day, the details of training this or that all come out the same in the wash if the falconer is a hawking fanatic and knows how to produce game for his bird.

[accipiter007]

Getting an eyass not to scream or mantle is no great task same with a passage bird believe it or not there are lots of falconers that have well behaved birds and kids take me and my kids for instance their both honor students and my son just just awared for academic exelance award from the national high honor society. In highschool. And are very well behaved. Same as my birds. All with out over thinking, only useing the kiss method. And if a well manerd bird is above all else even takeing game one might as. well be a pet keeper. To the part of kids acting out in public. Do you even have kids, i am offended for all parents that have autistic children or any other children that have issues with out the problem of bad parrenting.

[MrBill]

>Bill and David, I respect your opinions and we can disagree, but you two are obviously so fundamentally different that I would never voluntarily choose to interact with you in person, let alone this forum.

Damn, Dillon, when this thread started you toold me, "I have an enormous amount of respect for you," and now I am persona non grata in your life. Incredible, truly incredible, particularly since you don't even know me. But, stuff like this happens more often then it should within the falconry community. However, after reading your somewhat self-righteious response to John, I would agree--we are fundamentally different, Dillon, but that would never preclude me from talking to you. The only time I have ever done that is when I didn't personally like someone, never because I don't happen to appreciate them as a falconer, as there is much more to life than falconry (for me). But, you have made your decision, Dillon, so that's the way it will be.

Rock on!

Bill Boni

[Montucky]

John,

I agree that there are behaviors that are VERY difficult to condition/ extinguish if the bird has had previous history in captivity with other falconers. Believe me, I've worked with more than my fair share of these birds and they aren't perfect, but they were at least salvageable in some ways. This entire thread, however, is about preventing problems from occurring in pristine passage or captive-bred birds.

In regards to your comments on the literature, you're off base and need to re-read some of these. Yes, hacking and passage birds were popular, but so were late-taken eyasses, and most of these authors go into detail on preventing mantling and screaming. And I know Bert is a pain to read, being in old English and all, but he actually said in his treatise that an eyas can outscore and be superior in head count to even the best haggard with time and patience. That just goes to show that even to Bert who was out to catch as much game as possible with his goshawks, he valued a quiet, well-mannered bird over anything else.

I've mentally checked out of the discussion of what does/doesn't make a good falconer and bird. I've said it a few times before on this thread, but just because I hold myself to a certain standard doesn't mean I always achieve this or that I expect anyone else to hold to the same; I am, however, willing to exchange dialogue with those falconers who DO hold the same high standards, are constantly pursuing perfection, and continue to seek ways to minimize undesirable behavior in their hawks.

Maybe I'm a bit pretentious, but if a falconer has an ill-mannered bird but catches a ton of game with it, I still regard the falconer the way I regard a parent who has an out of control, bratty child. When a kid is throwing a tantrum in public, I blame the parents, not the child. I'd rather share a dinner table with a kid who learned to dine with some manners instead of the one who smacks, chews with his mouth open, etc. These are anthropomorphic parallels, but I'm using these examples so that others can see where I'm coming from.


Regards,


I can read Bert just fine...its Early-Modern English to be exact;) He states that a eyass tiercel can potentially do as well as a good passage female. Most that have flown both would agree...but why bother if a passage is at hand...i know i wouldn't. It is completely accurate to say that the overwhelming lion-share of older falconry literature deals with passagers, haggards, and in some cases hacked birds and uncommonly eyasses. I would refer to Mitchell and other late 19th century English works as revival falconry literature not truly the old stuff during the zenith of falconry. the art of falconry in my opinions is this very basic process of trapping, manning and hunting - and I would argue THAT is what is in limited supply or may be in the future...not "properly behaved birds".

The bottom line is that animal training and falconry overlap in some areas and dont in others. I have seen some of the very best falconers fly imprint falcons that hood well but mantle for example...but it was their commitment to the pursuit of gamehawking and their commitment to the birds safety and well being that made a lasting impression about what the sport is really about.

[accipiter007]

Traping,manning,hunting, thats a direct hit, in the end that is as simple as it gets and thats what it is all about.

[Chris L.]

I think this thread has ran its course....