Grasshopper Hunters!

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?

Mesteno Photo

BLM Mustang Horses

Although many like to think that all the horses on BLM lands are purebred mustangs, SOME of them are half some other breed of horse.

This is because some purebred horses were allowed to run loose on BLM lands, like ranchers let cattle run with the horses. Except that other kinds of horses can interbred with mustangs - cattle can not.

Myself, I believe that a mix of different genes makes for a healthier animal - and science backs me up on that.

Not every herd of wild horses is the same. If you look at different herds of (up for adoption, and on sale) horses and burros, you might find what you want.
http://blm.gov/adoptahorse

If not you can still check out the nice horse photos.

Mustang

FOR SALE CHEAP throught the BLM: two tone Mustang with lots of extras.
Very fuel efficient, makes its own gas from weeds.

Show Horses.

I like pretty pictures of horses. I love horse photos. But I don't believe in breeding horses just to get more horses that look good in photos.

And what is a halter class? It is where a horse is led into the ring, and judged like a dog in a dog show, maybe even less judging, at least the show dogs trot.

After explaining how I felt, I asked one person why the show had halter classes? She said it was because it was so much easier (than riding the horse in the ring, where the horse's gait and handling can be judged).

The point of having a horse instead of a dog, is that the horse is a riding animal. If you quit judging how a horse rides and handles, you will get horses with rough gaits, that are hard to control.

She said that lots of the older horse show people don't ride. Many of the people who have lots of horses don't even break the horse (teach it to let people ride it). She said that training a horse to be ridden was too much work, too much to expect from horse show people.

I felt that breeding horses to win in a halter class was not a good idea.

After that, changes in IRS laws, made using horses as a tax shelter harder. And required broodmares be broodmares, not riding animals. I'm guessing that plenty of people got out of raising horses when they could no longer use it as a tax shelter. But what effect did that have on halter classes?

To me, there is only one way to judge a saddle horse, get off the horse, and let the judge ride the horse for awhile.

To me, there is only one way to judge a trail horse, have the judge ride a different horse each day. Because some horses have a gait so bad that after a couple of hours ,you hurt, just from sitting on them while they walk the trail.

But other horses, with the same saddle, can be ridden all day, and after you get off, you feel fine.

Some horse are in between,, riding them on a trail is exhausting, but not painful. There are horses with gaits so bad that I would rather walk than ride them.

You can't tell which is which by looking at them. You have to ride them. An expensive purebred show horse may have a walk that gets to you. A cheap horse, that was sold for a slight bit more than their price per pound at the slaughter house, can have a soft gait that makes you feel good.

The other factor is calmness. Maybe a little factor of willing to obey easily, and being an easy keeper. Certainly, not fighting with other horses is a factor. But these are not the things that can be seen in a ring, are they?

So what do shows judge? We aren't doing that "purebred" thing are we?

As far as I am concerned only a judge who has ridden the horses himself, is fit to pass judgement on them. I have no idea how you could put that into a show, but that is my opinion.

BLM horses & burros

Yes, I know that today, horses are NOT being shot on BLM land - who I was addressing are the people who think we should return to shooting wild horses and burros.

Although such people might say "Shoot horses so that the plants can grow better, or so that deer will have more food; the reality is, that if the horses are on land that is leased to cattle ranchers, then the more horses that are gone, only means that more cattle can be run there.

BLM horses? photo

Wild Horses 2

There was an issue sometime back on one of the list that I sometimes read, about horse meat. You might remember that the US used to have slaughter houses that turned horses into meat for both people and animals to eat.

Some people saw nothing wrong with that, other people were upset, but what got my attention was which people were upset by it. Not who I would expect, so I read up on it a little.

There are issues other than the obvious, involved in the horse meat argument:

1. Many slaughtered horses are race horses whose have been given chemicals which made their meat unfit to enter the human food chain. If they are turned into meat meal they could be fed to hogs or chickens, and that would be unhealthy for people.

2. There was a case of dogs who became ill after being fed horse meat, and it was feared that this diseases could be spread from sick dogs to people. It seems strange that dead race horses would be fed to live greyhound racing dogs, but I guess it happens.

