Quote Originally Posted by Gerkin View Post
The problem with theses so termed "new methods" is that they are not new, but they are suggested by people who might be "new" to falconry or at least do not have a grasp of its many different styles.

Thus the interpretation of the relevance is lost to those who are already great falconers, and will quickly see through the science & write the whole lot off as garbage.

The fault is not in the modern approach, but in the connection between it and those that can apply it species specifically..

I think a lot of these dead ends come from the geeks trying to apply the science in a broad spectrum fashion.. in some cases to try & fit in to groups when they lack any real hands on.

Hi Marcus,

I believe, ever more so, that falconry is an art rather than a science, and would always encourage anyone who likes to take a scientific approach to keep it as fluid as possible.
Attempting to lay down an ABCDEFG, step-by-step, formulaic description of how to achieve anything in falconry, as attractive as it may be, fails to grasp the fundamental 'art', and whilst there may be occasions when a hawk overcomes all of the obstacles created by the falconer and becomes successful, that success is inevitably and perversely attributed to one or more of the obstacles, as the falconer, so focussed on the formula, fails to recognise that it came about in spite of, rather than because of his pet project.

Ringing flights are simply a variation on direct pursuit, that come about by the quarry's climbing efforts to avoid capture, and the hawk's utter confidence in its ability to get the better of it. They vary according to the ability of the quarry and the hawk/s pursuing it, the terrain, and the weather (and of course to the type of hawk and its physical capabilities and preferences).

I've often commented that physical fitness in a hawk, despite being a requirement for the best flights, is of little consequence if a hawk lacks confidence or mental fortitude. To some degree this can be overcome, perhaps with the use of a make-hawk, but in my opinion the best hawks enjoy a progressive development without serious interruption.

I'm sure you're very well aware of all this, but as I say, it's very easy to be sidetracked by prescriptive formulas, as I've seen all too often.
I hear things like "I need to stoop my merlin 100 times for the next week, to get it fit enough for these larks". No I think, you needed to take easy, then progressively more difficult larks, to instil the notion in the merlins mind that no lark is beyond its powers, but now, I'm afraid, you've missed the boat.

Best wishes,

Tony.