Originally Posted by
MrBill
Hi Dillon,
You write:
>Most falconry literature mentions that occasionally—despite a falconer’s best efforts—individual birds will not work out for use in falconry. These birds never tame down, these authors contend, and will not respond to glove, lure, or even game without weight being cut to the bone. Many falconers also believe that the traits of a bird are largely inborn rather than learned or cultivated, and that there are a percentage of birds (especially wild eyasses that lack a pedigree) that are destined to fail due to genetic fate.
This is a complex statement, Dillon. I can only speak for myself and say that having trained a ton of passage hawks I can categorically say, without hesitation, that there are birds that are not good candidates for captivity, and it really has nothing to do with the falconer. They are just difficult birds. Passage hawks are not tabula rasa birds, as you suggest, as they all have their quirks, with some having more than others. They might be trainable, as you say, but they are more trouble than they are worth (IMHO). And those that have not experienced birds of this nature, have not trained enough birds, as they truly do exist. You mentioned Harry McElroy, he is a big believer that only ten percent of hawks are worth hanging on to.
>It’s the old nature versus nurture argument, and to put it in a different perspective, consider the following: If your child was having difficulty with spelling or math, would you rather have his or her teacher adopt a “nature” approach—that is, the child is just not naturally gifted, so is not worth the effort of teaching—or the nurturing approach which contends that with the right approach, the child can not only learn these skills, but excel at them?
Dillon, this example is way too anthropomorphic. Of course we would prefer the nurturing approach, but there is a vast difference between a child having difficulty with spelling or math and a hawk trying to make sense out of captivity. And, as you know, having obviously read the nature versus nurture debate, the “nurture” in this argument refers to humans, specifically childern during the developmental stage. Again, we are talking apples and oranges.
>Why is it that a falconer who makes mistakes along the journey of raising an imprint is forced to publicly accept the consequences of mistakes during the raising process, yet those dealing with passagers or chamber-raised individuals are permitted to wantonly disregard potential mistakes or incongruent techniques, and instead place the blame on the animal?
Because those dealing with imprints are, in fact, very involved with the “nurturing” aspect which, of course, has a profound effect on how birds turn out, while this is not the case with the older birds.
>Aside from exponentially increasing the chances that the bird will be successful, this philosophy also fosters an environment conducive to life-long learning, in which the falconer will only become more analytical, self-critical, and ultimately a more accomplished gamehawker.
I, definitely, agree with what you say here as it pertains to imprints. To be successful with these birds you have to maximize your potential in all the areas you have identified above, which is why I don't mess with imprints--I just don't feel I have the ability, nor the desire, to do them justice.
I'll quit here until I have an opportunity to read the benefits of your training method over the traditional method.
Bill Boni