Imprinting Ideas?

I just got the new Imprint Accipiter II book and thought it was great. Some good reading. I knew McD was big into using baggies, but after reading his book I didn’t know he relied on them so much and puts so much stock in their use. The link below is another recipe created by a guy in the UK. I think he has some good points.
I don’t really think keeping a carcass all the time with the eyas and using it as a platter is so necessary. I think I will just use the lure instead of the carcass. In fact I am thinking of not feeding the eyas off of any of the kills (baggies included) What I am thinking of is using baggies in the evening and morning and once the bird has settled down and starts to pluck and relaxes a bit, but before breaking in, transferring the eyas to the lure which is already pre garnished and the food pre weighed and then use Barry’s method of using two lures and switch the eyas from one lure to another until with equal amounts of food on each lure until the bird finishes its ration. I will tame hack the bird. I will also use Pet Smart’s timed feeder as well.
Transferring a bird before it has broken into the quarry isn’t a new thing. I have read about a few people who do that, but I don’t know if they started this out when their hawks were eyas’s or not. I think starting when they are eyas’s would be the way to go. What do you guys think? Isaac

http://www.falconryforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=42623

I don’t know, I did some more reading and according to McD not opening up the kills can cause problems. I guess there is a difference between opening up a kill and feeding off of it. I just can’t see though why any problems should occur if you don’t open up the baggies. Also, I don’t get the whole thing about the lure holding to much importance. Isaac

My opinion is this. When first learning falconry you count on your sponsor teaching you to end up with a made hawk. ( Doesnt always happen of course). So your first bird should really be trained as if it were your sponsors. You should end up with a good bird that hunts and has no or minimum vices. So, then if your going to use someone elses training method ( in this case,McD's) I think you should follow it to a T. Then after you've used it then alter it some to suit you. You should never mix training styles UNTIL you know what your doing. And this is best done by following the new method then altering it to suit you. JMO

Can you get your money back for the book? You were robbed.

Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack

Can you get your money back for the book? You were robbed.

Jack

---

How many imprints have you done? How many times have you tried Mc Dermott's methods?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by outhawkn

My opinion is this. When first learning falconry you count on your sponsor teaching you to end up with a made hawk. ( Doesnt always happen of course). So your first bird should really be trained as if it were your sponsors. You should end up with a good bird that hunts and has no or minimum vices. So, then if your going to use someone elses training method ( in this case,McD's) I think you should follow it to a T. Then after you've used it then alter it some to suit you. You should never mix training styles UNTIL you know what your doing. And this is best done by following the new method then altering it to suit you. JMO

---

amennn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack

Can you get your money back for the book? You were robbed.

Jack

---

Jack, you have imprinted one bird in your life, you have no grounds to judge any one that has written any books on imprinting. Sometimes you just need to read and not comment! confusedd

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FredFogg

Jack, you have imprinted one bird in your life, you have no grounds to judge any one that has written any books on imprinting. Sometimes you just need to read and not comment! confusedd

---

My point exactly.

I have done both methods, and I think tame hacking has more advantages. Once the bird is flying regularly, he needs to be shown that you will provide opportunities to kill game. He needs to know what "game" is though. If you use baggies, it won't take long before he knows what "game" is. He is hardwired to chase, but killing is an acquired skill. He has to overcome his innate fear of the game he is chasing. With tame hacking, this can occur at any time you want. He will rely on you for food until you force him to kill. That can be early or late depending on when you have game available, but once started, should be continued so he doesn't rely on you for food as much anymore. The biggest reason for the number and earliness of baggies in the recipe, is that the bird is being programed from the start to rely on you to provide slips. Otherwise, it seems to me they preoccupy themselves with wanting to get away. In tame hacking the opposite occurs...they want to be with you so you need to show them it is good for them to get away. I like the recipe, but you just can't believe how tame a bird can get with tame hacking. I'd recommend the video on tame hacking...I think it's David Jones? At any rate, Barry is the expert on this.....I'm sure he'll weigh in.

I don't think I got ripped off in the least. He sure knows what he is talking about. I don't think McD. minds if “his” recipe is altered and I don’t think he would say that tweaking it here and there would cause the bird to be unbalanced. As long as you follow the “six key elements” things should be fine.

