Substandard Hawk Chalk Photos

[Stacia Novy]

On page 18 of the Dec 2014 Hawk Chalk (HC), the NAFA Northeast Director urges all members to walk “…a path that will ensure that we look good to the public who know nothing about falconry….[we should] think long and hard about which images we choose to make available in a public setting…” I completely agree with Scott McNeff’s perspective.

That being NAFA’s position, why was a cover photo of a Red-tailed Hawk with broken primary wing feathers chosen for the Dec 2014 HC? Similarly, the Aug 2013 HC back cover reveals a Harris’ Hawk with broken tail feathers. While almost all falconers have experienced broken feathers, these should be corrected with Imping, or photos of substandard birds like these eliminated from publication.

Animal rights activists would surely recognize these raptors as being poorly handled in captivity by falconers. When it comes to PETA and similar groups, we are all guilty by association; it is imperative that only the very best images are selected for publication in a national magazine that depicts licensed falconers.

NAFA has an Editorial Review Committee; that committee should be responsible for illustrations and photos, as well as text copy. Stacia Novy

[BestBeagler]

So why post it here on a public forum? Take it up privately with those that could possibly make a change based on your suggestion.

[steveo_uk]

I would also suggest that they can only publish photos that are supplied to them, If you are supplying photos then thanks it's really appreciated but if not why complain.

I didn't notice the front cover photo had an issue . As a photographer i actually thought it was a good photograph. Most public people wouldn't even notice something like that.

[Stacia Novy]

So why post it here on a public forum? Take it up privately with those that could possibly make a change based on your suggestion.

NAFA publications have been sold on eBay, Amazon and Raptor's Nest; they are published on the Internet by ISSUU; therefore, NAFA publications are readily available to the general public. Also, anyone can order a volume, member or not, by submitting an official interlibrary loan request.

One should never assume that NAFA publications are private and viewed only by NAFA members. Therefore, NAFA publications should adhere to the highest possible publication standards because of the potential for negative public reactions to falconers and falconry.

For the record, I informed NAFA officials internally about such discrepancies (I saved all email traffic on this matter) and offered to help with editing for years. However, all suggestions were ignored, so I'm hoping a different strategy will prompt improvements. I want NAFA to be the best club that it can be. Stacia

[BestBeagler]

NAFA publications have been sold on eBay, Amazon and Raptor's Nest; they are published on the Internet by ISSUU; therefore, NAFA publications are readily available to the general public. Also, anyone can order a volume, member or not, by submitting an official interlibrary loan request.

One should never assume that NAFA publications are private and viewed only by NAFA members. Therefore, NAFA publications should adhere to the highest possible publication standards because of the potential for negative public reactions to falconers and falconry.

For the record, I informed NAFA officials internally about such discrepancies (I saved all email traffic on this matter) and offered to help with editing for years. However, all suggestions were ignored, so I'm hoping a different strategy will prompt improvements. I want NAFA to be the best club that it can be. Stacia

Oh, okay, so I'm assuming you felt slighted and thought maybe if you aired what might be perceived as dirty laundry on a public forum NAFA would reconsider their position. So in what way does making light of this dubiously dirty laundry better our image as falconers? We are our own worst enemies. Sad...

[JRedig]

So your worried about the message to the public from our members only private publication? Am I getting that right?

[poleyc]

So your worried about the message to the public from our members only private publication? Am I getting that right?

[goshawkr]

That being NAFA’s position, why was a cover photo of a Red-tailed Hawk with broken primary wing feathers chosen for the Dec 2014 HC? Similarly, the Aug 2013 HC back cover reveals a Harris’ Hawk with broken tail feathers. While almost all falconers have experienced broken feathers, these should be corrected with Imping, or photos of substandard birds like these eliminated from publication.

Animal rights activists would surely recognize these raptors as being poorly handled in captivity by falconers. When it comes to PETA and similar groups, we are all guilty by association; it is imperative that only the very best images are selected for publication in a national magazine that depicts licensed falconers.

