rjacobs@gara.une.oz.au ( ABRI) (09/28/90)
Are there any falconers that read this group? While I lived in Canada for 3 years I learnt the basics of falconry and eventually bought a Harris Hawk. I really loved that bird and learned to love the sport. But unfortunately falconry is illegal in Australia, so since returning home 2 months ago I haven't been able to fly a bird. Still I get a kick out of watching the local raptors (mainly kestrals, wedge-tailed eagle and brown hawks), which I never really noticed before I left for Canada. I know I'll probably get flamed by those who consider falconry a cruel and barbaric past-time (I think this attitude comes from a true lack of understanding of the sport), but I'd like to hear from other falconers and keep in touch with the news on North American falconry. Ross Jacobs rjacobs@gara.une.oz.au
rcb33483@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kehaar) (09/29/90)
rjacobs@gara.une.oz.au ( ABRI) writes: >I know I'll probably get flamed by those who consider falconry a cruel >and barbaric past-time (I think this attitude comes from a true lack of >understanding of the sport), but I'd like to hear from other falconers >and keep in touch with the news on North American falconry. First off, please excuse the last article. That was an nn backfire. Second, you'll probably be grateful to hear that this is not a flame. In fact, it's a compliment. Falconry, when properly practiced by someone who really cares about the birds' welfare, is a very noble sport. (Of course, there are always a few numbnuts who mistreat and/or abuse their birds...another case of a bad few giving a bad name to the many). In fact, it is the only method of hunting that I consider sporting. When you point a gun at an animal and shoot it, the animal has no chance at all of getting away. However, when you point a hawk at a quarry and release it, said quarry has a more-than- even chance of getting away. That's point number 1. Number two is that the birds themselves are quite a joy (most of the time) to be around. Unlike what radical animal-rights people say, a hawk has no sense of "freedom". The only reason they fly as they do, for the most part, is to find a meal. If you keep a hawk reasonably well-fed, and make sure it get plenty of exercise, it will be just as content as in the wild. However, a hawk is not a pet, and never will be. The entire art of falconry is based in controlling the bird by it's instincts--mainly, it's hunger instinct. The reasonis simple; the average hawk doesn't have a whole lot of learning capability, it runs primarily on instinct. They may be short on intelligence, but, on the other hand, once you really get to know them, they DO have personality... Three stories come to mind now, passed to me by my father, who some 30 odd years ago was an expert falconer. The first concerns a Golden Eagle that one of his friends used to own. The eagle was a serious pest in the neighborhood, not because it attacked anything, but because of it's choice of perches: it loved to perch on rooftop TV antennas. This posed a problem because the bird was really massive ( ~22 lbs) and bent hell out of the antennas it perched on. This drew a steady stream of complaints from the neighbors, and finally, the bird had to be sold. The second is really a sad one, and concerns an Northern Goshawk he owned for a short time. The story goes that he had tied the bird the perch in the standard way, put the hood on, and left with my mother. They were gone for about 3 hours. When they came back, the sight that greeted them was that of unparalleled horror. Apparently, somehow the bird had gotten the hood off its head, and began to struggle against the jesses. It fell off the perch, but could not get back on, and continued to struggle. The result was much like a pole trap; the bird rubbed all the skin off it's legs, down to the bone. The blood loss was massive; the entire room was spattered with it. After they got over their shock, they immediately took the bird to an emergency avian vet they knew; to no avail. The bird died en route due to shock and blood loss. That poor bird went through almost incomprehensible suffering during it's ordeal, and my parents, who are very sensitive people, knew it. 30 years later, a description of this ordeal is enough to bring tears to my father's eyes. As well as tragedy, there were some funny moments during my father's period of falconry. The most famous (among my father's friends anyway) could aptly by tited "Kestrel in the kitchen". The setting is this. In the living room is jessed to a perch an American Kestrel. In the kitchen, which ajoins the living room, is a 10-lb package of ground beef in a cellophane wrapping. With