The thing is this, on page 70 he describes problems that may occur if the baggies and game are not opened up. On page 69 describes how the problems start if you don’t open up the baggies and kills (which doesn‘t make much sense to me). I just don’t see why it should be a problem if you don‘t open up the kills. On page 70 again he describes a few solutions to fix the problem if you don’t open up the baggies. If you don’t open up the baggies and problems occur one solution he recommends is to trade the bird off to a heavily garnished lure. He says it’s a good solution, but that the bird could develop possessiveness, carrying and likely aggression. I can see that might be a problem if your transferring the bird to a heavily garnished lure. The question is why would you transfer to a heavily garnished lure in the first place (very un McD like and something he says should not be done in another part of the book)? That heavily garnished lure would seem to be the cause of the problems associated with using the problems described. He himself says elsewhere in the book that a heavily garnished lure is not the way to go.

The way I see it from comparing notes from other people and their experiences and my own. By opening up a kill you are giving the bird a reason to want to stay on the kill and be possessive of it.

Here is what one person had to say about Jim’s method.

“Jim by the sounds of it you have created a habitual act, your hawk hunts grabs it prey gets a reward even if it is a small one. Your hawks been conditioned to this act
Grabs prey gets a reward later the big one comes only it doesn’t know when.
In your hawks case it’s the same only you probably have conditioned the hawk to the act of the kill is not its food the act of killing is the bridge to the food you offer.
The hawk doesn’t see the kill as its food only the fact that the act of killing gets a reward from you. Alf.”

This makes perfect sense to me. The thing is though, even Jim feeds his birds off of the first ten kills or so. Why would he even do this? Is it to give the bird a better reward? Maybe a case of the “what they don’t know won’t hurt them could be applied here.” The bird gets his reward from the lure and not a lure that is fully garnished but a lure that has normal sized tidbits on it and is traded off from one lure to another until he gets his fill.

Maybe the fact of the matter is who really cares and maybe it doesn’t really matter at all, than again maybe it does. Opinions anyone?

P.S. Alf states,
“Grabs prey the bird gets a reward later the big one comes only it doesn’t know when.”
I think giving the bird a big reward at the end is not a good idea. The bird in my mind would constantly thinking were is that big reward. This I think could really cause aggression and possessiveness especially if you reward them heavily in the field. Instead of at home or in the giant hood. Small equal amounts of food on two different lures and trading them off until they are full, like Barry does, seems to make the most sense. Isaac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frootdog

amennn

---

Krys:
Is there anything that you wish you would have done differently with your coopers? What are her vices if any? What do you think you could have done differently with McD recipe that might have improved her if any? Isaac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BestBeagler

Krys:
Is there anything that you wish you would have done differently with your coopers? What are her vices if any? What do you think you could have done differently with McD recipe that might have improved her if any? Isaac

---

The one thing I have said all along is that I should have tethered her sooner. I did not realise the importance of the statement "as soon as the hawk is mobile". I liked the puppy dog tameness too much, let her walk around the house, have free reign. BIG mistake. She bates a lot and I think it is directly attributed to that fact.

Vices? None that are not managable. She was a face grabber 1st year, but in retrospect she was way too low. She will chase me in the field now and go for my feet after a miss. I'm usually wearing sandals so it's kind of a pain, but again that is a weight thing and I always knew last year what Iwas going to have to deal with if I flew her a bit hot. She would catch an ass pile of game but then chase me around the field. Only last year she never went for the face.

Other than the tethering the only thing now I would do different is do a male coop next time. But the next imprint accip I do will be a sharpy (hopefully male).

She meets every state and federal criteria now so I'm putting serious though into putting her in a breeding project. In 2 seasons she took well over 1000 head of game including an even 700 last season. Done right they are everything McD says they can be.

And they are much easier on thier feathers in year 2, but I hear the hacking helps with that too. Just another reason to do the hack. I imped the entire train 3 times year 1 and a grand total of 3 feathers last year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BestBeagler

I don't think I got ripped off in the least. He sure knows what he is talking about. I don't think McD. minds if “his” recipe is altered and I don’t think he would say that tweaking it here and there would cause the bird to be unbalanced. As long as you follow the “six key elements” things should be fine.