Stacia,

First, I want to say that Jeff and Isaac were both right on point.

I have followed the AR goons closely for quite some time. Even to the extent of infiltrating several active local groups for a number of years. I had to back off, because it was really @#$^# with my perspective on humanity. I do have a great notion of how they think. You are quite correct, that they lump all falconers together, and that we are all guilty by association.

However, very few individuals but another falconer is going to even notice broken feathers. No one but a falconer would call that "abuse" or "poor treatment." It simply won't occur to 99.9999999% of the population that a feather is important - they look at broken or messed up feathers the same way the look at a mammal with a poor hair cut - unsightly, perhaps, but of no real consequence. Hell, for that matter many falconers don't even consider a broken feather or too that big of a deal.

To the PeTA crowd, the unforgivable sin is the captivity - forcing a "sentient" creature to do our will through cruel starvation and enslaving them with ball-and-chain esque leashes. And also the bloodthirsty aspect of sending one creature to inflict harm on another for our own sadistic joy. That's what they will focus on and see. They wouldn't recognize a feather perfect hawk if you beat them to death with one. I haven't paid attention to those photos that have your undies all in a bunch, but I am certain they wouldn't even notice.

I would like to suggest that you lift up your head and take a deep breath of nice fresh air. Stale air can be toxic to the soul. You seem to be engaged in some chronic navel staring, or worse. Go outside and have some fun.

[MrBill]

To the PeTA crowd, the unforgivable sin is the captivity - forcing a "sentient" creature to do our will through cruel starvation and enslaving them with ball-and-chain esque leashes. And also the bloodthirsty aspect of sending one creature to inflict harm on another for our own sadistic joy. That's what they will focus on and see. They wouldn't recognize a feather perfect hawk if you beat them to death with one. I haven't paid attention to those photos that have your undies all in a bunch, but I am certain they wouldn't even notice.

Geoff,

What is your response to those that feel keeping a perfectly healthy raptor confined to a small enclosure every day of their life, and not flying them for at least six months out of the year, is a crime before gawd?

Bill Boni

[goshawkr]

Geoff,

What is your response to those that feel keeping a perfectly healthy raptor confined to a small enclosure every day of their life, and not flying them for at least six months out of the year, is a crime before gawd?

Bill Boni

Hi Bill.

I don't waste my time with futile efforts. Many of those people are so unreachable that even trying to educate them is a waste of breath. If there are reachable open minded people around, the response I give is that these hawks are well cared for, given ample opportunity to fly free and live a full life, while being given regular meals and protection from danger.

The real counter punch to the "slavery of captivity" argument is that they willingly come back when released. My hawk is released every day it is hunted. Of the many hundreds of times I have done that with dozens of hawks, all but one came back of its own free will every day it was released. That's a hard point to argue with any logic or sanity.

Fortunately, this is something I just don't have to deal with often any longer. Dealing with rabid AR activists is not good for my blood pressure or sanity. I still do falconry outreach at public events and run into them every once in a while, but I moved where they are not common and usually are unwelcome when they do turn up. I used to live and work much closer to Seattle proper, where the base assumptions is that the AR agenda is just normal thinking.

That's just my spin on dealing with this.... for what its worth....

[MrBill]

Hi Bill.

I don't waste my time with futile efforts. Many of those people are so unreachable that even trying to educate them is a waste of breath. If there are reachable open minded people around, the response I give is that these hawks are well cared for, given ample opportunity to fly free and live a full life, while being given regular meals and protection from danger.

The real counter punch to the "slavery of captivity" argument is that they willingly come back when released. My hawk is released every day it is hunted. Of the many hundreds of times I have done that with dozens of hawks, all but one came back of its own free will every day it was released. That's a hard point to argue with any logic or sanity.