this tableau in place, my mother left to go shopping. When she got back, the scene that greeted her was quite a surprise. During her absence, the bird managed to chew through it's jesses and escape--into the kitchen. There, it found the hamburger, and setted down for what turned out to be an unparalleled orgy. The bird stuffed itself on the hamburger, found the cellophane wrapping toothsome and ate that too. By the time my mother walked in on the party, the bird's crop was so swollen the bird looked like it has swallowed a couple of golf balls. My mother scolded hell out of that bird, which did not give any indication of caring in the least. In fact, it acted like it was high on something for several hours after my mother retied it to it's perch. And, for several days after that, she said the bird was regurgitating little cellophane balls--a reminder to her of that day. Finally a word on the legality of falconry. The main reason why it is illegal in Australia, is because of the huge amount of damage done by the sheep and livestock farmers to the raptor population. From what I have picked up, huntingof raptors illegally down there by farmers is still a big problem. The *&^**ing farmers (here, as well as in Australia) don't seem to realize that they are stabbing themselves in the back, for raptors control rodent and insect pests that eat crops and carry numerous diseases. The population simply can't take the strain of the most insidious raptor-killer of them all: the falconry black market. The middlemen that capture the hawks have not the qualms that responsible falconers do about keeping their birds healthy. When a falconer looks at a hawk, he sees an animal that it is his responsibilityto take care of. When a middleman looks at a hawk, he sees nothing but dollar signs. However, this isn't the real danger; that is the tremendous number of hawks taken out for the black market. Any hawk thus captured is biologically dead; it can't breed and raise young. With all the pressure already on raptors from hunting, pesticides, and habitat destruction, in some places the populationjust can't afford this additional pressure. BTW, the biggest culprits for hunting raptors in the world are Italy and Spain; these Mediterranean countries consider anything that flies fair game to be shot. Both have dumped big piles of manure on international protection laws, and any protest or attempt at enforcement is squashed by either politicians or hitmen. They are one of the major reasons the European White Stork is still declining, despite it's popularity in the rest of Europe. Other Medeterranean countries are also big culprits in that respect. But, I digress.. As a final note, the raptor black market IS savage and barbaric, but if anybody says that the sport of falconry itself is, think of these two examples from Audubon's travels. Once, Audubon traveled to New Orleans, where he witnessed about 15 French gunmen slaughter _60,000_ Golden Plovers within hours. Another time he visited what was to become Hawk Mountain Sanctuary. Here, he witnessed another carnage; during migration, the ridge was packed with hunters, and everytime a hawk got in range it was shot down as fast as a Japanese Zero in WWII. The valley below was littered with hundreds of thousands of bodies, as recovery rate for the shot hawks was near zero. If that isn't savage and barbaric, I don't know what is! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R. Cody Buchmann ^.^ "Kehaar" "He tell *me* the plan...I *know* the email: rcb33483@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu plan!" -Watership Down. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
andrewt@cs.su.oz (Andrew Taylor) (09/30/90)
In article <1990Sep28.194421.11089@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> rcb33483@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kehaar) writes: >Finally a word on the legality of falconry. The main reason why it is illegal >in Australia, is because of the huge amount of damage done by the sheep and >livestock farmers to the raptor population. From what I have picked up, >hunting of raptors illegally down there by farmers is still a big problem. I don't think so. The only Australia raptor likely to be shot on suspicion of taking lambs or calves is the Wedge-Tailed Eagle. Until about 25 years ago there was huge persecution of them with 100,000s being shot encouraged by government bounty. Though I was very young, I can still recall the gruesome sight of eagle carcasses strung along a farm fence. A study by the CSIRO found they took very few healthy lambs but many rabbits and were a net benefit to farms. This was instrumental in the Wedge-Tails becoming protected and ending