”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.

Filo Buschmann - Wildtauben und Buschmänner,

Filo Buschmann - feral pigeons and bushmen, in the clutches of animal rights activists

They are objects of desire: Feral pigeons. On their way from wilderness in foreign countries to pigeon lofts and breeding plants, they have now returned back to nature, at least if you want to describe our cities as nature. They function as food supplements for peregrines and goshawks, and also -due to their rapid way of reproduction - they have become a great hygiene problem. Fortunately for the pigeons, they are accompanied by an (un)fortunate circumstance: They are not included in German hunting legislations, in contrast to turtle doves, for example, whose population is highly endangered. And this is where animal rights activists come into play, people that feed pigeon in cities, people with good hearts that also spread wheat illegally on streets and allies, but still with good hearts.
It is a dispute between animal rights activists and consumer advocates. This topic shows how mighty animal rights activists are. According to so called specialized agencies, which we are familiar with ad nauseam, pigeons' population has to be regulated through collecting eggs, wiring, forceful and irregular yelling, and of course, through pigeon lofts.
And exactly those pigeon lofts seem to be super fashionable now. Feeding pigeons, encouraging them to breed, collecting eggs, putting up mockups and then it is all good. Wrong! These pigeon lofts, which cost an incredible amount of money (varying within five-digit numbers), do not do anything but to function as a source of food, as a feeding plant. Furthermore, these pigeon feeding plants also have to be maintained, since they have to be clean and full with food, of course. This is nothing but a ridiculous project without any prospect of success. It only seems to good to those in need of a therapy.
One could laugh tears about it, if this whole project was not real. These pigeon lofts only serve as feeding ground, other than that, it does not change pigeon's behavior at all. Anything else is just wishful thinking, nothing but ridiculous assumptions, arbitrariness sanctioned by the state, another way for some "expert advisers" to go against the usage of methods of falconry, since they are against falconry, anyways. This is just another area where even colleagues are put on a leash. One look at the corresponding comment about the animal welfare act is enough for ranks to close. Subject-specific indoctrinated nonsense is being elevated to a state doctrine. This range of power is unbearable, especially since it has not been democratically legitimized, but executed ex officio. It cannot be what may not be. One could believe to be in an absolutistic country.
Fact stays fact. These whitewashed methods hardly do any good, except to those that sell them; the ones that want to look good in the face of radical animal rights activists. It is not about wiping out feral pigeons, which should be clear. It is about showing the pigeon that living at specific places is connected with dangers and that they should rather avoid these places. This is to help those that do not want feel dunged with excrements. And if a pigeon is being caught through this kind of falconry, it will be disposed and not just thrown away without any care. So far, so legitimate, right?
There are people that do not want this any more, people that want to transform us to vegetarians. Bushmen in Africa are supposed to be allowed to hunt until they have reached our stage of development. Subsequently, the rest of these people having survived our conversion by missionary work until then will have to be given a sense of being and a life in dignity, in a little town, in which they can live. Living there without killing, without guilt and together with pigeons, which they will then feed, supposedly they will not be currently busy drowning their freedom with alcohol. For these unfortunate instances, nice therapy places will be established, which they - as the uneducated - have not known before. And while they will watch HD-DVDs in their savanna, which we will then take care of, pigeons will be cooing on their balconies. One cannot wish for more. This is how this development will also come to a good end: Bushman and pigeon will become one. Protected, governed, or also re-educated to whatever is necessary.
Wake up, dear readers! This was just a joke. This is only about feral pigeons. Everything else will never happen. Never.

Tod den Visionären

Death to visionaries

"Since falconers are conservationists, they abstain from hybrids." This, and only this is mere mental phantasm. How easy would it be to give reasons the opposite? Very easy. It is the mirror of oafishness.

