Brainwashed

(own report)

Wikipedia and falconry literature show mistakes
Online encyclopedia Wikipedia is known for including partly insufficient information, in particular with regards to bad research. Its authors also access available technical literature, of course. That is where one should be able to expect proper information. However, that is not the case. The ”Schöneberg” (Falknerei: Leitfaden für Prüfung und Praxis) does not meet its requirements by including the Barbary Falcon Falco pelegrinoides and its subspecies pelegrinoides and babylonicus as Falco peregrinus pelegrinoides and Falco peregrinus babylonicus in its list of Peregrine Falcons. This classification is wrong. A list analogous to this one can also be found on wikipedia.org. Even though this article also includes a remark for existing divergent opinions on this subject matter, presenting this recited classification tempts people to misleading assumptions. The use of the literature mentioned above in falconers’ examinations (examinees as well as examiners) reflects an utterly wrong, scientifically unproven attitude. Whether or not this is done purposely or frivolously shall be disregarded at this point.

The incidence: In ”Schöneberg” - Falknerei: Leitfaden für Prüfung und Praxis (Publisher: Peter N. Klüh, Darmstadt, edition 2009) on page 294, it says ”Answers to questions on birds of prey-lore”. Answer 284 to the question ”Subspecies of the Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)” lists F.p. pelegrinoides on number 8.) and F.p. babylonicus on number 12.). Relevant remarks can be found on pages 62 and 63 under the title ”Subspecies of the Peregrine Falcon” (!), where it states that up until recently (!?) one of the subspecies (F.p. pelegrinoides) used to be seen as a nominotypical taxon, the other one (F.p. babylonicus) as an eastern subspecies of the Barbary Falcon. Not to forget: ”Subspecies of the Peregrine Falcon”. The commonly used notation of the Barbary Falcon (F.p. pelegrinoides) is similarly used for the Peregrine Falcon (F.p. peregrinus). This is not admissible.

It is a biological fact that 1., the Barbary Falcon has a different breeding cycle than the Peregrine Falcon, 2., both exist (and also breed) in parallel, 3., the very slim and long breast bone of the Barbary Falcon clearly differs from the broad and short one of the Peregrine Falcon, 4., the common sexual dimorphism has really been carried to the exremes here, and 5., crossings between both species (barbary and Peregrine Falcon) only occurs as an exceptional (for example between the prairie falcon Falco mexicanus, which is closely related to the Peregrine Falcon, and the Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus in North America) if mating partners of the same species are scarce due to very low population density of both species (just like the prairie and the Peregrine Falcon). Cross breedings between the Barbary and Peregrine Falcons are actually not wide-spread. Similar problems are known for the so-called hierofalcons (Gyr-, Saker-, Lanner-, and Laggar Falcon). A division between species has also been made here, even though natural hybrids between each other along the borders of their areas of occurrence could technically occur and possibly do exist in reality. The relative distance between Barbary and Peregrine Falcons is around 0.6 - 0.7%, the one between Saker Falcons and Gyrfalcons is only around 0.4% (at obviously natural hybridization, c.f. Nittinger). However, Saker Falcons and Gyrfalcons are still divided into two different species.

Let’s keep in mind: Solely the Latin nomenclature is of crucial importance, since it evaluates the biological facts, and is therefore used for the reference guide SIBLEY & MONROE (1990, 1993), as well as for the current (since the CITES-contracting states conference 2007 of Den Haag) reference guide DICKINSON (2003). Therefore, the following is scientifically correct:

The Barbary Falcon Falco pelegrinoides with its subspecies Falco pelegrinoides pelegrinoides and Falco pelegrinoides babylonicus does not belong to the species of Peregrine Falcons.

On demand of our consultant Horst Stamm, this fact has recently been approved by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (German: Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BnF)) as the highest advising agency. The agency’s statement also indicates that the two taxa Falco pelegrinoides and Falco peregrinus represent two independent species. In so far, the Falco pelegrinoides is not a domestic species (contrary to the Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus). Therefore, hybrids between Falco pelegrinoides and e.g. Falco rusticolus (Gyrfalcon), in contrast to crossings between a Gyrfalcon and a Peregrine Falcon, are not hybrids in terms of the birds of prey hybrid regulation in the Bundesartenschutzverordnung (BArtSchV) of the Federal Republic of German.

The partly-used names Falco peregrinus and Falco peregrinus babylonicus are indubitably wrong and possibly only serve to abet uncertainty about the hybrid notation; it might also be the attempt to transport personal wishful thinking. This circumstance is very questionable.