Fortunately, this is something I just don't have to deal with often any longer. Dealing with rabid AR activists is not good for my blood pressure or sanity. I still do falconry outreach at public events and run into them every once in a while, but I moved where they are not common and usually are unwelcome when they do turn up. I used to live and work much closer to Seattle proper, where the base assumptions is that the AR agenda is just normal thinking.

That's just my spin on dealing with this.... for what its worth....

Thanks for the response, Geoff.

I wasn't necessarily speaking of AR folks. There are people who are not AR types who struggle coming to terms with the scenario I described. These are the people who don't have an agenda and who are worth taking the time to talk to.

I'll play Devil's advocate.

I understand, Mr. Falconer, that they return to you, but it is my understanding that they do so because they are predators and have been conditioned to come to you for food. Also, Mr. Falconer, how do you justify keeping them locked up in a small mews year around? Out of 24 hours, they might spend two hours flying around. The rest of the time they are confined to a relatively small enclosure, and for six months of the year, they are not flown at all. If you are a lover of Nature, and I am sure you are, don't you think they should be allowed to participate in their surroundings in a more natural way?

Bill Boni

[goshawkr]

Thanks for the response, Geoff.

I wasn't necessarily speaking of AR folks. There are people who are not AR types who struggle coming to terms with the scenario I described. These are the people who don't have an agenda and who are worth taking the time to talk to.

I'll play Devil's advocate.

I understand, Mr. Falconer, that they return to you, but it is my understanding that they do so because they are predators and have been conditioned to come to you for food. Also, Mr. Falconer, how do you justify keeping them locked up in a small mews year around? Out of 24 hours, they might spend two hours flying around. The rest of the time they are confined to a relatively small enclosure, and for six months of the year, they are not flown at all. If you are a lover of Nature, and I am sure you are, don't you think they should be allowed to participate in their surroundings in a more natural way?

Bill Boni

Ah, well, my answer to that is something along the lines of:

Wild hawks actually spend a small portion of their day flying around. Most of the time they spend perching and looking at their surroundings, and that is no different from what my captive hawk does. They are protected from harm and danger while in captivity, and do not need to worry about where their next meal is coming from. I provide as much enrichment as I can through that time by giving them toys to play with and interesting things to watch.

Of course, the real winning answer there is (although this does not apply to me as I have only flown imprints for almost the last 20 years):

My hawk is returned to the wild at the end of every hunting season, to go about its destiny.

At some point, all you can really do is smile, respect their point of view, and politely insist that you disagree and should be respected for having a different outlook. While everyone has an agenda, your certainly right that those people you mention are worth talking to.

I haven't really encountered that line of arguing first hand. Everyone I have run into has either been fascinated by getting to live with a hawk, or thought it was evil to do so because they are hard core AR wack-jobs. Even most of the AR supporters I know respect and understand what I do with captive hawks.

[wingnut]

The real counter punch to the "slavery of captivity" argument is that they willingly come back when released.

I think most rationale thinking people could shoot holes through that logic. Even a higher order animal like a dog willingly comes back to an abusive owner if its hungry.

[goshawkr]

I think most rationale thinking people could shoot holes through that logic. Even a higher order animal like a dog willingly comes back to an abusive owner if its hungry.

Well, humans are so far the highest order animal known. And abused women (and men) frequently return to their abuser.

Maybe we do brain wash our hawks. Its acutally pretty hard to completely kill all ability to make that statement.

[rkumetz]

they look at broken or messed up feathers the same way the look at a mammal with a poor hair cut - unsightly, perhaps, but of no real consequence.

or it could mean that my bad hair cut is a sign that I have been abused. I had better see someone about that.....

Either way we nitpick too much amongst ourselves. NAFA management may not be perfect but we all need to stick together. What is that saying about divided we fall? The animal rights people would love to see us at each others' throats.

I agree. Take a breath and go have some fun.

[gos'n]

Stacia,

First, I want to say that Jeff and Isaac were both right on point.

