This image of the Peregrine Falcon (Falco pergerinus), famously the fastest animal on the planet, is taken from John Gould’s magnificent The Birds of Great Britain, published in twenty-five parts, usually sumptuously bound in five folio volumes, between 1862 and 1873. Copies on the market today are priced between £60,000 and over £200,000. The copy I have taken the images from is available as a free download from Wikimedia Commons, from the copy in the Wane Collection at Clare College, Cambridge and is bound in full green morocco.
Gould, often described as the British Audubon, identified the finches which helped Darwin towards his theory of evolution. 750 copies of this, his crowning glory, were published, each containing 367 lithographs which were all coloured by hand. I have been fortunate to see a copy or two in my time and although of course a digital version is no substitute, it is good to be able to access it in this way (the New York Public Library has also digitised a copy which anyone can access). Audubon created his watercolours for The Birds of America, the engravings were also hand-coloured, but Gould was the author not the artist – various artists created the lithographs, in this case J. Wolf and H.C. Richter. I have only ever seen two Peregrines, one very close-up on a cliff-top near Swanage, Dorset, the other, a distant outline, was hunting Knots in Norfolk. Without wishing to be a Philistine about it, is there not something strangely mournful about the depiction above?
This post was prompted by a documentary which came up on Youtube, British Falcons for the Middle East, made by Arte.tv, a French/German public broadcast service. The voiceover is AI generated, but otherwise it’s terrific. My question is, is falconry cruel? It is a very ancient ‘sport’ (which Gould describes as “noble” twice in one paragraph) and has been a key component of Arab culture for thousands of years. “Peregrine” by the way derives from Latin peregrinus, foreign, strange, exotic, migratory, whilst the origin of “falcon” is probably from the Latin falx, a curved blade which may have described the bird’s talons, legs, beak or wings in flight – I like the last of these explanations best. Alternatively it may come in the first place from the Germanic word for grey, “But falconry was brought to Germany by the Romans, suggesting the word flowed from Latin into the Germanic languages …” (Susan Myers, in her wonderful The Bird Name Book, Princeton University Press, 2022).
The following paragraph about a visit to Oxfordshire Wildlife Rescue is taken from
A Swan, a Badger, a Gyrfalcon, a Fox, and Squirrel and Songbird theatre – Animal Wild
“Next thing I knew, I was throwing dead chicks into the air to be caught by a Gyrfalcon. I had heard of these birds but didn’t know what they looked like, nor how to pronounce their name. I am not much the wiser having heard it spoken at least three different ways since. They are naturally only transient visitors to the UK, residing in some of the harshest climes on the planet, breeding in high arctic tundra. This one won’t be released because she simply doesn’t want to go. She is actually a Gyr x Peregrine cross, hybrids created for the purposes of falconry, and is thought to have spent most of her life in captivity. Apparently she wouldn’t eat when she came in after her ‘owner’ died but she took a shine to Luke and will now eat for anyone. Gyrs are the largest falcons. Their beauty is simply breath-taking.”
It is actually illegal to release hybrids like this (or true Gyrfalcons for that matter which are not native) into the wild except under licence. It is also illegal to take eggs or chicks from the nest of falcons, again except under licence. These are apparently hard to obtain but in my view should never be issued.
The documentary concentrates on the saintly work of George Smith, who risks life and limb monitoring and protecting nests in Scotland and taking DNA samples, two wildlife crime officers and a breeder. The demand from the Middle East is huge and large sums of money change hands, especially when it comes to competitive racing which can offer multi-million pound prize funds. This creates a black market for stolen eggs and birds, which is why a DNA database is essential. Wild Scottish falcons are most sought after in the belief that they are the fastest of all. The breeder for export is Ian Garland who runs what looks to be a pretty squalid operation. If he loves the birds he hides it well. Some of the birds are “imprints”, others have no direct human contact. Hybridisation, he says, would never occur naturally. One of the police officers who are clearly passionate and dedicated and do a wonderful job, says that in the space of fifteen years the export trade has grown from about 70 birds a year to some 4,000.