Incidents such this case or the case of Saker Falcon are not adequate to establish faith - neither among falconers nor within the relationship between falconers, bird rights activists, and politicians. The ”list of domestic birds of prey according to BNatSchG (2005)”, which for the first time includes the Saker Falcon, has not been legitimatized by the parliament; the categorization of the Barbary Falcon as a Peregrine Falcon is not covered scientifically and blatantly contradicts the custom of acknowledging works of reference, which form the bases of WA, EU-VO, or also CITES.

”We have to be realistic”

”We have to be realistic”

Interview with Horst Stamm, who advises Falcons World as a freelancer and functions as an expert advisor and consultant for questions about birds of prey and falconry. Since 2005, he functions as chief executive and associate secretary. Always being clear and upfront in his statements, he provides profound insights from his point of view. Leader of the interview is Rita Kalmbach; co-operator of Falcons World.

FW: You are known for hard announcements and clear words. Has it always paid out?

HS: People want to hear clear words, even though it hurts sometimes, I know that. However, if I am of the opinion that someone is about to make a big mistake, then I will let him know - in order to stay in the falconry business. NABU and GRÜNE want to ban falconry. This goes hand in hand. Die Grünen is not a pragmatical-oriented civic party, but an ideologized sect. It is absolutely clear that we have to make our actions justifiable and clear to other people and also to nature. However, we are not in this world in order to carve out an existence on our knees. I am used to walking upright.

FW: What is it that connects you to falcony?

HS: Falconry is my most intimate passion. How would you explain that? I am so connected it that I devote all of my spare time to it that I have left beside my ”normal” job, in order to transport it to the public, for it to raise awareness, but also to win back lost terrain. A simple example: Why would someone in Germany not be allowed to go hunting with sparrow hawks and merlins? Only because it doesn’t please NABU, LbV, or The Greens? Or because some people of our own are afraid again that falconry could be completely threatened by discussions like this? No, no. One has to clearly pronounce what he wants and he has to be ready to fight for it.

FW: One does not make friends by doing so, though. You also had to learn this the hard way during the hybrid discussion.

HS: Well, that does not really matter. Fortunately, there are always people who walk ahead. There are enough smart people that are always aware. Where would German falconry be today, if Renz Waller had not existed? How often did this man fail on his way; how much revilement did he have to bear? I think that many people, also in falconry, are lacking consciousness for these kind of things.

FW: Does opposition to green politics not cause problems for the future? After all, the Greens have governed here and there and still do today.

HS: We have to differ between green politics and the party DIE GRÜNEN/Bündnis 90, who serve their clientele, who hide ideologies underneath the disguising blanket of environmentalism, and who put NABU-members in ministries. This is how it was in the BUND; this is how it is here and there on the flat land. We see the effects in Saarland, for example. This is where ideologies are put in action. Living and seeing oneself as a part of nature does not have anything to do with green politics. Practicing green politics does not mean standing on the observation platform, emasculated, listening to the words of the NBAU-man, who is trying to explain that I have to repent as a human and that I cannot capture adders any more. This is where one has to take opposition.

FW: If you attack NABU like this, for example, then you won’t get any orders from them.

HS: That does not matter to me. People that basically and ideologically question the right to exist and freedom of others are not democratic. And I don’t need NABU for my activities in protection of birds of prey.

FW: Others want talking instead of confrontation. Which is better?

HS: That is not the question. The thing is, we don’t negotiate about a repeal of a decided death sentence with these people, but about the length of the adjournment of an enforcement and about the conditions of detention until then. Infirmity also leads to death.

FW: In your opinion, what is the falconry community supposed to do?

HS: I just answered this question.

FW: Does this mean that falconry will just be practiced as long as it is still possible?

HS: No, of course not. It would be good for falconers to totally organize themselves; merging with other associations, unexceptionally reestablishing associations unconditionally to anyone, clearly avowing oneself, clearly understandable and audible. We already had this chance twenty years ago, when the hybrid discussion began. Instead of walking together in order to create solutions to maintain the use of hybrids, people fragmented. People frayed downright passionately. Fragmentation just weakens and only benefits specific people’s conceitedness. Being in favor of prestige by people that actually seek our lives, what is that? We have to manage to claim back things that have been taken from us.

FW: There have already been many attempts to start coalitions, however, they always failed.