the persecution (farmers have considerable respect for the CSIRO). Today, Wedge-Tails are widespread and, for an eagle, abundant. There are probably more Wedge-Tails now than before Europeans arrived. I'd guess more raptors are shot (illegally) for taking farmyard chickens. The prime candidates would be Brown Goshawk & Brown Falcon which are common open country birds and under no threat. It would be worrying if Grey Goshawks (uncommon birds of the coastal forests) were being shot but I suspect this rare and their main problem is habitat destruction. >The population simply can't take the strain of the most insidious raptor-killer >of them all: the falconry black market. It wouldn't be a conservation problem for the common Australian raptors (e.g Brown Falcon). I doubt an accompanying illegal trade would threaten the rarer species. I'm presuming the elusive inland nomad the Grey Falcon and the mysterious Red Goshawk of the coastal forests would not interest falconers (unfortunately egg-collecters still may bother them). Unlike elsewhere Peregrines still have a healthy population here (as do Ospreys). I not sure of the history but the reason taking raptors from the wild wwill stay is that after 200 years of destruction Australians have become very sensitive about exploitation of their native wildlife. I'd guess many former falconers still get to satisfy their desires by rehabilitating and where this is not possible keeping injured raptors. Andrew
rcb33483@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kehaar) (10/01/90)
andrewt@cs.su.oz (Andrew Taylor) writes: >I don't think so. The only Australia raptor likely to be shot on suspicion >of taking lambs or calves is the Wedge-Tailed Eagle. Until about 25 years >ago there was huge persecution of them with 100,000s being shot encouraged >by government bounty. Though I was very young, I can still recall the >gruesome sight of eagle carcasses strung along a farm fence. A study by >the CSIRO found they took very few healthy lambs but many rabbits and >were a net benefit to farms. This was instrumental in the Wedge-Tails becoming >protected and ending the persecution (farmers have considerable respect for >the CSIRO). Today, Wedge-Tails are widespread and, for an eagle, abundant. >There are probably more Wedge-Tails now than before Europeans arrived. >I'd guess more raptors are shot (illegally) for taking farmyard chickens. >The prime candidates would be Brown Goshawk & Brown Falcon which are >common open country birds and under no threat. It would be worrying if >Grey Goshawks (uncommon birds of the coastal forests) were being shot but >I suspect this rare and their main problem is habitat destruction. >>The population simply can't take the strain of the most insidious raptor-killer >>of them all: the falconry black market. >It wouldn't be a conservation problem for the common Australian raptors (e.g >Brown Falcon). I doubt an accompanying illegal trade would threaten the rarer >species. I'm presuming the elusive inland nomad the Grey Falcon and the >mysterious Red Goshawk of the coastal forests would not interest falconers >(unfortunately egg-collecters still may bother them). Unlike elsewhere >Peregrines still have a healthy population here (as do Ospreys). >I not sure of the history but the reason taking raptors from the wild >wwill stay is that after 200 years of destruction Australians have >become very sensitive about exploitation of their native wildlife. >I'd guess many former falconers still get to satisfy their desires by >rehabilitating and where this is not possible keeping injured raptors. I digress. Most of the information applies to the Western Hemispere, where import of raptors from South America and Mexico (as well as a host of other birds) is becoming a serious threat to their conservation. However, those nasty things I said about hunting in Meditternean countries still stands. BTW, Aussie sheep ranchers have by no means cornered the market on ignorant raptor killing. Our own uncultured American farmers have done that...and usually wind up shooting themselves in the back because of the lifting of selection pressure from pest rodents... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R. Cody Buchmann ^.^ "Kehaar" "He tell *me* the plan...I *know* the email: rcb33483@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu plan!" -Watership Down. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rjacobs@gara.une.oz.au ( ABRI) (10/01/90)