I have followed the AR goons closely for quite some time. Even to the extent of infiltrating several active local groups for a number of years. I had to back off, because it was really @#$^# with my perspective on humanity. I do have a great notion of how they think. You are quite correct, that they lump all falconers together, and that we are all guilty by association.

However, very few individuals but another falconer is going to even notice broken feathers. No one but a falconer would call that "abuse" or "poor treatment." It simply won't occur to 99.9999999% of the population that a feather is important - they look at broken or messed up feathers the same way the look at a mammal with a poor hair cut - unsightly, perhaps, but of no real consequence. Hell, for that matter many falconers don't even consider a broken feather or too that big of a deal.

To the PeTA crowd, the unforgivable sin is the captivity - forcing a "sentient" creature to do our will through cruel starvation and enslaving them with ball-and-chain esque leashes. And also the bloodthirsty aspect of sending one creature to inflict harm on another for our own sadistic joy. That's what they will focus on and see. They wouldn't recognize a feather perfect hawk if you beat them to death with one. I haven't paid attention to those photos that have your undies all in a bunch, but I am certain they wouldn't even notice.

I would like to suggest that you lift up your head and take a deep breath of nice fresh air. Stale air can be toxic to the soul. You seem to be engaged in some chronic navel staring, or worse. Go outside and have some fun.

You were doing well until the "undies" remark. To bad.

[MrBill]

On page 18 of the Dec 2014 Hawk Chalk (HC), the NAFA Northeast Director urges all members to walk “…a path that will ensure that we look good to the public who know nothing about falconry….[we should] think long and hard about which images we choose to make available in a public setting…” I completely agree with Scott McNeff’s perspective.

That being NAFA’s position, why was a cover photo of a Red-tailed Hawk with broken primary wing feathers chosen for the Dec 2014 HC? Similarly, the Aug 2013 HC back cover reveals a Harris’ Hawk with broken tail feathers. While almost all falconers have experienced broken feathers, these should be corrected with Imping, or photos of substandard birds like these eliminated from publication.

Animal rights activists would surely recognize these raptors as being poorly handled in captivity by falconers. When it comes to PETA and similar groups, we are all guilty by association; it is imperative that only the very best images are selected for publication in a national magazine that depicts licensed falconers.

NAFA has an Editorial Review Committee; that committee should be responsible for illustrations and photos, as well as text copy. Stacia Novy

Stacia,

I am curious if you applied for the HC editorial position that was recently filled?

Bill Boni

[Breeze]

Stacia,

I am curious if you applied for the HC editorial position that was recently filled?

Bill Boni

I'm curious about this, as well. Sounds a great deal like sour grapes to me. You know, "whine"?

[dboyrollz76]

Will someone help me round up all these wild raptors and imp broken feathers. I think nature is to cruel to them they shouldn't be made to break feathers hunting.

[NMHighPlains]

On Dec 2, I trapped an immature female RT with several broken wing tips and a crushed deck feather. She looks, in fact, a lot like the Hawk Chalk cover bird. I am very disappointed to learn that what I trapped is, based on the condition of her feathers, a "substandard" bird. I just figured she was a go-getter and damaged those feathers tussling with jack rabbits. Or coyotes. Or elk.

I'll cut her loose tomorrow.

[Hawkmom]

I worked at the National Cancer Institute from 1979-1989. I worked in the DC area (Bethesda, National Institutes of Health) when PETA and Ingrid Newkirk the founder was just getting started in the late 70's early through the late 80's. She wrote letters to my lab chief who was a mathematician. I now wish I had kept copies of them, I as many others back then did not realize how PETA would become a household name. As our lab did use many animals, only occasionally some mice and rats for monoclonal antibody research. We were primarily mathematicians and some 'wet' lab scientists as well. We did computer modeling of biological systems as the main focus of the lab.

Then the PETA kooks started breaking/sneaking into the rodent breeding rooms and letting the rats and mice out of the cages. We had in the clinical center, where I worked, wards that have kids and patients fighting for their lives with experimental medicine. They did not need loose rodents running around. These AR types are totally out of it, I detest them, their view of the world and their tactics.

