What is an “imprint”?

[ostringer]

OK people, I am confused (not a new thing).
I am getting different opinions regarding “what is and what is not” an imprint (raptors).
Does behavior alone define the term?
Can I please get a short, concise definition?

[Steve Vaughan]

A true imprint is a bird which is raised from the very beginning of it's recognition stage, it effectively thinks we are the same as it is ie, it's parents, I would say from 10 days for most species.

[keitht]

OK people, I am confused (not a new thing).
I am getting different opinions regarding “what is and what is not” an imprint (raptors).
Does behavior alone define the term?
Can I please get a short, concise definition?

The subject of imprinting is complex enough that too short of a definition would leave you with more questions than answers.

Here is a standard definition:

"rapid learning that occurs during a brief receptive period, typically in early life, and that establishes a long-lasting behavioral response to a specific individual, object, or category of stimuli, as attachment to a parent or preference for a type of habitat."

Birds may display various degrees of imprinting which is why you may hear the term "hard imprint," used on occasion. Dictionary definitions sometimes throw in the idea of it being "permanent and irreversible." But falconers know that imprinting can sometimes be reversed. Different species imprint at different ages. A small raptor such as a sharpy would imprint at a much earlier age than a larger species such as a goshawk.

Keep in mind also that while we all tend to think of imprinting as being focused on identifying a parent, it may also occur in relation to habitat, nesting site, food preferences, etc, etc.

NOTE- I speak with some authority due to the fact that I did graduate from Mr Simpson's 12 grade science class. (Not bragging or anything)

[Steve Vaughan]

[QUOTE=keitht;327777]The subject of imprinting is complex enough that too short of a definition would leave you with more questions than answers.

Do you believe this is true? or do you think it's our overly complicated thought processes which push us in that direction! At base level it's as simple as the first thing it sees which is offering it the most important element of it's young life (food) is it's parent figure, My Imprint which I reared myself only shows it's Imprint tendencies towards me both in behaviour when at hunting weight and when in breeding behaviour during the breeding season, if a stranger was to try and court him he shuts down and shows a fear response, this may well change if the relevant handling and work were put in but there is definite individual recognition involved in my experience.

[keitht]

[QUOTE=Steve Vaughan;327781]

The subject of imprinting is complex enough that too short of a definition would leave you with more questions than answers.

Do you believe this is true? or do you think it's our overly complicated thought processes which push us in that direction! At base level it's as simple as the first thing it sees which is offering it the most important element of it's young life (food) is it's parent figure, My Imprint which I reared myself only shows it's Imprint tendencies towards me both in behaviour when at hunting weight and when in breeding behaviour during the breeding season, if a stranger was to try and court him he shuts down and shows a fear response, this may well change if the relevant handling and work were put in but there is definite individual recognition involved in my experience.

I do believe that there are shades of grey and complexities involved in imprinting. On the face of it, it seems simple enough. Falconers generally equate imprints with imprint like behavior such as screaming or food-begging. They also equate imprinting with ages taken.

But when you throw in factors such as imprinted birds later breeding in natural pairings / and birds pulled as "passage" that develop the same behavior patterns, and seeming degrees of imprinting, and you start to learn that imprinting is multifacited and complex.

[goshawkr]

I never even took Mr. Simpson's science class... so take my thoughts for what they are worth....

Do you believe this is true? or do you think it's our overly complicated thought processes which push us in that direction! At base level it's as simple as the first thing it sees which is offering it the most important element of it's young life (food) is it's parent figure, My Imprint which I reared myself only shows it's Imprint tendencies towards me both in behaviour when at hunting weight and when in breeding behaviour during the breeding season, if a stranger was to try and court him he shuts down and shows a fear response, this may well change if the relevant handling and work were put in but there is definite individual recognition involved in my experience.

Its not our overly complicated thought processes pushing us, its our overly simplistic understanding of how things work coupled with our simplistic language toolset. We come up with language terms to describe the things we see and experience, and this is a really powerful tool that humans have in transferring ideas from one mind to another. However, we also commonly get caught up in the trap of thinking that the descriptions we use define how things work instead of the other way round.

Keep in mind also that while we all tend to think of imprinting as being focused on identifying a parent, it may also occur in relation to habitat, nesting site, food preferences, etc, etc.