The thing is this, on page 70 he describes problems that may occur if the baggies and game are not opened up. On page 69 describes how the problems start if you don’t open up the baggies and kills (which doesn‘t make much sense to me). I just don’t see why it should be a problem if you don‘t open up the kills. On page 70 again he describes a few solutions to fix the problem if you don’t open up the baggies. If you don’t open up the baggies and problems occur one solution he recommends is to trade the bird off to a heavily garnished lure. He says it’s a good solution, but that the bird could develop possessiveness, carrying and likely aggression. I can see that might be a problem if your transferring the bird to a heavily garnished lure. The question is why would you transfer to a heavily garnished lure in the first place (very un McD like and something he says should not be done in another part of the book)? That heavily garnished lure would seem to be the cause of the problems associated with using the problems described. He himself says elsewhere in the book that a heavily garnished lure is not the way to go.

The way I see it from comparing notes from other people and their experiences and my own. By opening up a kill you are giving the bird a reason to want to stay on the kill and be possessive of it.

Here is what one person had to say about Jim’s method.

“Jim by the sounds of it you have created a habitual act, your hawk hunts grabs it prey gets a reward even if it is a small one. Your hawks been conditioned to this act
Grabs prey gets a reward later the big one comes only it doesn’t know when.
In your hawks case it’s the same only you probably have conditioned the hawk to the act of the kill is not its food the act of killing is the bridge to the food you offer.
The hawk doesn’t see the kill as its food only the fact that the act of killing gets a reward from you. Alf.”

This makes perfect sense to me. The thing is though, even Jim feeds his birds off of the first ten kills or so. Why would he even do this? Is it to give the bird a better reward? Maybe a case of the “what they don’t know won’t hurt them could be applied here.” The bird gets his reward from the lure and not a lure that is fully garnished but a lure that has normal sized tidbits on it and is traded off from one lure to another until he gets his fill.

Maybe the fact of the matter is who really cares and maybe it doesn’t really matter at all, than again maybe it does. Opinions anyone?

P.S. Alf states,
“Grabs prey the bird gets a reward later the big one comes only it doesn’t know when.”
I think giving the bird a big reward at the end is not a good idea. The bird in my mind would constantly thinking were is that big reward. This I think could really cause aggression and possessiveness especially if you reward them heavily in the field. Instead of at home or in the giant hood. Small equal amounts of food on two different lures and trading them off until they are full, like Barry does, seems to make the most sense. Isaac

---

I have only imprinted 2 accipiters and 2 falcons.

The first was a female coop. She was a good killer, but she did become aggressive on kills and eventually her perch. She was not fed off the perch. I did open her kills in training and I got the feeling she didn't really like it. If you are pulling on the skin and your hand slips, it is a quick pull on the meat and I think that isn't great.

The second imprint was my gos. He never became defensive on the kill. I didn't open his kills up much at all. I would just help subdue them whether baggie for real game. If it was a rabbit, I killed it as gently as I could. He killed most of the birds. He never showed any aggression and only carried a few times and it was at a weight that was too high for him to chase rabbits. I would let him feed on kills sometimes in the field. Sometimes I would toss food on the ground at home, but mostly I let him eat kills in the field or a transfer in the field. Sometimes I would transfer him to the lure and while he was on the lure I would put a meat reward on the ground. He did mantle. Now, whether or not it affected him or not, I want you to know that after I left him at home for a couple of weeks while I went to Mexico, he became shockingly wild and fearful.

Now my opinion is that you probably never need to feed a bird on a kill. I think it is a romantic idea. I quit feeding my RT's on kills years ago and they still loved killing squirrels. I would say a passage bird has the "kill then eat" in his mind. An imprint has a different though process and I would hate to venture much of a guess on it, but I doubt they need to feed off a kill either. I think McD does it partially because it eleminates much feeding on the glove/lure. Michael Hunter used to use a large piece of carpet to feed his coops up on, but I can't remember if they were passage or imprints.

My thought process obviously comes from more passage/pr bird experience, so take it for what it is worth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by outhawkn

My opinion is this. When first learning falconry you count on your sponsor teaching you to end up with a made hawk. ( Doesnt always happen of course). So your first bird should really be trained as if it were your sponsors. You should end up with a good bird that hunts and has no or minimum vices. So, then if your going to use someone elses training method ( in this case,McD's) I think you should follow it to a T. Then after you've used it then alter it some to suit you. You should never mix training styles UNTIL you know what your doing. And this is best done by following the new method then altering it to suit you. JMO

