I grew up wanting a hawk. I'm not sure why. I just always wanted one. Maybe it was from flying kites? Maybe from the attention that my father gave the rare hawk that might pass by? Maybe from some long forgotten movie or story?
Whatever the reason, I wanted to have a hawk when I grew up. Of course, things aren't so simple. Like: if you want a horse, you also want a place to ride your horse.
The law wont let you keep a horse in your backyard (I don't know why), and horses tend to poop huge volumes of horse poop when you ride them - and in many places, you just can't leave the droppings on the sidewalk or in the street, where flies will find it, and will breed more files in it, and where the horse poop will become a slippery or stinking mess in the rain.
Same with hawks. You can't turn them loose where they will catch and kill cats, pet rabbits, or chickens or ducklings.
But I wanted a hawk - and a place to fly one.
Then I read Farley Mowat, and I wanted a pet owl too. Heck, while I was at it, why not grow up to have my own mews? Might as well have a stable, while I am at it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farley_Mowat
Hmmm? marry a person with a farm? Because jobs are usually in the city - but horses and hawks, and the woodlands I wanted to explore, are all in the countryside.
Dogs and cats can live in a house. Horses and hawks need a barn. I had cats and dogs, no barn, no horse, no hawk, no owl.
But I did read on falconry. Something seemed to be missing. There was not a link between stories of hawks, and the books on falconry. Then I found the link - the Harris Hawk. A more tamable type of hawk.
Like some dogs can be kept as 'pets' by people whose demeanor intimidates those around them, some wild animals must be handled by those who are FIRM but Kind foster Parents to their animals.
But I am with the majority of pet lovers, who want a best friends relationship with our pets, not a Lord-peasant, or even Parent-child relationship with our animals. And to do that, you need pets who don't try to eat anything that doesn't look like it could eat them.
To have a nice relationship with a pet, you need pets that are tame, who don't try to dominate, and yet are not terrified of the world.
You need pets that don't spend their time trying to manipulate and out smart you, and get around your rules. You do want pets that are cooperative with you, not competitive with you.
Once, (in Mexico or Central America - I forget which) when I stopped and stared at a hawk, it's falconer spoke to me. He said he felt sorry for falconers in the US and Europe, as their birds of prey were cold and easily angered, while "all" of the native hawks where he was were easily tamed and could be pets that you hunt with, not wild animals that you must control and keep training.
I agree with his idea of what a good pet is, but I am not convinced that everyone feels the same way. (Some people are such control freaks that they shop for horses that resist being ridden, not truely domesticated dogs, or 'pets' they have to constanly watch).
For example: I have learned to ride what is called "Western" and "English". These aren't just different saddles, they are parts of whole different cultures, with their own trappings, history, books, and activities.
English riding is based on controlling the horse. Western riding usually has looser reins, and the horse is expected to figure out what it suppose to do - it is not micro-managed.
English riding tries to teach being "one with the horse", or being in constant touch with the horses mouth (these are NOT the same thing).
(The conparison here is the constant micro-managing of some 'pet' dogs and big cats, vs the best friends type relationship possible with tamer and less over-reactive animals.)
The horses used for English riding (in America - I don't know about in England) are horses that are more emotional (hot blooded) often with race horse genes, or from gaited show horse lines - they require more effort to control and are also rode in situations that take more control (like jumping fences in a ring).
Strangely, they often have neck lengths and neck carriages (angle of the neck) which makes them harder to control.
English riding has two main splits, often identified by the type of saddle used - hunt, or show.
While there are some people who ride on foxhunts, there is also show jumping - that is exactly how Christopher Reeves became paralyzed form the neck down - he fell off of his horse while show jumping. Quickly ending any interest I might have had in mounted fox hunting, show jumping or hunt seat.
Roy's (of Sigmund & Roy) bite from a tiger, squelched my interest in big cats. Watching film of Roy in physical therapy was hard on me.
And the video "cat dancers" absolutely ended my interest in all dangerous pets by setting, yet another example of bad ideas in pets who can never be trusted around people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Dancers
Now I prefer dog pound (rescued) trained pet cat acts on video, like the guy with the trained white cats who do circus tricks. (deaf cats might be better street performers).
I like videos best, if it is something I might want to do, or some place I might like to go.
When I was a kid, being a lion tamer in the circus sounded fun. Now, training pet cats for youtube videos, sounds more fun.
Western riders have their splits too. There are horses for use in a ring (or arena) and trail horses.
There are competitive show event riders - barrel racing and rodeos, which are, to me, more about shows and competition, than about, nature and bonding with horses.