In the early 1990s, when discussions about hybrids started to come up, the biggest shock - the peregrine-DDT-Crash- was just half-way about to end. Hybrids were welcome evidence that falconers are neither petty crooks nor are they plain beginners, cash-hungry, or at least half-criminel. Breeding of crossbreeds, not really a result of free nature, has proven that breeding by falconers and professional breeders really succeeded and is not just fakery. By breeding falcons, falconers could cover the demand for birds of prey, which was of course not after the fancy of "birds of prey rights activists".

Subsequently, discussions about hybrids were not lead very objectively and some day meant a possibility for traditional falconers to go against this abhorrent "commercial track." Commerce, already hearing this word is emetic. Dreamers of an ideal world conform to something and root chakra used to be the image of the lonesome falconer, far from man and city, out in the highlands and not observed by anyone. The truth was (and still is) that their own commerce should also stay unobserved; the real "commerce people" were only "those over there." Misfortune of the one became fortune of the other. Hybrids started to appear in free nature. Now we had the mutation of the worst-case scenario. There was no way to even think about an objective way of proceeding, falconry had to be saved. And there was only one thing to do: Restrictions! Democracy strikes. Constitutional. Opponents of falconry and hybrid haters of our own camps closed the ranks. People made big eyes.

Who protects nature? And who does it better? The ones that ask for radical prohibitions (where a part of them only sees another possibility to take another piece away from falconers) or the ones that breed hybrids in accordance to requirements in order to irrefutably escape the accusation of legalizing wild birds through breeding? Furthermore, in breeding hybrids we move within the borders of defined animal husbandry, where problems of owners of protected species will be overcome very quickly after a few generations. That is not after the fancy of organized "birds of prey rights activists" or of those that like to wallow there, also some "falconers."

Let’s come to a conclusion: "Since falconers are conservationists, they breed and use hybrids!" That is pretty obvious, is it not? Or is the answer somewhere in between, as usual? At least, this is a lot closer to a "Falknersheil!" The splitters however, fetishists among our own ranks; the ones that pretend to save falconry again even though in reality they pursue completely different goals; the ones that know that there are appropriate safety measure for hybrids; the ones that would actually have to admit that the utilization of hybrids opens up horizons, because they know it; the ones that do not even have a say about the utilization of hybrids, since the most they know about hybrids’ possibilities in falconry they know from hearsay; the ones that cannot even see beyond their own noses according to the motto "German falcons, German goshawks, German eagles for German falconers" and retrogressively driven by envy, grudge, blood, and honor; the ones that propagate for their "especially pure clean breeds" out of pure selfishness; the ones that think that "it is enough for them and for the rest of their lives"; they all should rather affiliate than to wish for visionaries to be dead and to sing "devil-may-care" and fall asleep over their own lethargy. The assault on their "clean breed" will come. The trigger is called "animal welfare act." The old brotherhood in the matter of "hybrids" is forgotten. Morals and ethics will be broken apart, ladies and gentlemen of German falconry.

Opponents of falconry think in generations while the own camp is afflicted with oafishness, not capable of closing the ranks, to turn the spiral backwards. In the course of globalization, every day, 3000 species irrevocably pass national boarders through all kinds of ways of transportation, but still we rather listen to the racists. We are talking about cultural assets and exclusively talk about "decreasing the number of rabbits on the graveyard," however, we are not capable of answering the question "Why do we hunt?" Effort to change things looks different from what German falconry currently seems to be capable of doing. Administrated in such a futile way, being this oafish, they are not able to survive, at least not for private individuals. Falknersheil!

Filo Buschmann - Therapiert die Therapeuten

Filo Buschmann - Therapiert die Therapeuten

Blickt man auf die Statistik, wächst an den Schulen eine Generation von Kranken und Gestörten heran. 2007 bekamen mehr als 20 Prozent aller sechsjährigen Jungen, die bei der AOK versichert waren, eine Sprach-, 13 Prozent eine Ergotherapie. Seit Jahren steigt der Anteil der Kinder, bei denen Stimm-, Sprech- und Sprachstörungen oder psychische, sensorische oder motorische Störungen diagnostiziert werden.

