Whoa boy, I'm going to try my best to keep up with this topic. If I don't reply for a day or so, I'll catch up.

Bill, I'm going to try to address your post without cluttering it up by directly quoting you. Also, I'm trying to be as concise as possible, so please don't read any of this as being purposefully disrespectful-- on the contrary, I have an enormous amount of respect for you, based on your book. Online debates tend to take insidious turns for the worst, even with the best intentions. Here we go:

First, I guess I should've qualified that by "tabula rassa," I was referring to having never been in captivity before. Yes, some passage birds will have individual quirks, but not like a hand-me-down that's been manhandled. Passage hawks have very little negative experiences with people, so although their prey preference and hunting tactics will vary with experience, I don't believe it has anything to do with general tameness level. In fact, it's my experience that passage birds tend to tame quicker than their chamber-raised counterparts, but that's a different topic I have no desire to start right now.

Second, this is a new thread that was splintered from another, and in that original thread I did say that I agree that there are some birds not worth training. I've had birds that were mediocre when it came to gamehawking, but nothing I would consider "not good candidates for captivity." As an aside, I'm not nearly as accomplished as some on here in regards to specialization of certain species, but I've trained hundreds of raptors for falconry, abatement, and shows of all species commonly (and uncommonly) held in captivity. In addition to that, I've trained hundreds of other birds for free flight shows (corvids, hornbills, cranes, parrots of all types, storks, on and on), and as a behavior consultant at over a dozen zoos, have helped keepers train just about every animal held in captivity. I point this out only in case you were skeptical of my experience base. So, yes, some falconry birds won't be stellar because of their genetic predisposition, but I argue that with the correct approach, they can all adjust well to captivity. We'll have to agree to disagree, for reasons I'll elaborate on below.

Third, Harry isn't quoted as saying that "only ten percent of hawks are worth hanging onto;" he says that there are a top ten percent that make up the best of the best performers, and that a falconer is lucky to fly one or two of these individuals during their entire falconry career.

To address your anthropomorphic comment-- yes, you will see that I admitted it was in my original post, and I also mentioned that comparing a child to a hawk obviously doesn't hold the same value. Anthropomorphism serves only to help us get in touch with how we "feel" about something, and I used the example to illustrate that. I prefer oranges over apples. How about them apples?

Also, along those lines, the nature vs. nurture argument doesn't just apply to children. There have been numerous studies done on non-human primates and dogs on this subject. Most of what we theorize about in human psychology has come directly from behaviorism lab experiments with animals. You'd hate Watson, I'm sure, but I'm in his camp. I'm sure you know about the "Little Albert" experiments?

All behavior is modifiable. It might not be worth it in the eyes of some, but to make blanket statements on this subject is simple ignorance. Amazing things have been done with desensitization processes, counterconditioning, response blocking, etc., in human animals that are far more complex than our birds.

At the end of the day, I'll never blame an animal for behaving the way it does if I am the one who has brought it into captivity. It's a cop out. It's one thing to come to the conclusion that, after countless slips, a certain falcon just isn't that good at catching, say, grouse. Some falconers will stick with it, some will choose to move on. That's never what I argued about (Chindgren, BTW, said that his famous falcon Jomo was horrible in his first few seasons-- in stark contrast to B.B. and Kalakak, who were natural performers-- and Jomo went on to hold his legendary status). I started this because the prairie falcon mentioned in the original thread barely made it to the free-flight stage, and the consensus was that the bird just sucked. I won't accept that. What I want others to recognize is that mistakes are just an opportunity to start again with more information for success, and that the lack of success with this bird was still extremely valuable to the falconer-- should he focus on what he learned instead of choosing to blame the bird for simply not being good in captivity and destined to fail in falconry.

I'll address questions asked by others in a bit, and will address seeling (am I a masochist, or what?)

Gotta run!







Quote Originally Posted by MrBill View Post
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