Several of our scientists would visit the picket lines and discuss with them several points. The best was this: "Would YOU -- Animal Rights Activist, REFUSE medical treatments because they were tested on animals?". Reminding the ARA activist that EVERYTHING we use medically has been tested on animals.

That is the best line I've heard to counteract their arguments, for they had no answer.

I would use this brilliant point and I add this when I confront them: "I certainly hope so, Then you would not be a political issue, because you would be DEAD!!!"

[goshawkr]

Several of our scientists would visit the picket lines and discuss with them several points. The best was this: "Would YOU -- Animal Rights Activist, REFUSE medical treatments because they were tested on animals?". Reminding the ARA activist that EVERYTHING we use medically has been tested on animals.

That is the best line I've heard to counteract their arguments, for they had no answer.

I would use this brilliant point and I add this when I confront them: "I certainly hope so, Then you would not be a political issue, because you would be DEAD!!!"

Kitty,

Several of them, including Ingrid, have publicly claimed that they would (and do) refuse to use any medical treatment derived from animals.

However, when the time comes to put their money where their mouth is, they either creatively define what "derived from animals" means (by refusing to acknowledge that advanced lab work done without animal models was invariably built off of research that used animals) or they turn full blown hypocrite with some logic like "The animals need me to fight for them, so their 'sacrifice' is noble and worth while". Linda McCarty was a noted example - she desperately reached for everything on the shelf when she was fighting cancer despite decades of fighting against medical research.

While I oppose everything they stand for, I do concede that it is a good thing that the ethics of how animals have been used for research (or in the food farms) is under scrutiny. It disgusts me that animals are frequently treated as inanimate objects by those who profit from them or use them.

[jal4470]

Stacia,

I suspect your, and many other’s assessment of the risk of falconry being threatened is overblown. Even if we accept a amorphous threat to falconry, your particular bugbear is misplaced.

I live work and hunt in the pioneer valley, home to one of the most liberal counties in the country.I started my apprenticeship roughly 10 years ago and while I make no effort to have a public presence I have met a lot of people while hawking.I have ever only met two people hostile to what I was doing, and that was while trapping, not hunting.Based on my interactions with the public I just can’t believe there is any concerted move to outlaw falconry.Resist liberalizing regulations, sure but that isn’t the same thing is it?

So you believe there is a movement to outlaw falconry, when was the last time you spoke to your state and federal representative about it?Do you vote? Have you written opinion pieces in news papers defending the value of falconry as living human heritage?Do you take members of the public with you hunting to demonstrate that it is not in fact barbaric?

I find your choice of action re this cover to be especially problematic as the gist of what you’re saying seems to be “I’m afraid of losing my falconry, so you must protect me by presenting your falconry in a way that I approve of” which totally lacks any sort of personal responsibility and in fact apes the ethos of the animal rights bogyman, namely “I don’t approve of this action, therefore it must be stopped”

[Stacia Novy]

On Dec 2, I trapped an immature female RT with several broken wing tips and a crushed deck feather. She looks, in fact, a lot like the Hawk Chalk cover bird. I am very disappointed to learn that what I trapped is, based on the condition of her feathers, a "substandard" bird. I just figured she was a go-getter and damaged those feathers tussling with jack rabbits. Or coyotes. Or elk.

I'll cut her loose tomorrow.

Birds with broken feathers are the exception, rather than the rule. In fact, so rare, that banding stations and refuges that I’ve worked at document the bird’s condition when trapped because it is unusual.

In any case, a wild bird--or an individual falconer that houses a feather-damaged bird in the privacy of his/her own home—is quite different than publishing cover photos of one in a publically-available magazine that is representative of all falconers. There is no reason to promote imperfect birds in a magazine, especially when NAFA has an editorial review committee to prevent such images from reaching public scrutiny. The perception is there that falconers are mishandling birds in captivity and “damaging” them.