3. Americans don't eat horses. What happens is that tax money is used to regulate and inspect the horse meat industry but then the horse meat is exported. So the horse meat company is getting government workers to do some of the work, but Americans aren't profiting from it - our food inspection process are set up to protect us, not to protect the whole world, free of charge.

It is to this last item, that I address the issue of cattle on public land, and do these cattle benefit Americans?

If the rancher pays a token sum (less than what a hiking club would pay) for use of public land, then I expect his cattle should feed America.

If his cattle are sold, or fattened and then sold, overseas, then the American public is not profiting from American lands, and our public paid food inspection process is being used by business for a foreign country.

If that were the case, then the rancher is getting the lease, but the end result is a foreign country getting cheaper beef. IF that were the case, then I would say that the rancher should have to bid for the lease and the hiking club should get to bid too.

But, it is never that simple, is it? While ranchers out west get to use public lands, small land owners who run a few cattle on their property each year to keep down the weeds and make a little money, have complained that letting the western ranchers graze cattle on public lands, brings down the price of their cattle, and they feel this is unfair.

Cattle raiser can be divided. Many western ranches do not produce ready-for-market beef. They run cows and a few bulls. What they sell are weaned calves, or not-finished steers. The calves are bought by feed lots and fattened up.

If you are a person who buys calves from western ranchers, you might like getting a good deal on calves, but if you are an eastern rancher who sells calves for fattening, then you are going to feel that the western ranchers get favors.

Back and forth, back and forth the debate continues.

Now about horses and burros on public lands. Don't waste my time trying to tell me that they graze harder than cattle.

If the equines are in Public Park lands, where no cattle are allowed, then the equines are destroying natural habitat.

But if the horses are on land, where after they are shot, the only change is that now more cattle can be grazed there, then why shoot the horses?

So that a business man can make more money running more cattle on public land, at a lease price of less than what a hiking club would pay to lease the land?

Wild Horses 1

I found myself not in complete agreement with terrierman on the subject of feral horses and burros on government lands.

http://www.terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/
Sat. Nov 21, 2009 - "Sheryl Crow is an Idiot"

Not that I am going to comment on Sheryl - she can speak for herself - but I do want to speak about animals on public lands.

I love natural lands, but life just isn't that simple, and neither is the "multiple use policy" of the BLM (Bureau of Land Management). BLM lands aren't meant to just be for animals, trees, miners, or recreation - it is meant to have multiple uses.

I am NOT an authority, but here it is, as I understand it to be, with my opinion added.

Multiple use means the land does get used a lot - it isn't treated the same way that National PARKS are. Traditionally public lands have been logged, mined, and had cattle grazing on them.
Today, the old policies die hard, but other people than the usual users of land are interested in it. People like to hike, hunt, fish, and play on public land, and some of those people don't want the trees cut down, the land tore up, and they don't want it turned into a feed lot.

That is part of what multiple use is. That is what land management is about. Ranchers are allowed to graze cattle, but not so many that the land becomes a feed lot.

Rules vary from state to state and depend on which agency controls that piece of land. There is federal land, state land, and various agencies control different hunks of land.

Hikers have said that they are legally permitted to hike a piece of land but have been kept off it by the person who only leases the right to run cattle on the land - not the land itself. And that those ranchers run many more cattle than what they are allowed and what they pay to graze there.

Ranchers have said they pay the full amount, never run extra cattle, and the hikers are a problem because they leave gates open.

I'm sure that there are bad ranchers and bad hikers, as well as good ranchers and good hikers.

Back to policy. There have been people who have wanted to pay more than what the ranchers pay to run cattle on public land, just to let the land lay fallow.

In other words, a hiking group might say that for every $100 a rancher will pay to be permitted to run cattle on that piece of pulic land, we will pay $101 to lease it, but we won't run any cattle, we will just let the land recover.

It sounds like a good deal - but not to the rancher. The ranchers have said that being out of business for a year would be too hard on them.

People wanting the land to revert to it's natural state view the rancher as selfishly standing in the way of a whole group of people who would have been able to enjoy the land for generations to come.

From the rancher's point of view: he provides meat for the whole country, and a small group of hikers are selfishly standing in front of Americans and their food supply.