Thoughts on Manning, from a Behaviorism Perspective

[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
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
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