It is foolish to think that “nobody will notice the difference”. Animal rights activists are informed and educated; they have veterinarians, animal researchers and lawyers working for them. They already use images of animals tied outside in the cold, with bare patches of fur, inadequate leashes or broken equipment, to appeal to public sentiment. Published falconry bird photos should not resemble these emotionally-driven visual aids.

I am not the first person to identify this trend: it has been brought up in past Hawk Chalk articles, at NAFA Meets (sick birds or ones with damaged feathers being perched in the weathering area in full view of the public) and by members of NAFA Leadership. If NAFA is going to urge members to exercise caution when selecting images of birds/falconry for public display, then NAFA Leadership should do the same. Otherwise, it appears hypocritical, and members are less likely to follow the advice of NAFA Leadership. Stacia

[NMHighPlains]

Birds with broken feathers are the exception, rather than the rule. In fact, so rare, that banding stations and refuges that I’ve worked at document the bird’s condition when trapped because it is unusual.

I agree that broken feathers are an exception but I don't agree that they are so much of an exception as to make note. Perhaps things have changed now, but I did my M.S. research in the Goshutes in 1989 and I don't remember writing down broken feathers as part of the recorded information of the thousands of birds we trapped. Ditto working with prairie falcons and golden eagles on the Snake River- did that for 4 years and we didn't make any special note of broomed feather tips, esp not in immature birds. A NC falconer (I don't have permission to quote her so I won't) trapped a late passage RT this year and specifically commented on the fact that it was in perfect feather which she seemed to think unusual and IIRC, she trapped quite some number of imm RT's looking for a big one.

In any case, we still don't know if that is a falconry or wild bird on the cover of the HC.

Just for fun, I took a romp around the 'net looking at pictures of immature RT hawks and I had no trouble finding several individuals with damaged feathers. Not a whole lot, granted, but they're there.

Points:

1) broken and broomed feathers occur in wild birds. They might be unusual, but they still occur, esp in immature birds.

2) we don't know if that's a wild or falconry bird on the cover. And neither does anyone else except the photographer.

Maybe the HC oughta go back to illustrations. That would be one good way to guaranteed perfect feathers.

[Stacia Novy]

I agree that broken feathers are an exception but I don't agree that they are so much of an exception as to make note. Perhaps things have changed now, but I did my M.S. research in the Goshutes in 1989 and I don't remember writing down broken feathers as part of the recorded information of the thousands of birds we trapped. Ditto working with prairie falcons and golden eagles on the Snake River- did that for 4 years and we didn't make any special note of broomed feather tips, esp not in immature birds.

In any case, we still don't know if that is a falconry or wild bird on the cover of the HC.

Maybe the HC oughta go back to illustrations. That would be one good way to guaranteed perfect feathers.

Bryan,
Documentation of physical condition likely varies by refuge policy, wildlife managers and research methods or scope. In the studies I worked in, we always noted condition, but I realize that not every bander/scientist does.

As a falconer, I’ve trapped birds with broken feathers, but it was so rare, that I took photos for reference and can remember each individual case. I’ve even trapped raptors with only one good eye (owls and redtails); or only one foot (a gyrfalcon and a redtail). The interesting thing: all the birds were fat, suggesting that they adapted and survived with those injuries.

It’s irrelevant if the 2014 Dec Hawk Chalk redtail is “wild” or “captive”; it’s on the cover of a falconry magazine so people will assume it is a falconer’s bird. Stacia

PS: By broken feathers, I mean feathers snapped off on the main shaft, not “erosion” of the feather margins (or louse-eaten feathers), which all wild birds have. Feathers broken at the main shaft (vein) are indicators of poor handling. Thanks for the conversation, your points are good.

[FredFogg]

[SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]
Feathers broken at the main shaft (vein) are indicators of poor handling. Thanks for the conversation, your points are good.