These other things that raptors "imprint" on are quite real as well, although as Ron pointed out they do muddy up the conversation a bit. And like the sexual imprinting that Keith was talking about, they are also not ironclad and irreversible.

As an example of this, about 20 years ago there was a pair of merlins that decided to nest in an urban environment of Vancouver, BC instead of in the deep dark forests. The merlins raised by this pair thought it was normal to live in a city, and kept right at it. Sometimes the city merlins court and draw in forest merlins, and sometimes the reverse happens - so the populations are not completely seperated, but its quite possible to plot the slow general expansion of these city merlins. They showed up in Seattle about 10 years ago, and I am sure have made it several miles south of there by now. In many areas, urban coopers hawks have followed a similar path. Urban nesting peregrines (that survive fledging) rarely turn up nesting on cliffs for much the same reason. And there are many other examples of this - and its NOT just related to hawks nesting in cities. There was a population of tree nesting peregrines in the North East until the late 1800s.

The general model of "imprinting" is also a good way to describe how young hawks get entered on their prey. There is a "golden window" of opportunity where they are trying to figure out what they can catch, and in what situations. After that period of time has passed, they can still learn new prey items, but its not as easy for them. And any prejudices that they develop during that time are difficult for them to shake later on. My first goshawk became convinced that she could never catch a crow once it was in the air because of lessons learned during her "imprinting-on-prey" stage, and it was more than 10 years later and 100s of crow catches before she finally would press the chase when they were in the air.

As a general "loose" model the concept of imprinting works very well to describe and understand a lot of the learning processes in a young raptor that shape its behavior in later life - but NONE of them are "permanent and irreversible" like the scientific literature likes to describe them.

[MrBill]

Its not our overly complicated thought processes pushing us, its our overly simplistic understanding of how things work coupled with our simplistic language toolset. We come up with language terms to describe the things we see and experience, and this is a really powerful tool that humans have in transferring ideas from one mind to another. However, we also commonly get caught up in the trap of thinking that the descriptions we use define how things work instead of the other way round.

These other things that raptors "imprint" on are quite real as well, although as Ron pointed out they do muddy up the conversation a bit. And like the sexual imprinting that Keith was talking about, they are also not ironclad and irreversible.

As an example of this, about 20 years ago there was a pair of merlins that decided to nest in an urban environment of Vancouver, BC instead of in the deep dark forests. The merlins raised by this pair thought it was normal to live in a city, and kept right at it. Sometimes the city merlins court and draw in forest merlins, and sometimes the reverse happens - so the populations are not completely seperated, but its quite possible to plot the slow general expansion of these city merlins. They showed up in Seattle about 10 years ago, and I am sure have made it several miles south of there by now. In many areas, urban coopers hawks have followed a similar path. Urban nesting peregrines (that survive fledging) rarely turn up nesting on cliffs for much the same reason. And there are many other examples of this - and its NOT just related to hawks nesting in cities. There was a population of tree nesting peregrines in the North East until the late 1800s.

The general model of "imprinting" is also a good way to describe how young hawks get entered on their prey. There is a "golden window" of opportunity where they are trying to figure out what they can catch, and in what situations. After that period of time has passed, they can still learn new prey items, but its not as easy for them. And any prejudices that they develop during that time are difficult for them to shake later on. My first goshawk became convinced that she could never catch a crow once it was in the air because of lessons learned during her "imprinting-on-prey" stage, and it was more than 10 years later and 100s of crow catches before she finally would press the chase when they were in the air.

As a general "loose" model the concept of imprinting works very well to describe and understand a lot of the learning processes in a young raptor that shape its behavior in later life - but NONE of them are "permanent and irreversible" like the scientific literature likes to describe them.

Geoff, I don't understand what you are talking about when you say, "However, we also commonly get caught up in the trap of thinking that the descriptions we use define how things work instead of the other way round." Please give an example. Thanks.

