I have a couple of questions, for anyone who feels like answering. But first an observation. I think some of the participants in this conversation might be talking across each other. There seems to be a slight misunderstanding about the phrase 'unsuitable for captivity' Some seem to feel this means a bird cannot be maintained in captivity, with no further criteria, others seem to add an implied 'in a falconry setting' to the phrase. I think it is completely reasonable to say that any wild raptor can be kept successfully in captivity, while also saying that some hawks of species commonly used for falconry are not really suitable to be kept for falconry. Having said that here is my question: Does it matter? Is there a correlation between birds that train well using a particular method, and ones that work out in a falconry setting? If there is a correlation between a particular method or philosophy and a higher percentage of suitable game hawks then it makes sense to use that philosophy, regardless of how many hawks it doesn't work for. Conversely if there is no correlation between philosophy and falconry success it makes sense to adhere to a philosophy that turns out the highest percentage of hawks that do well in captivity, then their suitability for falconry can be evaluated separately. I am especially interested in hearing from people who have undergone a change of philosophy in their manning and training of hawks but feel they were as good at implementing their old philosophy as they are at implementing their new philosophy.