HS: Whoever doesn’t understand that one has to have certain quantitative, qualitative, and also mental strength, as well as - let’s call it determination before opponents of falconry, in order to reach an appropriate negotiating position, didn’t understand how politics work.

FW: Did all bridges break?

HS: No, I wouldn’t say so. The foundation of falconers in Germany does not support isolation of each other only because they are of different opinions every here and then. There are some opinion leaders where I would see this a little differentiatedly, but this will also turn out some way. There are certainly also phases of human difficulties. However, if there is no reunion until we are in our graves, it will be too late.

FW: Where do you see deficits?

HS: The essential questions about hunting have unfortunately not been resolved. Whoever sees hunting merely as reduction of hoofed game alternatively for brown bears and wolfs, and who understands falconry merely as reduction of rabbits on graveyards, and who explains it like this to the public extends his life but will eventually still die a certain death. We lack on steadfastness of the Americans and Canadians. We like to unman and unwoman ourselves. And there is no courage for modernity. There is more to falconry than green knee-highs and a German peregrine falcon or goshawk on one’s fist, which also implies killing. In this case without any pleasure, this shall be presumed. Explain that, please.

FW: Does the hunt have this kind of potential?

HS: Yes, certainly. There are really good people that are intellectually capable of that. But they are not given the necessary attention.

FW: This doesn’t sound very euphoric.

HS: Hunting castrates itself. The missing world outlook leads us directly into our self-built prison. This sector also lives of ideas and dedication of individual people. This is the only way to overcome sluggishness. It is always the way that individuals have to walk ahead, even though the thunderstorm will go against them. But sometimes it is also enough to initialize processes of thinking.

FW: Animal rights activists also vehemently interfere with the issues of the citizens - keyword ”pigeon repellents”. What do you have to say about this?

HS: So-called ”animal welfare” is the other side of the same coin. Governmental animal welfare is under great influence of private organizations. You meet each other, you speak the same language, you are soulmates. This is also a problem the local government has to deal with, which partly is extremely pressured by so-called technical authorities. This is the case especially with pigeon repellents; however, it does not only concern the utilization of methods of falconry. Comparable opinions can be found about cormorants, gray herons, or also geese; unfortunately –as it has also already happened- also supported by falconers. Politics, however, is very open-minded about our approaches, especially since, in a way, repellents by means of birds of prey is seen as a natural method. We are heading in the right direction, there.

FW: Do you have faith in politics?

HS: Yes, certainly. There are people in politics that represent clear positions and that -thank God- are very well devoted to us. I don’t worry about that at all.

FW: In repellents, do you see a chance for falconry?

HS: Absolutely, even though this also bothers some purists. Repellents are only one facet, though. We cannot forget about traditional falconry. Repellents by means of methods of falconry are rational processes. Traditional falconry is something completely different. There, it is important to explain why you do it; not only conventional-objective reasons play a role, here. Repellents by means of falconry, however, will gain acceptance.

FW: One more word about the opponents of falconry. Is this camp really that determined?

HS: We have to stay realistic. Falconry would have been banned a long time ago, had these people achieved what they wanted to. For their goals, it is completely insignificant, whether or not a part of falconry has cooperated with them for the purpose of the hybrid question, in order to hope that this might be valued as something positive about falconry. Whoever thinks anything like that has to be particularly naive.

FW: A pretty hard line, isn’t it?

HS: Not a hard line, but a clear one.

FW: What can you take with you from your work in the area of falconry, so far?

HS: I particularly would not want to miss the human experiences of the past twenty years. Today, I know whom I’m facing. For me it was impressive to see what people that worry about their power, influence, and their benefits are capable of doing. This experience gained over many years brings a certain certainty with it, as well as the possibility to evaluate actual interests and to understand pleaded ways of arguing. It is also very important to perceive if someone is only doing something because it benefits themselves, or if there are also ideal values involved. These are classical gains of experience.

FW: What does your personal plan for the future look like?

HS: My work in the future is clearly outlined. We have to see if commercial falconry is also able to form up, or even better, to become integrated. Of course, this demands a certain world view and the willingness to strategically cooperate. In this constellation, I don’t see it unlimitedly for everybody. I definitely don’t see succession in the presidential chair of Freiherr von Pölnitz, who will work in Arabia, since it hardly seems possible to integrate people that don’t have falconry internalized in general. It may be the case that, instead of a professional agency, there has to be a completely different plan that can work professionally and effectively and doesn’t have to represent everyone. At least I am thinking about an alternative way.

FW: Mr. Stamm, thank you for the interview.

Terminator