---

Bill:
I will tell you this. Relying on a sponsor to help train a RT is whole different ball game. When you put a lot of cash down for something (for me anyway) you want to be as guaranteed as you can be that you won't screw it up and that it's raised with its head screwed on right. Besides, it may be a bit presumptions and pompous of me but I bet any apprentice of mine that does what their told in their first year, will come out with a higher success ratio of having a near perfect RT with minimal vices then someone taking on their first accipiter and following a recipe out of a book. That's why I question things. Isaac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frootdog

The one thing I have said all along is that I should have tethered her sooner. I did not realise the importance of the statement "as soon as the hawk is mobile". I liked the puppy dog tameness too much, let her walk around the house, have free reign. BIG mistake. She bates a lot and I think it is directly attributed to that fact.

Vices? None that are not managable. She was a face grabber 1st year, but in retrospect she was way too low. She will chase me in the field now and go for my feet after a miss. I'm usually wearing sandals so it's kind of a pain, but again that is a weight thing and I always knew last year what Iwas going to have to deal with if I flew her a bit hot. She would catch an ass pile of game but then chase me around the field. Only last year she never went for the face.

Other than the tethering the only thing now I would do different is do a male coop next time. But the next imprint accip I do will be a sharpy (hopefully male).

She meets every state and federal criteria now so I'm putting serious though into putting her in a breeding project. In 2 seasons she took well over 1000 head of game including an even 700 last season. Done right they are everything McD says they can be.

And they are much easier on thier feathers in year 2, but I hear the hacking helps with that too. Just another reason to do the hack. I imped the entire train 3 times year 1 and a grand total of 3 feathers last year.

---

Thanks for the frank and honest response. I have flown a few passage coopers and know of others that have flown eyases. I usually say that I don't think flying the passage coopers will help you any when it comes to preparing you for the eyas, but the passage will force you to learn good husbandry skills that is for sure. So maybe taking a passage coops first before flying an eyas could help people in that way. Isaac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wesleyc6

I have only imprinted 2 accipiters and 2 falcons.

The first was a female coop. She was a good killer, but she did become aggressive on kills and eventually her perch. She was not fed off the perch. I did open her kills in training and I got the feeling she didn't really like it. If you are pulling on the skin and your hand slips, it is a quick pull on the meat and I think that isn't great.

The second imprint was my gos. He never became defensive on the kill. I didn't open his kills up much at all. I would just help subdue them whether baggie for real game. If it was a rabbit, I killed it as gently as I could. He killed most of the birds. He never showed any aggression and only carried a few times and it was at a weight that was too high for him to chase rabbits. I would let him feed on kills sometimes in the field. Sometimes I would toss food on the ground at home, but mostly I let him eat kills in the field or a transfer in the field. Sometimes I would transfer him to the lure and while he was on the lure I would put a meat reward on the ground. He did mantle. Now, whether or not it affected him or not, I want you to know that after I left him at home for a couple of weeks while I went to Mexico, he became shockingly wild and fearful.

Now my opinion is that you probably never need to feed a bird on a kill. I think it is a romantic idea. I quit feeding my RT's on kills years ago and they still loved killing squirrels. I would say a passage bird has the "kill then eat" in his mind. An imprint has a different though process and I would hate to venture much of a guess on it, but I doubt they need to feed off a kill either. I think McD does it partially because it eleminates much feeding on the glove/lure. Michael Hunter used to use a large piece of carpet to feed his coops up on, but I can't remember if they were passage or imprints.

My thought process obviously comes from more passage/pr bird experience, so take it for what it is worth.

---

I am enjoying all the responses guys, good reading.

Wes:
McD states that in the early baggie stages the young eyas will sometimes leave the baggie as you open it up and then return. In my mind I can't see how that can be such a good thing, he goes on to state that this diminishes over time so maybe it's no big deal, but offending the bird on a kill can lead to big problems. Jessing up and leasing up on kills can cause problems for sure. You don't have to have an eyas accipiter to see that. Dispatching quarry gently as you mentioned is very important too. I used to be one of those make in and leash/jess up as soon as possible. Not any more what is the point? I have leaned that giving the bird space and time to cool down is very important. Patience, one of the greatest virtues a falconer can possess.

The thing is this, McD suggests that you open up the kills and then transfers them off to a whole pre-weighed skinned carcass on the lure. He actually begins this during the late brancher stage. So the opening up of kills is just kind of like a ritual thing and yet he puts a lot of importance on it. From what I gather he sometimes puts more meat on the lure and less at other times depending on if he wants to go for doubles. At any rate the food is pre-weighed to insure the bird makes weight the next day.