In regards to the last few postings about falconry in Australia, they have been very interesting. However, my understanding of the reasons for the outlawing of falconry in Australia vary from previous comments. I have spoken to several people from the New South Wales National Parks, the keeper of raptors at Sydney Taronga Zoo and a few ex-falconers who now are raptor rehabilitators. The general opinion is that there has always been a strong anti-falconry feeling by conservation groups, because they have always associated falconry with bird smuggling. However, the crunch came after the publicity of Operation Falcon reached Australia in 1985. For those that are not familiar with this infamous caper, I'll briefly outline the details. In 1985, the US govt Wildlife & Fisheries (I think that's what they are called) decided to crack down on the smuggling of gyrfalcons and goshawks from North America, so they set up an undercover operation. They coerced an American falconer of dubious reputation to go to Canada and offer money to certain falconers to catch gyrs and gos's for the Arab market. When the operation was in full swing the US and Canadian authorities swooped in and arrested several falconers, a lawyer and confiscated a few birds. This became big news world-wide and falconry became a very dirty word. However, the birds they confiscated turned out to be legally owned captive-bred birds, the falconers (except 1 who fled to the middle-east in panic) were all cleared of charges of illegally obtaining birds of prey and attempted smuggling. The only fellow who was proved to be illegally dealing in birds was the US govt planted falconer. But he was not presecuted. The fact that Operation Falcon was a US govt scam and no illegal activities by bone fide falconers occurred (or was proved) did not make world-wide news. In fact, National Parks people here still do not believe me when I tell them this. A good reference is Paul McKay's book `The Pilgram and the Cowboy'. Anyway, Operation Falcon hammered the nail into the coffin for Australian falconers. In fact, after 1985 the National Parks required a person to be licenced to keep a raptor for rehabilitation purposes. Then in the last 2 years (I think) they stopped issuing new licences. So a person cannot have a bird of prey in their care unless they were licenced before 1988. The attitude of National Parks people to falconry is quite scary. When I arrived back in Australia after 3 years in Canada, I rang National Parks to enquire about the legal situation. I was told that to keep a bird of prey was illegal and anyone doing so will be fined and jailed. They said if I knew anyone who had birds I should inform them immediately. They wanted to know my name, address and phone number, what I did for a living, had I ever owned a bird of prey in Australia or overseas, etc etc. I'm sure there is a file on me in some govt office by now. Well, that's my understanding of why falconry is illegal in Australia. It is a great shame, because falconers know their birds, spend a lot of time to make sure the birds are well cared for, are interested in the general welfare of the wild population of birds. Falconers promote captive-breeding of raptors and much of our knowledge about reproduction and health of raptors is derived by falconers who have spent the time, energy and money to ensure birds of prey maintain a dynamic population in good health. As someone stated a couple of postings ago, you cannot tame a bird of prey, you can only work with its basic instincts. Even in captivity they remain essentially the same as any raptor in the wild, except the captive bird has a better chance of survival and a higher quality of life. Ross Jacobs rjacobs@gara.une.oz.au
dmark@acsu.buffalo.edu (David Mark) (10/01/90)
> Even in captivity they remain >essentially the same as any raptor in the wild, except the captive bird >has a better chance of survival and a higher quality of life. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I am curious as to how "quality of life" was evaluated in order to arrive at this conclusion. >Ross Jacobs >rjacobs@gara.une.oz.au David Mark dmark@acsu.buffalo.edu
rjacobs@gara.une.oz.au ( ABRI) (10/02/90)
David Mark is correct that my term "quality of life" is not a measurable factor in the life of a raptor (or any bird). In fact, it is tainted with the humanization of animals - which is something I hate. However, in my use of the term I refer mainly to the fact that captive raptors are freed from some of the stresses of life that are factors in the shortening of life in wild raptors. They do not have to go without quality food. They are fed whether or not they have hunted successfully. A good falconer will be aware of the early symptoms of disease and treat their bird accordingly. A good falconer will ensure their bird is regularly exercised and therefore remains fit. In the wild, raptors are often killed by larger birds, this does not usually occur to captive birds. Overall, a captive falcon does not have to compete to the same extent as a wild bird in order to survive. Some people believe that it is cruel to keep birds of prey on perches for most of their day. However, birds of prey are very lazy animals and normally only fly in order to hunt or migrate. In the wild, most of their day is spent perched. So these factors are what I meant to say in the use of my term "quality of life". A apologize for the misuse of the term and for any confusion. Ross Jacobs rjacobs@gara.une.oz.au