Jede Zeit produziert offensichtlich durch ihre Lebensbedingungen ihre Krankheiten: das Mittelalter die Pest, das 19. Jahrhundert die Hysterie, das 20. den Herzinfarkt und das 21. die Entwicklungsstörung. Kindheit 2009, das ist ein Leben im Überwachungsstaat. Futter für Therapeuten, Nachhilfelehrer und die Pharmaindustrie. Andererseits : Was verdammt sollen Eltern tun, wenn der Lehrer kommt und sagt : Ihr Kind hat eine Legasthenie, eine Dyskalkulie, es sitzt nicht still, lassen Sie es mal testen.

Die ganze Wahrheit ist, dass die Kinder schlichtweg ihren Bewegungsdrang nicht ausleben können, der Natur entfremdet nicht mehr Kind sein können in den Betonwüsten der Moderne. Die ganze Wahrheit ist, dass Worte zwischen Ballett und Gesangsunterricht nicht mehr emotional aufgeladen werden und das Gesprochene keine Struktur, keine Bedeutung mehr hat. Gleichwohl, es schlug die Stunde der Therapeuten. Jener, die der Welt erklären, wie krank sie ist.

Therapeuten haben viele Gesichter. Und sie kommen aus allen Richtungen.

Glücklicher Weise wissen wir heute, dass die Therapiematte mittlerweile lieber schon mal ihre Hand nach dem Therapeuten selbst ausstreckt. Wir sollten ihnen, wenn sie wieder einmal auf ihrer eigenen Couch liegen, erklären, dass wir das Spiel nicht mehr länger mitspielen wollen. Den einen sagen wir, dass wir ihnen unsere Kinder wegnehmen, den anderen, dass wir einen eigenen Lebensentwurf haben : Zurück zum ursächlich Menschlichen. Zurück zur Natur, leben mit der Natur, nicht nur als willenloses Neutrum von der Beobachtungsplattform aus.

Die Jagd mit dem Greifvogel ist Natur. Sie ist die reine Form. Das zu verinnerlichen ist mehr als die Pflege eines Kulturerbes. Es ist das, was wir unseren Kindern zeigen wollen. Der Weg der Therapeuten hingegen macht krank.

Filo Buschmann - Frechheit siegt!

Filo Buschmann - insolence wins!

If you want be able to call more people your friends, sucking up on them is necessary. This is not just some Chinese saying but simply German reality. Someone with rough edges, who is basically brutish, is always in danger of hurting others, even partners. Do we therefore just seek tranquility that we are familiar with? Are we not just afflicted creatures of the daily struggle for survival? Do we not just want to be able to at least enjoy hunting?

That is all correct. However, the "nice people from next door" will also be the ones that will go down first, since others are just smarter and also fresher. It is the ones that appear as the good ones, as "Dr. Important" that pretend to not eat the apple before it has not voluntarily departed from life. Those tree-hugger people choke falconry, just like a hydra. They infiltrate in agencies and settle down there. They impair associates and cast psycho networks. Mobbing at the office.

Unfortunately, this armada of futile charity and love of animals only encounter innocent and honest citizens that want nothing but to be falconers. Through their simplicity and carelessness, through their peaceful love of wild gryphons, they assume to save falconry by giving sacrifices, again and again.

Falconry will be tried to save until its saving is not necessary any more. However, this is when we will probably have a memorial of falconry, the cultural asset that we have longed for and which will always remind us of earlier times. It will remind us of the Margrave of Ansbach and of Frederick of Hohenstaufen. It will remind us of times that have certainly been rough.

Sitting by the fireside with a good bottle of red wine, we will then remember our own last days, or we will imagine what they might have been. The last one turns off the light, please.

Another alternative is to stand up and face the people that try to make our children mentally ill so that they can treat them. Those are the ones that try to tell the world how sick it is. Through their air of great friendliness they are actually radical. We should blare our own concepts of life at them: Back to the roots of humanity. They better go see a psychiatrist themselves.