This is what I have noticed with other birds. If you let them eat up from a nice warm carcass they don't really have any great desire to transfer to the lure. My passage RT was a good example. I let him gorge up and eat a good amount of fresh rabbit on the first few kills that he had caught and then transferred him to the lure. He wasn't crazy about transferring to the lure. Why would he be? The nice warm meat was right there for him for him to eat. I had difficult time transferring him off of game after that. Finally after awhile I would dispatch the bunnies and not let him break him. After he had cooled down and started plucking I would transfer him to the lure. Transfers went a lot smoother after that. I can't help but think though that if I would have started him by transferring him off to the lure after he had cooled down and bit and before he broke in that things would have been all around smoother. So the point is this why open up the quarry right away if you are going to transfer the bird off to a pre-skinned carcass anyway? Is it to show the bird that what it has caught is food? Or is it to show the bird you’re a good thing? If you show up and transfer the bird to the lure it already sees you as a good thing so why open up the kill? Isaac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BestBeagler

I am enjoying all the responses guys, good reading.

Wes:
McD states that in the early baggie stages the young eyas will sometimes leave the baggie as you open it up and then return. In my mind I can't see how that can be such a good thing, he goes on to state that this diminishes over time so maybe it's no big deal, but offending the bird on a kill can lead to big problems. Jessing up and leasing up on kills can cause problems for sure. You don't have to have an eyas accipiter to see that. Dispatching quarry gently as you mentioned is very important too. I used to be one of those make in and leash/jess up as soon as possible. Not any more what is the point? I have leaned that giving the bird space and time to cool down is very important. Patience, one of the greatest virtues a falconer can possess.

The thing is this, McD suggests that you open up the kills and then transfers them off to a whole pre-weighed skinned carcass on the lure. He actually begins this during the late brancher stage. So the opening up of kills is just kind of like a ritual thing and yet he puts a lot of importance on it. From what I gather he sometimes puts more meat on the lure and less at other times depending on if he wants to go for doubles. At any rate the food is pre-weighed to insure the bird makes weight the next day.

This is what I have noticed with other birds. If you let them eat up from a nice warm carcass they don't really have any great desire to transfer to the lure. My passage RT was a good example. I let him gorge up and eat a good amount of fresh rabbit on the first few kills that he had caught and then transferred him to the lure. He wasn't crazy about transferring to the lure. Why would he be? The nice warm meat was right there for him for him to eat. I had difficult time transferring him off of game after that. Finally after awhile I would dispatch the bunnies and not let him break him. After he had cooled down and started plucking I would transfer him to the lure. Transfers went a lot smoother after that. I can't help but think though that if I would have started him by transferring him off to the lure after he had cooled down and bit and before he broke in that things would have been all around smoother. So the point is this why open up the quarry right away if you are going to transfer the bird off to a pre-skinned carcass anyway? Is it to show the bird that what it has caught is food? Or is it to show the bird you’re a good thing? If you show up and transfer the bird to the lure it already sees you as a good thing so why open up the kill? Isaac

---

Your logic sounds good to me. That is why I quit letting RT's and HH's eat off the kill entirely on some birds and almost entirely on others. I have had RT's that by the 5th kill would be on my lure before it hit the ground because they knew it was the "jackpot" at that point in their career and that squirrels took a long time to break into.

It is funny, but for some reason when I read about an accipiter or falcon, I change my techniques because the authors of those books said to, yet I disagree with feeding a RT up on a kill so strongly. I do know that my kestrels were not as solid on the ground as my RT's and I know my prairie isn't either, so a large reward on the ground for her with no jesses in is a little more scary. lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BestBeagler

Bill:
I will tell you this. Relying on a sponsor to help train a RT is whole different ball game. When you put a lot of cash down for something (for me anyway) you want to be as guaranteed as you can be that you won't screw it up and that it's raised with its head screwed on right. Besides, it may be a bit presumptions and pompous of me but I bet any apprentice of mine that does what their told in their first year, will come out with a higher success ratio of having a near perfect RT with minimal vices then someone taking on their first accipiter and following a recipe out of a book. That's why I question things. Isaac

---

Thats what I'm saying. If you are not experienced with imprinting accipiters the best way to do a good job is to follow someone elses success. Then after you've done it successfully and UNDERSTAND why and what your doing ,then alter it or tweak it as you say. I dont know how much experience you have with accipiters or even falcons for that matter( i didnt read your bio). But it is my opinion if you havent imprinted one before ,better to follow a successful method first then alter the method on the next one. But, it's JMO.