Stacia, I wasn't going to respond to this thread because it is just plain silly but newbies read these threads and when something is stated as a fact as the statement above and is so completely wrong, I feel the need to step in. Unlike many falconers out there, I hunt the shit out of my red-tails in dense brush and trees and my birds crash hard after game. I have yet to have a red-tail make it to the end of a season without a tipped feather or ever broken feather. So for you to make that statement tells me how you hunt your birds. Instead of bashing NAFA for a photo you disagree with, why don't you get out there and catch some game and start a thread on your bird and share the stories and photo's, it would be much more enjoyable!

[JRedig]

[SIZE=3] By broken feathers, I mean feathers snapped off on the main shaft, not “erosion” of the feather margins (or louse-eaten feathers), which all wild birds have. Feathers broken at the main shaft (vein) are indicators of poor handling.

Broken feathers are NOT always an indicator of poor handling. The broad brush you place your poor judgements with is ridiculous.

See the broken primary in this pic? 300 yard pheasant flight, got there, she caught it in the fence during the struggle with the rooster and snapped it. We caught over 100 head of game that season without another feather even tipped....so I'm a poor handler of my birds by your reasoning? Wooooooooooooow.

[NMHighPlains]

It’s irrelevant if the 2014 Dec Hawk Chalk redtail is “wild” or “captive”; it’s on the cover of a falconry magazine so people will assume it is a falconer’s bird. Stacia

People assume too much. The cover of the 2012 Journal (mentioned above) is a painting of 3 Bald Eagles. Falconry birds?

Frankly, I don't think there's any pleasing some people. Not you, necessarily, but opponents in general. If some people just simply don't like what you do, they're going to find fault, imagined or real, and logic rarely comes into play.

Logically, I would ask the question "So what if the bird has a damaged feather or two?" You, yourself, just gave examples of birds missing EYES and FEET and still being in relatively good health. So, a broken feather? That's going to molt out? Logically? Big deal. Shrug. But this is an illogical world and these things can be a big deal to some people. Fact is, if the bird were in perfect feather, happy, fat, perfect in every way, I'm sure an opponent could still drag up _something_. I know I could but I'm not going to turn my imagination loose here and provide someone with argument ammunition. In fact, I think I've said everything I have to say now.

I decided to hang on to my sub-standard RT. With 20/500 uncorrected vision, 2 hearing aids, and a gimpy foot, I'm kind of sub-standard myself. I think we make a good pair.

[NMHighPlains]

[SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]That being NAFA’s position, why was a cover photo of a Red-tailed Hawk with broken primary wing feathers chosen for the Dec 2014 HC?

I'm looking at that photo this morning and I don't see jesses, bells, bracelets, telemetry or any other indication that the bird actually is a falconry bird. The way it's settled into the snow makes me think that it could very well be an actual wild bird. Why, then, assume that it's a falconry bird? In quickly perusing covers of past Hawk Chalk and Journals (thanks to the CD-ROM), I see many covers with obviously wild birds (.eg 3 Bald Eagles on J 2012) and, as is well documented, wild birds- especially immatures- often have less than perfect feather.

[Tony James]

On page 18 of the Dec 2014 Hawk Chalk (HC), the NAFA Northeast Director urges all members to walk “…a path that will ensure that we look good to the public who know nothing about falconry….[we should] think long and hard about which images we choose to make available in a public setting…” I completely agree with Scott McNeff’s perspective.

That being NAFA’s position, why was a cover photo of a Red-tailed Hawk with broken primary wing feathers chosen for the Dec 2014 HC? Similarly, the Aug 2013 HC back cover reveals a Harris’ Hawk with broken tail feathers. While almost all falconers have experienced broken feathers, these should be corrected with Imping, or photos of substandard birds like these eliminated from publication.

Animal rights activists would surely recognize these raptors as being poorly handled in captivity by falconers. When it comes to PETA and similar groups, we are all guilty by association; it is imperative that only the very best images are selected for publication in a national magazine that depicts licensed falconers.

