Birds of prey: Should falconry be banned?
As we tread into summer, bird of prey shows fly (or not) into attractions across the UK and falconry/bird of prey centres reel in visitors. The government, and much of the public, view falconry as a rich thread in our history that must be preserved. Indeed, UNESCO claim that falconry is an important fragment of human heritage. However, DEFRA is questioning whether tethering birds - the act of attaching leather straps to a bird’s leg, and then to a leash so the bird cannot fly, commonplace in falconry - should be banned. This opens up a bigger question - is falconry a tradition championing birds of prey that should be allowed to continue and thrive, or is this practise of keeping birds, and using them largely for entertainment purposes, outdated and unethical?
Falconry’s origins lie as far back as 2000 BCE, in Western Asia – and is generally understood as an activity whereby a falconer trains a bird of prey to hunt for ‘quarry’ – another word for prey – or small animals. For many years, this was done in order for the falconer themself to secure a meal but adopted different meanings and characteristics as the ‘sport’ moved through the ages. Some even coin falconry ‘the oldest sport of all time’ – which seems important. If we are trying to move away from using animals in sports (e.g. hunting), and it is accepted that falconry is a sport, is falconry not open to the same criticisms?
It is illegal for birds to be taken from the wild for falconry; they must be born and raised captive; since The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, wild birds and their eggs and nests have been protected by law. However, recent rulings by Natural England have allowed the taking of peregrine eggs by falconers, to continue the tradition of falconry. They claim this is acceptable because these birds have a green status, thus are not in threat of endangerment, and that eggs should only be taken that would otherwise not survive in the wild. Seeing as the RSPB warn against the stealing of peregrine eggs by falconers – this new ruling seems interesting – is it bringing a practice to the foreground to reduce illicit activity, or does this just condone the taking? Another reason Natural England use to excuse this new ruling is that currently, captive birds of prey cannot be proved to be British because of poor documentation – and so beginning to take peregrine eggs from the wild would allow a new wave of documenting and keeping captive British birds. Indeed, Natural England and DEFRA state: “Licences are available for disturbing or harming birds for a limited number of reasons that include […] falconry”. Are we saying that it is acceptable to disturb or harm a bird, just in order to continue a tradition?
Across bird of prey centres in the UK, or in other words, zoos – there can be no question that these birds are used for entertainment purposes. In the Freedom for Animals report, investigators found that birds were left out in the sun tethered for hours at a time, with poor living conditions, limited enrichment or access to clean water and no refuge areas. Some birds are rarely flown, but instead are tied to their perch all day, and even those that do get to fly get on average around eleven minutes. Indeed, those who argue in favour of tethering will say that this allows captive birds to fly – but most birds in these centres don’t even get to do that. The motivator for keeping these birds is human entertainment and profit.
The act of imprinting symbolises this; young birds are taken from their mothers just before, or just after birth so that the first living creature they see is a human. The birds then attach themselves to their human trainer and follow their patterns of behaviour, believing that humans are other members of their own species. Heartbreakingly, this means they do not recognise other birds as their own species and can become aggressive, leading to injuries. This is clear manipulation of an animal, to further human interests. The birds will then be used to hop onto people’s heads in shows, taken selfies with, and even handled by humans. Many zoos were found to be letting humans touch owls - despite the clear ruling not to do so, the stress this causes the animal, and the damage this can do to their feathers.
Another common criticism is that falconers starve their birds so that they will fly back to the falconer for food – rather than escaping into the wild. In an undercover investigation, a bird trainer said that ultimately the birds are starved until their “appetite outweighs fear”. Falconers claim that they do not starve their birds, but that birds have an optimum flying weight that must be maintained for their own wellbeing – and that if they are too heavy, they may rest on a tree or building, in jeopardy from the elements and predators.
Outside of a zoo setting, in falconry shows that take place in settings such as country fairs, perhaps this cruelty is not as evident. Practices such as putting a hood over a bird’s eyes can be deemed cruel by an observer – but would be argued by the falconer to be kinder to the bird. They claim that the hood means the bird is not overwhelmed/frightened by what they can see (crowds, movement, lots of sensory stimulation) and that it enables the bird to stay alert for when the falconer wants them to fly or respond. Surely, if a hood is needed to ensure a bird is overwhelmed by crowds – it begs the question if a bird should be in an environment, on an informal stage, surrounded by crowds in the first place?
Furthermore, falconers argue that tethering is essential to a bird’s welfare. The alternative, ‘free lofting’ in an aviary, is argued to endanger a bird - as they may fly into the mesh wire and hurt themselves. Tethering means that a falconer can move a bird depending on its needs - into the sunshine, away from crowds, into shade - rather than having to live in a static position in an aviary/closed environment. Indeed, falconers stress the importance of a bird getting Vitamin D by sitting in the sunlight - but the reality of this, as seen in zoos, is that birds are often left for hours on end in the heat. Additionally, they argue that these birds would not even fly that much in the wild – so tethering them for most of the day is no different. Falconers claim that the birds get a nifty deal by living with them - they are guaranteed food, shelter, and protection from predators - and that as their main motivation for flying would be to find food, they do not feel the need to fly in captivity because food is already provided for them. There is this idea that we should not anthropomorphise birds of prey with our own idealised ideas about what flying means – we synonymise birds’ flight with autonomy, independence, and freedom - but perhaps this is purely because we view their flight through our human goggles. Fundamentally, the weight of argument by falconers is that falconers know their birds, and the practice, best - and so any idea of challenging these traditions which have existed for millennia - is ridiculous.
Whilst it is absolutely true that we should not anthropomorphise birds of prey, it is hard to accept that a bird’s life should be confined to falconry practices. Whilst birds used in falconry have been bred in captivity, “these animals have not changed significantly from their wild counterparts and still have all their natural instincts and behaviours” – is it really moral to restrict these instincts, for little more than the name of tradition, human entertainment and profit?
There may well be kind, well-meaning, and goodhearted falconers who want the best for their birds. But ‘wanting the best’ for these birds is trapped in a context where the birds’ needs never came first – falconry was always intended to further human interests. In the same way it is unethical for dogs and cats to keep being bred, for the benefit of humans, it surely must be unethical for birds to keep being bred to remain in captivity. These are not sanctuaries, rescuing injured birds with the hope of returning them to the wild; these are systems which breed birds solely in order for them to live their lives restricted by human rules and motivated by human goals. Perhaps we are anthropomorphising the idea of a bird in flight – but it seems more questionable, surely, to assume that just because we cannot guarantee a bird’s flight means a bird’s freedom – they should be tied to a post for their life instead.
Nina Copleston is a writer and non-human animal rights champion. Having been concerned with social justice issues such as disability rights and homelessness for years, Nina turned her attention to the rights of non-human animals and the moral inconsistencies rife within society's attitudes towards animals. Determined to make a difference, Nina hopes to highlight these inconsistencies with her writing.
Your support makes a huge difference to us. Supporting Surge with a monthly or one-off donation enables us to continue our work to end all animal oppression.
LATEST ARTICLES