Also, the example you use the merlins continuing to nest in cities doesn't seem to support your contention that imprinting is not irreversible, as they have continued to nest in an environment that they were raised in. And, in terms of your comment about "imprinting on prey," I assume you are suggesting that after they leave the nest they imprint upon the prey that they are able to catch. I know of no where in the imprinting literature, written by those that have studied it that suggests this. However, I would agree that there comes a point in their development where they lock in to prey that has assured their survival, and that turning that behavior around can be difficult for a falconer, but I know of no where in the "scientific literature" you mention that suggest this is imprint behavior. Perhaps you can educate me. Thanks, again.

Bill Boni

[goshawkr]

Geoff, I don't understand what you are talking about when you say, "However, we also commonly get caught up in the trap of thinking that the descriptions we use define how things work instead of the other way round." Please give an example. Thanks.

Bill,

Language is nothing more than a tool we use to get ideas from one mind to another and to help us understand things within our own mind.

The trap I was reffering to is the tendancy we all have to try to cram everything we observe into our words. The really brilliant folks are the ones who create new terms to better describe what we see, such as Douglas Spalding coined the term "imprinting" for the type of phase sensitive learning we are discussing.

Here is an off topic example. In English, we have only two genders we refer to: male and female. Generally this works, since most people fall neatly into these two catagories and so do most animals. However, about 1 in 10,000 people are born somewhere in between those two genders and very rarely some of these people are born with a complete mix of both gender traits. We don't have a way of really discussing these people who are not really male or female, but something in the middle. Until very recently, the universal medical and psychological practice was to force them into one role or the other, and this was driven by an inability to understand people any context other than a "male/female" one. Over the last 20-30 years as understanding of these people who don't neatly fit into a "male/female" role has grown, there has been a lot of struggling with the terms to use for these people.

[rkumetz]

NOTE- I speak with some authority due to the fact that I did graduate from Mr Simpson's 12 grade science class. (Not bragging or anything)

Homer Simpson?

[keitht]

Homer Simpson?

Sadly - he was unrelated and in no way famous. It did take me 3 times to graduate and some say he finally passed me just trying to be merciful. But I could never see any mercy in the man.

[dirthawker2004]

well it comes down to the behavor steve layman is imprinting passage birds. so in turn it is not age taken if you have any more questions I say get ahold of steve and having seen his gos's fly I would say he has a good handle on accips

[rkumetz]

well it comes down to the behavor steve layman is imprinting passage birds. so in turn it is not age taken if you have any more questions I say get ahold of steve and having seen his gos's fly I would say he has a good handle on accips

I believe that if you are going to discuss imprinting you need to restrict the conversation to sexual imprinting - bird's who view humans as a potential mate. Anything other than that is some level of socialization, manning or training. A bird which is exceptionally tame, etc is not necessarily an imprint. Socializing and sexual imprinting are not synonymous.

Yes, that is my opinion.
No, I did not attend Mr. Simpson's science class.

[JRedig]

well it comes down to the behavor steve layman is imprinting passage birds. so in turn it is not age taken if you have any more questions I say get ahold of steve and having seen his gos's fly I would say he has a good handle on accips

It's not happening as simply as you're explaining it. Steve is going through behavior modification to induce imprint-like behavior with passage birds. He's basically making them view him as sexual partners. They are not imprints. I think the interesting thing is that these should be the best of both worlds, dual-imprints so-to-speak and not the often encountered "misprint" that results from attempts at dual imprinting. (that's more of a species specific side effect though)

edit: good answer ron!

[barbedraptor]

Osprey nest on almost every ballpark lighting poles in central Wyoming. There are tens of thousands of large cottonwoods along the river, but I haven't seen a tree nesting one. That is nest site fidelity. Sexually I think there is a captive "jailhouse" factor that can explain changes in sexual responses to passage bird's behavior. My sister's pair of female lovebirds were periodically changing who was on top for copulation. Jim Fustos

[goshawkr]

Sexually I think there is a captive "jailhouse" factor that can explain changes in sexual responses to passage bird's behavior.

Hi Jim.

That may true, but how is that any different? Its still "imprinting" being overwritten. Its still evidence that the sexually imprinting process is not irreversible.

And there is also quite a bit of evidence that dosnt fall in line with this explanation either. For example, its not common, but not at all unheard of for a wild naturally imprinted raptor to pair up with another wild naturally imprinted raptor of another closely related species. Goshawk-coopers hybrids have occaisionally turned up in the wild, and prairies-peregrine hybrids have as well - and this is true even if you don't count the peregrines that were fostered into prairie nests by the P-fund and other orgs.

