Thoughts on Manning, from a Behaviorism Perspective

[accipiter007]

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

[Dillon]

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

Hi again David,

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

[Dillon]

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

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

*My comments are underlined and italicized*

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

[MrBill]

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

Bill Boni

[accipiter007]

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

[MrBill]

Dillion,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MrBill]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the added information, Dillon, most appreciated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Boni

[MrBill]

Dillon,

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

Bill Boni

[Tom Smith]

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

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

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

[Dillon]

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

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

::Sigh::

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

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

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

[accipiter007]

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

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

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

[RyanVZ]

Dillon is not in abatement.

[accipiter007]

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

[Tom Smith]

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

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

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

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

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

[MrBill]

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

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

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

You also write:

You also write:

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

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

Take care,

Bill

[accipiter007]

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

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

[Chris L.]

David,

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

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

[MrBill]

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

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

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

Take care,

Bill Boni

[accipiter007]

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

[keitht]

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

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

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

[RyanVZ]

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

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

[accipiter007]

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

[MrBill]

Ryan,

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

Bill Boni

[Tom Smith]

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

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

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

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

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

[RyanVZ]

Ryan,

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

Bill Boni

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

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

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

[accipitterpatter]

Dillon,

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

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

[MrBill]

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

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

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

Bill Boni

[RyanVZ]

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

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

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

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

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

[accipiter007]

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

[Pretty Hawk Woman]

Bill and David,


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

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

[accipiter007]

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

[Dillon]

Ryan,

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

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

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

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

[accipiter007]

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

[Montucky]

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

1. Its history before the falconer got the bird
2. The falconer's goals and objectives
3. The falconer's skill

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

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

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

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

[Dillon]

John,

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

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

1. Its history before the falconer got the bird
2. The falconer's goals and objectives
3. The falconer's skill

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

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

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

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