Talk:Falconry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Eagles

From the article:

"This genus has a worldwide distribution. They are large powerful birds that have only one representative in North America and Britain, the Golden Eagle."

Pardon me, but does this refer only to eagles used for falconry? I believe North America also has the Bald Eagle. KamuiShirou 04:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

By definition, the Bald is a sea eagle, different Genus. Thanks, KamuiSirou! JT 02:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected copyright violation

I forgot to say in my edit summary that I removed the copyvio notice. According the the main copyvio page, the site in question is in fact copying us! Djbrianuk 12:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A few rapidly transcribed notes

Shakespeare "sharp set" Monguls, King Ethelburt (?). A royal activity. Aristo POWs. Died out with invention of flintlock pistol, cadgers, hobbies, mews (from Latin mutata, to change).

[edit] Where is a copy of the Boke of St.Albans?

In 1486, the rules and ettiquette of falconry were put down in "The Boke of St Albans" by Dame Julyans Bernes "prioress of the nunnery of Sopwell, near St. Alban's; a lady of noble family, and celebrated for her learning and accomplishments, by Leland, Bale, Pits, and others", types of birds (and jargon?) are listed in that book.

Kestrel, Hawks, eagle, other birds used in falconry. Some are more commonly used than others, presumably. Also, people of different statuses were permitted to use different species.

  • Made, or manned (not trained)
  • "Stoop" on prey, to "foot" it
  • Ungladness (not illness)
  • Etc, (from book mentioned above?)
  • I'm looking for a copy of the Boke of St. Albans to quote from

[edit] Bird strikes, illegal trade

There needs to be some discussion of the recent use of falconry as a bird strike mitigation measure at airports. Some discussion of the illegal trade in Saker Falcons for Saudi falconers is probably also appropriate.

The illegal trade in Sakers is largely myth, filled with decidedly inaccurate information (for example, the alleged value of the birds.

Regading the Bird Abatement, that might be a good tangent topic. It's not falconry in the truest sense of the word, but since falconry techniques are used, it's worth a mention. I'll add something about that. Might want to add something about Operation Falcon as well. JT 02:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voice needs adjusting

This article, while fascinating, reads like an enthusiastic introduction to the hobby, rather than like an encyclopedia article. Someone needs to "adjust the voice" to make it more encyclopedic. I'm going to add it to my list of things to do, but it's likely to be a while before I can get around to it. If someone else (perhaps someone who knows more about the subject than I) wants to go ahead and take this on, I promise not to get my feelings hurt ;-) —CKA3KA (Skazka) 23:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Peer review A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.
I've made a couple changes to the tone, mainly in how to get instructed, but yes it may need some work. Feel free to continue. Some enthusiasm, masked in neutrality, wouldn't hurt though. Tyciol 02:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falconry Training article needs to be deleted

I started to edit it, but it's so riddled with gross inaccuracies that it's best it just be removed altogether. Being new to Wikipedia, I don't yet know how this is properly accomplished, but felt the need to warn/advise of the abundant misinformation. Meanwhile, I've "edited" it to a summary which expresses that it's not realistic to try to explain falconry training methods within Wikipedia, so that people don't gain inaccurate information or impressions. -JT, Falconry Alliance

JT, Thanks for all your hard work! I appreciate that you don't want inaccurate information in the article—none of us do—but was there no way to save any part of the training section? I know absolutely nothing about falconry, so I'm certainly no judge, but I found what I read to be interesting. I never dreamed that it qualified me to go out and try to train a bird of prey myself, but an overview for the layman of the general philosophy and overall methods of training would be enormously enlightening.
I know you say that the information was inaccurate, but did the inaccuracies represent practices that no falconer would subscribe to? I ask because it sounds to me—and again, I want to stress that I don't pretend to know anything about the topic—as if there may be some controversy concerning the best training methods. If that's the case, then an overview of the nature of the controversy would be equally fascinating. —CKA3KA (Skazka) 08:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sorry to have to say so, but there was so little fact in there that it was easier to delete it. The writer seems to be a recent zealot, one who read a book and then wrote from recollection... or had a very poor education in the first place. Within the first sentence alone we find:
  1. Falconers don't always start with a young bird
  2. When we do, we definately do NOT train an eyass with food, as it causes them to scream to you for food for the rest of their lives.
  3. Most prefer passagers or chamber-raised birds (which would be closer to the training that the writer was referring to.)
  4. While we're at it, an eyass is one taken as a baby. A passager is one taken after it has fledged the nest but before it is sexually mature (usually within the first year of its life.)

There were shreds of fact in there, but they were woven in between myriad inaccuracies, which is why I made that choice. But you're the official editor... do as you see fit. Feel free to email me if you want further info on falconry, raptor rehab or raptors in general. I've gone ahead and cleaned it up best as I can, but it still doesn't belong in here, as it's nowhere near comprehensive enough. -Unknown, JT again?

[edit] Tag formatting

Raptor Rehabilitation comes up in a search of Wikipedia, but when I put the brackets around it, it comes up in red. Pardon my ignorance, is there something missing in the Raptor Rehabilitation article which causes it not to be parsed properly? JT 02:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I got it. The names are case-sensitive. JT 03:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "a reel of chalk line"

This is referred to as an example of a non-existent thing under the Boke of St Albans heading. But surely it is an existent thing -- builders use chalk line reels. You stretch the string line out of the reel, then snap it to leave a chalky mark. mattw 02:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falconry & Falconers, Falconeering &...

After a cleanup of the article and talk page, I noticed that Falconeering was listed as an alternatie term for Falconry. I bolded this and redirected that term here to help that out. What confuses me is what term is used. Falconer is the only term I'm familiar with, but is there a possible term, such as Falconeer, Falconeerer, Falconeerist, Falconist, or something along those lines, or is Falconer used as the practitioner noun for both terms? Or is it 'The Art of Falconry' but 'I'm going out Falconeering'? What about Falconing, has anyone ever heard that one used? Tyciol 02:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • No there really isn't anything used when going out other than hawking or hunting. Occasionally "flying" is used. Greg 3:00am, 14 July 2006 (GMT)
  • "Flying" is ambiguous. It also may mean pigeons or aeroplanes. Anthony Appleyard 11:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It may be ambiguous, Anthony, but it's also what we say. Sorry.--JT 19:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

  • The spelling "lanere" in the Boke of St.Albans quote is because that spelling was used in the Boke of St.Albans. Anthony Appleyard 11:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Voice / singular perspective

Too much of this reflects the attitude of falconers rather than falconry.

It's said that if you put 10 falconers in a room, you'll get 12 opinions. But this article must stick to the facts. The reasons for using a Peregrine/Lanner, for example are NOT accurate (and I'm not even going to get into a longwinded discussion on the psychological reasons for it, the legal aspects in the US vs. the EU and UK, etc.) So let's see about a major overhaul where it sticks to the facts, and refers them to local sources, maybe? What do you guys think we can do to keep this from being so blasted subjective? --JT 19:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/a/l/Talk%7EFalconry_5c4b.html"