These wild hybrid pairings may be a case where the parents couldn't find a date with their own kind, but even so it would be a case of sexual imprinting being overwritten. It makes more sense to me that this whole process is just not as ironclad as we want to believe it to be. Afterall, mother nature dosnt read the textbook. And really, I think that is the first rule to the rules of biology - that all rules can be broken.

[Gerkin]

Some years ago I was travelling through the atlas & sahara.

Long story short, the pro/con topic of passage, haggard & imprints came about between falconers of different cultures.

I watched our guide call in a cuckoo who gave him a very curious glance.
After a little conversation between them the cuckoo turned out to be male and pushed home his advances.

He who whistles the right tune becomes a trigger.

"Imprinting" a basic term & name applied to waterfowl, game birds and the like, who make that quick connection in order to survive.

As yet, our language does not cater to the more advanced stages, degrees & levels over a longer time frame that we see in Raptors,

Made harder by the fact we have all experienced similar but from very different angles with unseen considerations, aspects & influences that would mildly & greatly effect the likely hood of us having the same results scientifically.

Bit like science experiments prior to our being aware of bacteria & atoms

We know a lot, but in reality know very little, we all like to guess, and suggest we know to each other, when really were only just scraping the surface.

[MrBill]

Bit like science experiments prior to our being aware of bacteria & atoms

We know a lot, but in reality know very little, we all like to guess, and suggest we know to each other, when really were only just scraping the surface.

Marcus, there is a big difference between us becoming aware of bacteria and atoms and trying to understand imprinting. On the one hand, all we needed was a powerful enough microscope, on the other we need to get into the head of an animal. So ultimately we are left with our considered opinions and supposition, with some being more credible than others.

Bill Boni

[Gerkin]

Marcus, there is a big difference between us becoming aware of bacteria and atoms

"our language" was more in reference to the technical terms bounced between falconers as clear cut terms.


Atoms & bacteria was more description of "its there, even if you cant see it.

Its up to you Bill, to try and extract information from those like me & seem to succeed with imprints, yet obviously fail to portray the "how too" in to words ;-)

[Gerkin]

And there is also quite a bit of evidence that dosnt fall in line with this explanation either. For example, its not common, but not at all unheard of for a wild naturally imprinted raptor to pair up with another wild naturally imprinted raptor of another closely related species

There is a document / resource online somewhere of all the recorded accounts of wild hybrids.

Its very interesting and suggests circumstances & communication dominate visual stimulus

[MrBill]

Hi Geoff,

I apologize if I offended you in my last posting, as you have a lot to say, and should be able to say it without my "evaluation." I guess what rubs me wrong is how you go about saying it, but I should have stayed out of it. I certainly know better. So, again, my sincere apologies. Geoff.

BTW, I thought of a better example of what you were trying to say regarding the limitations of language. A couple of years ago some Chinese students of mine told me that in China there is no word for "love." Yet, it is clear (to me) that the Chinese do, in fact, "love." But, that was surprising to me; however, it may be because the origin of the word is European, and there may be other English expressions that they do not have words for either. However, if we keep our discussion in-country (so to speak), then I am fairly certain that our language allows us to adequately express our thoughts and ideas as it pertains to falconry (which is what we are talking about here). On the other hand, perhaps people like Steve Layman, who I guess is somewhat of a genius, struggle with finding adequate words to define his thoughts (based upon what you have said), but folks like Chaucer, Milton, and Shakespeare were geniuses and they seemed to be able to express themselves alright. So, ultimately, I think that our only limitations to communicating our thoughts and ideas, be it orally or in writing, is ourselves; for example, you say that Steve is better communicating verbally, one-on-one, which is not unusual. I have known people that can verbally communicate with perfection, but cannot communicate at that same level in writing. I used to really wonder about this difference. You would think that if someone could speak with such perfection, why can't they use those same words in writing, but I learned that writing and speaking involve different areas of the brain, and it is difficult for some folks to make that transition; however, it certainly doesn't diminish their mental acuity, as with Steve, I guess. What may be easier for Steve, and beneficial to all of us, would be to put his methods on a video. Anyway , enough said.