Jack,

This book will help falconers who havent ever had a imprint before.
But after imprinting many many accipiters over a 36 year span I personaly feel this book will do more good than harm.
As for the worth, the book is worth every penny, keep it in good shape and some day he can sell it for many times more than he paid for it.

Jack,

This book will help falconers who havent ever had a imprint before.
But after imprinting many many accipiters over a 36 year span I personaly feel this book will do more good than harm.
As for the worth, the book is worth every penny, keep it in good shape and some day he can sell it for many times more than he paid for it.
__________________
Vinnie M.


I guess it would indeed, but I tend to base my opinions on my own experience and knowledge of hawks, and imprinting is not all that mysterious. I have owned a few hawks that were McD raised, and they were frought with strange behaviors. I have only imprinted one hawk, but I did a perfect hawk the very first time too. Wasn't an accident either. I haven't written a book on imprinting, but I could. The thing to remember is that anyone can write a book on any subject they want. McD and Daryle Perkins have proven that. And then you have people that will take it for gospel.
Something to reflect upon. What has taken creation or evolution millions of years to make will not be altered in just a few weeks of hand raising without creating some unwanted problems with it. If one truely knows the nature of the beast he works with he can do it without all the million do's and don't of the formula. Then again, maybe I was wrong about the book. Does it have lot's of nice pictures. That should be worth something.

Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frootdog

The one thing I have said all along is that I should have tethered her sooner. I did not realise the importance of the statement "as soon as the hawk is mobile". I liked the puppy dog tameness too much, let her walk around the house, have free reign. BIG mistake. She bates a lot and I think it is directly attributed to that fact.

Vices? None that are not managable. She was a face grabber 1st year, but in retrospect she was way too low. She will chase me in the field now and go for my feet after a miss. I'm usually wearing sandals so it's kind of a pain, but again that is a weight thing and I always knew last year what Iwas going to have to deal with if I flew her a bit hot. She would catch an ass pile of game but then chase me around the field. Only last year she never went for the face.

Other than the tethering the only thing now I would do different is do a male coop next time. But the next imprint accip I do will be a sharpy (hopefully male).

She meets every state and federal criteria now so I'm putting serious though into putting her in a breeding project. In 2 seasons she took well over 1000 head of game including an even 700 last season. Done right they are everything McD says they can be.

And they are much easier on thier feathers in year 2, but I hear the hacking helps with that too. Just another reason to do the hack. I imped the entire train 3 times year 1 and a grand total of 3 feathers last year.

---

Krys, I am a little confused! You say you think your imprint came out pretty good using McD's method, yet you say she was a face grabber her first year and now chases you around the field after a miss and grab your feet. I don't find that to be a good imprint! I thought I did a bad job on my imprint coops, but the going after my feet was easily corrected with weight control and by calling her to the fist instead of the lure. She wasn't a perfect imprint, I don't think there is such a thing!

This isn't directed at you Krys or anyone in particular, but I so wanted my coops to be this perfect nice imprint that I hear about folks having, but I have yet to actually see an imprint accipiter that didn't have some type of issue that had to be dealt with during the season. I just think it is the nature of accipiters. Granted, it might be something slight, but with accipiters, it is always something. It actually is comforting to me to finally know that I didn't do such a bad job with mine, which I really thought I had for so long. I have gone out with several falconers at the NAFA meets and really respected their experience with accipiters and boy, what an eye opener! You hear someone say I have great fist or lure response and then see them calling their bird over and over or even having to go get it after it flys off. I think for all those folks thinking about flying an accipiter at some point, you better not expect to have a bird like you hear about or read about, it just isn't going to happen. Like Krys, my bird had issues that I found to be manageable, but hey, they were issues. It is the nature of the beast! All birds are different, but accipiters give a totally new meaning to that phrase! LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FredFogg

Krys, I am a little confused! You say you think your imprint came out pretty good using McD's method, yet you say she was a face grabber her first year and now chases you around the field after a miss and grab your feet. I don't find that to be a good imprint! I thought I did a bad job on my imprint coops, but the going after my feet was easily corrected with weight control and by calling her to the fist instead of the lure. She wasn't a perfect imprint, I don't think there is such a thing!

