Thoughts on Manning, from a Behaviorism Perspective

[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! 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

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

[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

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!

[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,