miken@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Mike Nickerson) (10/02/90)
>/ hpdmd48:rec.birds / rjacobs@gara.une.oz.au ( ABRI) / 2:02 am Sep 28, 1990 / >Are there any falconers that read this group? While I lived in Canada >for 3 years I learnt the basics of falconry and eventually bought a >Harris Hawk. I really loved that bird and learned to love the sport. > > (stuff deleted) > >Ross Jacobs >rjacobs@gara.une.oz.au >---------- My wife is a licensed falconer and raptor rehabilitator. I watch this newsgroup for her. She has been working with Morlan Nelson here in Boise for the last 6 or 7 years. A year ago, she obtained her rehab permit including Golden Eagles. Much of the work my wife does is not the traditional hunting associated with falconery. Most of her work is rehabilition and public education. This includes public talks, some television shows and occasionally part of a movie. It is really interesting to watch someone work with the birds who has a natural rapport with them. She knows what the birds are thinking / feeling almost as soon as they do. My wife was very lucky to talk Morley into training her. For those who don't recognize the name, Morley has been working with raptors for 50 or 60 years. He has been a staunch spokesman for raptors most of that time. He worked with Walt Disney producing several of the True-Life Adventure Series including: "The Living Desert", "The Vanishing Prairie" and "Rusty and The Falcon." He has also been involved with the Peregrine Fund and their captive breeding since the early days. It appears that there are at least a few falconers watching this newsgroup. Mike Nickerson Hewlett-Packard Disk Storage Systems
rcb33483@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (ArchTeryx) (11/17/90)
Just my two cents on falconry...
I consider, for small-to-medium sized game, falconry to be far, far more
"sporting" than hunting with a shotgun. If you point a shotgun at something,
and shoot it, that thing is either instantly dead or instantly mortally
wounded. What sport is there in that?
On the other hand, if you point a hawk at something and fly it, the prey
has a more than even chance of getting away. And, if hawk makes its kill,
it will be quick and merciful...far more so than the death of a mortally
wounded goose lost in the field, or, worse, the duck that dies from
respitory paralysis after eating the "waste" of the shotgun (i.e. lead
poisoning). And, you get the satisfaction of taking care of the bird,
as well.
And, as my father (who used to be a dedicated falconer) and a few friends of
mine would attest to, hawks DO have individuality and personality, if not
that many smarts. But, then, how smart is a shotgun?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R. Cody Buchmann ^.^
"Kehaar"
"He tell *me* the plan...I *know* the
email: rcb33483@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu plan!" -Watership Down.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com (Dick St.Peters) (11/18/90)
In article <1990Nov17.002351.25330@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> rcb33483@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (ArchTeryx) writes: >I consider, for small-to-medium sized game, falconry to be far, far more >"sporting" than hunting with a shotgun. I too consider falconry preferable to hunting with a gun; however ... >And, if hawk makes its kill, >it will be quick and merciful ... are you sure of this? It's clearly not true of, say, eagles catching fish, and it's not true of predators in general. Nature is rarely merciful. I've heard that in the wild animals caught by hawks are often still very much alive when they arrive at the hawk's nest and the hawk begins shredding them. -- Dick St.Peters, GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, NY stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com uunet!dawn.crd.ge.com!stpeters
edm@vrdxhq.verdix.com (Ed Matthews) (11/19/90)