NAFA has an Editorial Review Committee; that committee should be responsible for illustrations and photos, as well as text copy. Stacia Novy

Hi Stacia,

few could be as opinionated as me when it comes to hawk's feathers, but whilst I agree that in an ideal world we'd display nothing other than feather perfect hawks, I think you're utterly wrong, firstly in suggesting that the public would be offended by a picture showing a hawk in less than perfect feather, and secondly in the way you've conducted your campaign against NAFA.

As falconers, we do have to be mindful of images we share, in whatever place or way. I don't doubt NAFA are increasingly sensitive to that, and can be relied on to use good judgement in doing so.

Are you sure NAFA is an organisation you wish to belong to?

Regards,

Tony.

[jfincher]

I am hesitant to respond here because I hate to validate or perpetuate a very insignificant debate. Since I was the photographer though I feel some responsibility to fill in the story on this pic. This was a passage female red-tailed hawk that was being flown by an apprentice. This hawk took either 72 or 78(I can't remember which number but it was over 70) squirrels between First of Dec and March. This photo was taken in March at the end of the falconers season. The bird was hunted almost every day, as the falconer was voracious in his quest for squirrels and felt very strongly about hunting and not pet keeping. I am quite sure that some of the primary tipping and brushing was from transporting and housing, however squirrel battles are not very feather friendly some times either. Also let us not forget that feathers are renewable resources. We aren't talking about broken bones and missing eyes. The molt will take care of it, that is why it exist. Obviously there is a long standing need in wild birds to replace feathers or birds would not have evolved with this ability. I might add that I seriously doubt that any wild RT kills that many squirrels in 3 or 4 months so I have no doubt that falconry birds take more damage than wild birds. Simply put, its not fair to compare the two.
Those are the facts. Here is my opinion: I personally believe that a picture of a bird with over 70 tough kills flown by an apprentice is exactly how falconry should be represented, feather damage or not. Also thanks to those who complimented the picture.

I will add that the feather damage did not stop it from taking game, therefore no imping was deemed necessary.

[David]

We trapped several red-tails last season trying to get a passage for my apprentice. The one he keep had two broken tail feathers. Due to the broken feathers he must have been an escaped falconry bird as no self-respecting wild bird would allow itself to get into that condition.

[falcon56]

I am hesitant to respond here because I hate to validate or perpetuate a very insignificant debate. Since I was the photographer though I feel some responsibility to fill in the story on this pic. This was a passage female red-tailed hawk that was being flown by an apprentice. This hawk took either 72 or 78(I can't remember which number but it was over 70) squirrels between First of Dec and March. This photo was taken in March at the end of the falconers season. The bird was hunted almost every day, as the falconer was voracious in his quest for squirrels and felt very strongly about hunting and not pet keeping. I am quite sure that some of the primary tipping and brushing was from transporting and housing, however squirrel battles are not very feather friendly some times either. Also let us not forget that feathers are renewable resources. We aren't talking about broken bones and missing eyes. The molt will take care of it, that is why it exist. Obviously there is a long standing need in wild birds to replace feathers or birds would not have evolved with this ability. I might add that I seriously doubt that any wild RT kills that many squirrels in 3 or 4 months so I have no doubt that falconry birds take more damage than wild birds. Simply put, its not fair to compare the two.
Those are the facts. Here is my opinion: I personally believe that a picture of a bird with over 70 tough kills flown by an apprentice is exactly how falconry should be represented, feather damage or not. Also thanks to those who complimented the picture.

I will add that the feather damage did not stop it from taking game, therefore no imping was deemed necessary.

Thank you for this clarification, Jeff, with any luck it will put an end to this ridiculous subject. Stacia, are you familiar with "open mouth, insert foot"? Maybe you could now educate us all on the flavor of boot leather.

[Lowachi]

Thank you for this clarification, Jeff, with any luck it will put an end to this ridiculous subject. Stacia, are you familiar with "open mouth, insert foot"? Maybe you could now educate us all on the flavor of boot leather.