So, is falconry itself inherently cruel? I am not referring to organisations like the Hawk Conservancy Trust which can receive over 200 sick or injured birds of a prey in a year and only houses those for whom survival in the wild would be impossible, but in general my belief is that otherwise keeping any wild animal in captivity is cruel. I once visited a small bird of prey centre many years ago and experienced a Peregrine and owls landing on my gauntleted hand. I confess I thoughtlessly loved it and did not doubt the genuine love for the birds the guy running it had, but the rest of the time the birds were tethered and one in particular kept trying to break free, over and over again, many times every minute, which was highly distressing.
PETA are, typically, unequivocal: “Falconers treat birds of prey, such as falcons, owls, and eagles, as living props and put them on display for tourists. Tied to a block of wood with a short leather strap for hours or even days, their life is one of boredom and torment. Only during air shows are they allowed a short period of “freedom” to fly, which is far from satisfying their need to engage in natural behaviour … A UK investigation by Freedom for Animals showed that birds were only able to move freely for an average of 11 minutes during the flight demonstrations and that they remained tied up for most of the day. Some birds lived in such cramped conditions they couldn’t even stretch out their wings, and many were denied food and water.” They suffer and are exposed to highly stressful environments too much merely for our entertainment. The RSPB tried to have falconry outlawed altogether in 1981 but was not successful.
There is a thoughtful article on the subject by Nina Copleston here:
Birds of prey: Should falconry be banned? — Surge | Creative Non-Profit for Animal Rights
There are claims there and in PETA’s comments that birds are often starved in order to control them. If the birds need to wear hoods so they are not alarmed by their surroundings, the sensory overload, surely they shouldn’t be in those surroundings in the first place. Falconry is yet another example of the exploitation of other animals by humans, for entertainment and profit, dating back to 2,000 BCE, justified by tradition (a terrible reason for doing anything) but it is to my mind anachronistic, unethical and, yes, cruel. The RSPB will have wanted the whole business banned for good reason.
The numbers are shocking. From the Freedom for Animals website: “There are about 95 bird of prey zoos in the UK which house a minimum of 4,252 birds from 170 species.” Many of them are tied down for most of their lives. ““The practices of tethering and manning [depriving the birds of food] are outdated traditions within the bird of prey industry, practices which we believe do not meet modern animal welfare standards … According to the report, a third of zoos also did not meet size standards for bird cages, with some birds living in such cramped conditions that they could not stretch out their wings.” Freedom of Information requests revealed that 40% of the zoos did not hold licences and were therefor not subject to DEFRA investigation. Of those that did, some were overdue for inspections by that benighted government department. Many aviaries did not even have clean drinking water. The internationally accepted basic standards of care for animal welfare are known as the Five Freedoms. From the Animal Humane Society:
- Freedom from hunger and thirst by ready access to fresh water and diet to maintain health and vigor. This must be specific to the animal. For example, puppies, adult dogs, pregnant cats, and senior cats all need different types of food provided on different schedules.
- Freedom from discomfort by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area. This means you should provide soft bedding and an area with appropriate temperature, noise levels, and access to natural light. If an animal is outside, it must have shelter from the elements as well as appropriate food and water bowls that will not freeze or tip over.
- Freedom from pain, injury, or disease by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment. This includes vaccinating animals, monitoring animals, physical health, treating any injuries and providing appropriate medications.
- Freedom to express normal behavior by providing sufficient space, proper facilities, and company of the animal’s own kind. Animals need to be able to interact with — or avoid — others of their own kind as desired. They must be able to stretch every part of their body (from nose to tail), and run, jump, and play. This can be particularly challenging when animals are housed in individual kennels.
- Freedom from fear and distress by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering. The mental health of an animal is just as important as its physical health — as psychological stress can quickly transition into physical illness. These conditions can be achieved by preventing overcrowding and providing sufficient enrichment and safe hiding spaces.
Falconry and the captive breeding of birds of prey seems to me to violate four of these by its very nature and should be consigned to the dustbin of history – but as with so many exploitations and cruelties, there is just too much money involved.
Leave a Reply