In article <1990Nov17.002351.25330@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> rcb33483@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (ArchTeryx) writes: > [anti-hunting comment deleted] >wounded. What sport is there in that? WRONG NEWSGROUP for this discussion. >And, if hawk makes its kill, >it will be quick and merciful... I saw five minutes of footage last night of a Gyr taking a Sharp-Tailed Grouse that was none too quick, nor merciful. It was brutal. Such is nature. >respitory paralysis after eating the "waste" of the shotgun (i.e. lead >poisoning). Give me a break. Who uses lead pellets anymore? Everyone I know reloads with steel pellets and factory loads come with steel pellets. -- Ed Matthews edm@verdix.com Verdix Corporation Headquarters (703) 378-7600 Chantilly, Virginia
mm@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Mike Mahler) (11/20/90)
I'm not so sure it's "quick and painless"... An exotic bird store I worked in in high school had a perregrin (sp?) falcon (yes, it was legit) and they fed it the parakeets that had missing toes and bad beaks and such (I know, but it wasn't my choice, I just worked there and I don't think there's a Purina Falcon Chow) and it was not pleasant to see and HEAR the falcon SLOWLY eat the bird while it was still alive. In fact, they seem to grab it and then fly to the perch and just look around for a while (perhaps looking for competitiors? Sam?) and peck at it's head every once in a while the whole time the parakeet was screaming. Really made an impression on me... like watching one of those Mutal of Omaha's Wild Kingdon episodes... "Hear we see Jim wrestling the tasmanian devil..." -- Taking action is a choice. Taking NO action is a choice as well.
rcb33483@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (ArchTeryx) (11/20/90)
stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com (Dick St.Peters) writes: >In article <1990Nov17.002351.25330@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> rcb33483@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (ArchTeryx) writes: >>I consider, for small-to-medium sized game, falconry to be far, far more >>"sporting" than hunting with a shotgun. >I too consider falconry preferable to hunting with a gun; however ... >>And, if hawk makes its kill, >>it will be quick and merciful >... are you sure of this? It's clearly not true of, say, eagles >catching fish, and it's not true of predators in general. Nature is >rarely merciful. I've heard that in the wild animals caught by hawks >are often still very much alive when they arrive at the hawk's nest >and the hawk begins shredding them. Please note one very important fact. I am not trying to anthopomorphise raptors here at all. In the case of a 'quick, merciful kill', the raptor does this in order to quell struggling prey...less energy involved carrying/ shredding dead prey then when it is alive and struggling. As for other predators, I can't speak for them but I will say for example that herons very often swallow their prey alive...that's about as unmerciful as one can get. And yet, herons are one of my favorite groups of birds... However, I still maintain under my original point that under the situation that a hawk will be in most often in a falconry situation (catching relatively large prey), that in will instictually deliver a quick kill for the sake of energy conservation. And, more importantly, I still maintain the point that falconry gives the prey an even chance opf survival, unlike so-called 'sport hunting.' And think of owls, too. I have NEVER seen an owl swallow a live, stuggling mouse or small bird. They ALWAYS seem to break the neck before eating or carrying off their prey, even when it is quite small. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R. Cody Buchmann ^.^ "Kehaar" "He tell *me* the plan...I *know* the email: rcb33483@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu plan!" -Watership Down. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) (11/21/90)
It seems to me to be an ethical question where the hunter is concerned. The problem with hunting is twofold. 1--Is it sporting? If you have a powerful enough gun, you can almost be certain of a kill at any distance. 2--Is the havoc reasonable? Centuraries ago it was OK to burn down 300 acres to grow crops for one family for one year. Today the ecosystem cannot withstand this pressure. The same is true of hunters (and fishermen) that use lead or that wound large numbers of animals. The pressure on animals (in Scotland where I have lived) has meant that otters, the Osprey, kites, etc do not live in most of the UK (and wolves, beaver, bears are extinct). Whether one causes more suffering than the other is not the question (although that can be answered if one wants to). What should WE DO? That is the question. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arnold Chamove Massey University Psychology Palmerston North, New Zealand