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.