---

If you read the whole post I also said it was DIRECTLY related to the weight. I always knew in the second season when I was going to have to deal with her chasing me and chose to fly her anyway. I KNEW it was coming based on her weight before the hunt. I also said it was not unmanagable. Also it was the exception, not the norm.

Also the facegrabbing in the first season was directly relasted to being WAY too low.

I fully admit making mistakes in the process, but I stuck with it, worked through them and figured out what caused them. No facegrabbing now. I think if you weigh a bird before hunting and know what you are going to be dealing with behaviorwise in the field then YOU/I am to blame for the ensuing bad behavior NOT the bird. It is a perfect example of not having the weight right NOT screwing up the imprint process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FredFogg

She wasn't a perfect imprint, I don't think there is such a thing!

---

This is where I disagree. I think the imprinting PROCESS went VERY well in my bird, I made weight management mistakes that caused bad behaviors. Of the bad behaviors how many are caused by something other than the process itself? Weight management for example. The process gives you a wonderfull foundation. If that had not been done well then I would have never had the success dealing with the issues that came up later. The process can be screwed up badly and then everything else goes out the window, however it gives you a good basis to work with. In short you just need to separate the 2 initial imprinting and later handling skills. As he says these are NOT beginer birds suited for the less skilled falconer.

Again I'm no expert and have only done one imprint. These are just my theories.

Fred, I can attest to the fact that Turbo chasing Krys' feet was definitely weight related. He would predict her behavior before we walked out of the house to go hunting. All of her vices are weight related, just as it is with most birds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frootdog

This is where I disagree. I think the imprinting PROCESS went VERY well in my bird, I made weight management mistakes that caused bad behaviors. Of the bad behaviors how many are caused by something other than the process itself? Weight management for example. The process gives you a wonderfull foundation. If that had not been done well then I would have never had the success dealing with the issues that came up later. The process can be screwed up badly and then everything else goes out the window, however it gives you a good basis to work with. In short you just need to separate the 2 initial imprinting and later handling skills. As he says these are NOT beginer birds suited for the less skilled falconer.

Again I'm no expert and have only done one imprint. These are just my theories.

---

Very intersting observation! I really never looked at it like that. I have always been my worse critic, so I guess if I look at it this way, I really didn't do such a bad job with her. She always came back, she caught lots of game and most issues I had were weight related after the imprinting process. So maybe I did do a good job! LOL Either way, I know I learned a lot and I think I will do an even better job the next time.

Im a old time falconer , I dont use his methods or agree on his heads counts.
But after flying many imprint acipiters and hearing horror storys from falconers about there imprints, i must re-state that this book will help many falconers.
Jack, there are just to many variations to training imprints and its good to see more books out there on training eyeas accipiters.
I have read your articles for a long time now and i enjoy reading what you have to post.
he book is overall a positive in my eyeas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frootdog

How many imprints have you done? How many times have you tried Mc Dermott's methods?

---

I have only done a single imprint. Turned out pretty nice too, and I did not use that thing you call a recipe. I have not used it, but have seen so many that it was used on. That is enough to tell me he should ask for his money back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack

I have only done a single imprint. Turned out pretty nice too, and I did not use that thing you call a recipe. I have not used it, but have seen so many that it was used on. That is enough to tell me he should ask for his money back.

---

First of all this thread is over 2 years old. Second I'm not the one who calls it the recipe. I actually don't like the term. Third if you yourself have never tried it how can you say the book is no good? Others may have done a poor job. Others may have cut corners, that you or I would not/did not. In short don't knock it until you've tried it.

I am now flying an imprint male that was raised the same way but tame hacked as well. He is the 2nd bird using this method that has turned out very well. He is actually a dream bird and I could not be happier with him.

I noticed that discrepancy in McD's book. I'm reading it right now. He states to never put a large reward on the lure, as it can cause possessiveness. But he says (if I remember correctly) that he calls down his hacking birds with a whole plucked carcass on the lure and he trades them off to a whole pre-weighed carcass. So I guess I'm asking what's the experiences here with that? Should one "never" put a large reward on the lure? Then how do you feed large quantities of food when needed, like on a kill?