Bill Boni

[dirthawker2004]

any way you go about it imprinting is about the time you spend with the the bird and how the bird reacts to you if the bird will court with you and want to build a family with you (per say) then is it not an imprint wether it was 5 days old or 1 yr old. if you have that bird wanting to submit to you for breeding it is all good. you can imprint a a older bird it comes down to time and looking at the animals body language plane and simple.

[goshawkr]

Hi Geoff,

I apologize if I offended you in my last posting, as you have a lot to say, and should be able to say it without my "evaluation." I guess what rubs me wrong is how you go about saying it, but I should have stayed out of it. I certainly know better. So, again, my sincere apologies. Geoff.

BTW, I thought of a better example of what you were trying to say regarding the limitations of language. A couple of years ago some Chinese students of mine told me that in China there is no word for "love." Yet, it is clear (to me) that the Chinese do, in fact, "love." But, that was surprising to me; however, it may be because the origin of the word is European, and there may be other English expressions that they do not have words for either. However, if we keep our discussion in-country (so to speak), then I am fairly certain that our language allows us to adequately express our thoughts and ideas as it pertains to falconry (which is what we are talking about here). On the other hand, perhaps people like Steve Layman, who I guess is somewhat of a genius, struggle with finding adequate words to define his thoughts (based upon what you have said), but folks like Chaucer, Milton, and Shakespeare were geniuses and they seemed to be able to express themselves alright. So, ultimately, I think that our only limitations to communicating our thoughts and ideas, be it orally or in writing, is ourselves; for example, you say that Steve is better communicating verbally, one-on-one, which is not unusual. I have known people that can verbally communicate with perfection, but cannot communicate at that same level in writing. I used to really wonder about this difference. You would think that if someone could speak with such perfection, why can't they use those same words in writing, but I learned that writing and speaking involve different areas of the brain, and it is difficult for some folks to make that transition; however, it certainly doesn't diminish their mental acuity, as with Steve, I guess. What may be easier for Steve, and beneficial to all of us, would be to put his methods on a video. Anyway , enough said.

Bill Boni

No worries Bill, we are good. No need to apologize either, but thanks just the same.

Your example was a good one.

I was tempted to elaborate on your response to my example that the term "hermaphrodite" dosnt quite fill the gap, because in its common usage, it only refers to people who fall exactly in the middle between male and female, which are quite rare. The term that has been coined recently for these "not male-not female" people in general is "intersexed". I know a few, and they usually identify as one gender or the other even though they do not really fully fit into the role (and this is quite separate from being transgendered or gay). But I decided that was drifiting too far off topic, and likely to go even further off topic before it was all hashed out so I didn't.

The real point I was trying to express is that while we use language to help understand and explain the world we encounter, language also limits our thinking because we tend to pigeon hole concepts based on the words we have to describe and think about them.

[MrBill]

The real point I was trying to express is that while we use language to help understand and explain the world we encounter, language also limits our thinking because we tend to pigeon hole concepts based on the words we have to describe and think about them.

Geoff, I don't disagree with you on this point, primarily because I am in the camp that believes that language evolved. and we tend to think that evolution stopped with us, but I don't think so. However, I am also saying that our language--at whatever point in evolution--is (and has been) more than adequate to describe the intricacies of falconry. Just think of all that has transpired in the last 100 years as a result of our level of communication (IT for example); it's phenomenal, and makes falconry, which in the past you have described as pretty basic, seem like child's play.

Bill Boni

[goshawkr]

Geoff, I don't disagree with you on this point, primarily because I am in the camp that believes that language evolved. and we tend to think that evolution stopped with us, but I don't think so. However, I am also saying that our language--at whatever point in evolution--is (and has been) more than adequate to describe the intricacies of falconry. Just think of all that has transpired in the last 100 years as a result of our level of communication (IT for example); it's phenomenal, and makes falconry, which in the past you have described as pretty basic, seem like child's play.

Bill Boni

Language is absolutely up to the task of explaining complex things - In fact I think its silly to imagine there is ever going to be a limit to what language can describe. Individual words are often not however. Not until new words are developed and new language evolves.