(If a horse owner, owns a farm, they can keep the horse there, and put it in a horse trailer, and drive it to good riding spots on the weekends).
Trail riding is what it sounds like. You stable your horse in the country near paths in the woods, and go on weekends to ride (you pay the stable to feed the horse and cares for it).
You can also not own your own horse, but get to know the various horses for rent at a riding stable. But riding horses is seasonal. And keeping horses during the winter to rent or lease out in the summer is a waste of a stable's money.
So, traditionally, all or most of the horses (in some riding stables) were sold to slaughter houses for dog food at the end of the season. And new horses bought at the beginning of the next season, for slaughter house prices.
So if at the end of the riding season, if you didn't want your favorite horses sold for slaughter, you had to buy them, and pay for them to be boarded during the off season.
The stable might buy them back for what you paid for them, at the start of the next riding season, but come lay off time for the horses next year - are you going to do? buy them again, and pay for their upkeep in the off season?
Or keep paying for the upkeep of more horses than what you can ride - you can only ride one horse at a time - unless, maybe you have a really really big behind????
Now that horses are not slaughtered here in the US, what happens to the hired out horses at the end of the riding season? Are they kept until the next season? Or shipped to places where they can be legally slaughtered? Sold to big cat keepers for cat food? shot?
I don't know. But if it costs more to feed and stable a horse during the off season, than what it cost to buy new horses at the beginning of the next season, a business that has 40 or 50 for hire horses has motive to not keep the same horses.
But, of course, many stable love their horses and keep them until they are old. But, like dogs breeders, many of them do not. Shop around if you care.
People who ride Western often will not even look at English horse stuff, and English riders often pretend that Western does not exist.
Culturally, I am more of a bareback rider - but I prefer trail rides and comfy Western saddles. (Eclectic again.)
Yeah, I said two cultures, not three, or four, or five - well there are two MAIN horse cultures in the US - each with their various sub-divisions and many people specialize in just their own little sub culture - like "show Hackney ponies" or "trail riding mustangs" or "Thoroughbred race horses" or "breeding to try to get the tiniest horse possible".
(Background note: falcons are harder to manage, hawks said to be a bit easier. But the Harris 'Hawk' is no more a hawk than a jackrabbit is a rabbit (they are hares). Harris 'Hawks' are totally different,
and appeal to people willing to trade Romantic History and daring plunges for more of a relationship with their bird. Birds of Prey, like horses, have followings even among people who do not, and sometimes never did, own one - because they are not kept in the suburbs.)
What does this have to do with grasshoppers?
Are grasshoppers giant mean beasts? - well there was a cover on World Weekly News once which showed a giant grasshopper but . . .
Are grasshoppers eaten the fields of grain? Yes, that is what they do, and are the "locust" mentioned as one of the plagues of Egypt.
But my real reason, is that I was looking at hawk blogs, found one over on terrierman, and the guy had a ------ Red-Tailed hawk who tried to nail him for getting too close to it's killed rabbit. Nasty blow.
Suddenly, hunting grasshoppers with an American kestrel, did not seem like such a bad way to learn hawking. Matter of fact, grasshopper hunting was sounding like a good sport.
Yeah, I know, they are just grasshoppers, not trophy elk, 150 pound giant wolves, or even rabbits that I could kill, clean, skin, bleed out, lug home, butcher up, and cook up.
Grasshopper hunting would just yield grasshoppers to feed the kestrel - I am not going to eat grasshoppers. So I would NOT have to kill, clean, skin, bleed out, lug home, butcher up, and cook them. That's what grocery stores are for.
And an American kestrel sounds like a lot easier to care for than a Harris Hawk. Maybe I should dream of American kestrels?
What would PETA say about hunting grasshoppers? Would we start reading articles about the poor grasshoppers being killed by birds of prey, and the mean hunters who go out in the country on weekends to let their birds kill grasshoppers?
PS: Reason I couldn't find the link? It wasn't a Harris Hawk, it was on a Harris Hawk blog though. Still, my conclusion (the part that actually remembered) was correct. And, as a novice bird, I'd still go with a kestrel over a Red Tail. Puny talons over OHG nails!
The Photo of his eye:
http://hawkingharrisblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/i-forgot.html
How it happened:
http://hawkingharrisblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/my-most-serious-hunting-injury.html
Kestrel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kestrel
sorry about all the post-edits, i did not realise how many points could be read different ways.
And what is the big deal with a "trophy elk"? Surely something that big and slow is not that hard to shoot - wouldn't being able to shoot running rabbits or tiny mice, be something more to brag about?