• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

harrier id east coast (1 Viewer)

Tricky. Should the collar and dark boa be more defined for Pallid?

See plates 214 and 245 in Forsman

As said before, your textbook Pallid has a solid boa, darker capped appearance, which contrasts nicely with the paler collar.

However, birds like this, with less defined boas are not unusual.

Similar birds.

http://birdingfrontiers.com/2011/10/13/juvenile-pallid-harrier-identification/
(Scroll down)

http://www.tarsiger.com/gallery/index.php?pic_id=vvs1410804836&lang=eng

http://markkujamsa.1g.fi/kuvat/Lintukuvia++Bird+Photos/Uudet/Cirmac.jpg

The last bird I had the pleasure of finding first hand a couple of weeks ago. And could really morph in appearance. Forgive the utter crap phone scoped shot, but highlights how the angle of viewing can alter how you view the collar and boa on perched birds.

Similar can be seen here (a slightly older, more obvious bird) but shows how these "over the shoulder" type shots don't really allow you to assess the presence of a boa at times.

http://www.pbase.com/image/132340899
http://www.pbase.com/image/132355551

I think the more side on shot of the bird looking up at the crow does, and there is a reasonable boa present which contrasts nicely with the paler collar.

Owen
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20150906_181342.jpg
    IMG_20150906_181342.jpg
    132 KB · Views: 104
[I think the more side on shot of the bird looking up at the crow does, and there is a reasonable boa present which contrasts nicely with the paler collar.]

Precisely. Am among those struggling to see anything than a rather typical Pallid from the photos so far. The 'grim reaper' countenance is spot on.
 
As said before, your textbook Pallid has a solid boa, darker capped appearance, which contrasts nicely with the paler collar.

However, birds like this, with less defined boas are not unusual.

Similar birds.

http://birdingfrontiers.com/2011/10/13/juvenile-pallid-harrier-identification/
(Scroll down)

http://www.tarsiger.com/gallery/index.php?pic_id=vvs1410804836&lang=eng

http://markkujamsa.1g.fi/kuvat/Lintukuvia++Bird+Photos/Uudet/Cirmac.jpg

The last bird I had the pleasure of finding first hand a couple of weeks ago. And could really morph in appearance. Forgive the utter crap phone scoped shot, but highlights how the angle of viewing can alter how you view the collar and boa on perched birds.

Similar can be seen here (a slightly older, more obvious bird) but shows how these "over the shoulder" type shots don't really allow you to assess the presence of a boa at times.

http://www.pbase.com/image/132340899
http://www.pbase.com/image/132355551

I think the more side on shot of the bird looking up at the crow does, and there is a reasonable boa present which contrasts nicely with the paler collar.

Owen

The subject bird could be a Pallid but as it is not particularly well marked, I can't see it being deemed acceptable by the scorers.

As an aside, why is the bird in the Tarsiger link above not a Montagu's? Also, the oiled bird (Shetland) looks like a Montagu's too.

Certainly most of the available images for juvenile Pallid show a dark boa which the subject bird doesn't have.
 
The subject bird could be a Pallid but as it is not particularly well marked, I can't see it being deemed acceptable by the scorers.

As an aside, why is the bird in the Tarsiger link above not a Montagu's? Also, the oiled bird (Shetland) looks like a Montagu's too.

Certainly most of the available images for juvenile Pallid show a dark boa which the subject bird doesn't have.

I recall one of the Shetland birds from the Autumn 2011 influx being the source of much debate on BF and Birdingfrontiers with Pallid, Montagu's and Pallid x Hen all touted. Am pretty sure it was the Fulmar oiled bird that was the subject
 
Last edited:
The subject bird could be a Pallid but as it is not particularly well marked, I can't see it being deemed acceptable by the scorers.

As an aside, why is the bird in the Tarsiger link above not a Montagu's? Also, the oiled bird (Shetland) looks like a Montagu's too.

Certainly most of the available images for juvenile Pallid show a dark boa which the subject bird doesn't have.

The birding frontiers link was for the fetlar bird at the bottom of the page. Not the oiled bird.

Owen
 
The bird has been recorded as a Pallid by the county bird recorder, the sighting location can now be disclosed but unfortunately the bird seems to have moved on, the bird was sighted between Amble Marina, Northumberland and the weir on the Warkworth road, it was on the far bank of the river opposite the first lay bye heading towards Warkworth. the location was not disclosed initially on advice given.
 
In other words, a very public place (an A road with plenty of free parking) which can very easily accommodate a large number of birders with no problems at all for either the welfare of the bird (safe from pushy approach on the other side of the river), or for the capacity of the road system. Who gave this truly dreadful 'advice'?? I can only say this awful bum steer 'advice' is absolutely typical of all that's wrong in current Northumbrian birding.

The County Recorder needs to be aware of the considerable uncertainty in the identification with several highly experienced raptor experts above considering it to be Montagu's, or unidentifiable between Montagu's and Pallid - a problem that could very easily have been resolved had other birders been allowed to see the bird, and get in-flight photos.

Disgusted of Northumberland.
 
Nutcracker,

Any chance you can leave it out?

by all means go to the rare birds thread and go ballistic if you like. But I can't help but wonder if the suppression waffle has put off early contributors from discussing the ID, which has swung round by my estimation to Pallid. I can't help but wonder if a consensus could have been reached on it of not for the suppression talk.

Owen
 
This is the only thread about this bird, it never made the rare birds forum ;)

And sadly, the suppression, and consequent absence of adequate documentation, is central to the problem here — QED:
To get back to the actual ID of the bird, I don't suppose any flight shots were obtained?

Owen

If it hadn't been suppressed, you can be pretty certain there would be flight shots.
 
This is the only thread about this bird, it never made the rare birds forum ;)

And sadly, the suppression, and consequent absence of adequate documentation, is central to the problem here — QED:


If it hadn't been suppressed, you can be pretty certain there would be flight shots.

In fairness, I don't believe that to be the case. When the shot was first put out on twitter, it was suggested it was a young marsh harrier. So unless you were dealing with an observer who, at least could have instantly put out the news of a pyg/mac harrier on site, then there's every chance the bird was gone next day.

As it stands,...There was a pallid harrier in Northumberland....it's gone somewhere...

Owen
 
Hi Owen,

It was there two days, according to the (now deleted) facebook thread; it was known to be a pyg/mac harrier by the end of the first day, but **** ********
[*] decided it sould be suppressed and blocked it being put out on Birdguides. Had the news been released, numerous people would have been able to see it the second day, without the slightest risk to the bird.

[*] name supplied to me by Barred Wobbler, but redacted here.

To illustrate the ludicrous nature of the decision to suppress, here's a google maps printscreen showing the site; there's no access at all to the north bank where the bird was:
 

Attachments

  • Coquet harrier.jpg
    Coquet harrier.jpg
    333 KB · Views: 114
I was not aware that the bird was in the vicinity for two days, if that was the case Nutcracker you should have been there on day two to take your photographs, it seems that one or two individuals in the area have spat there dummies out of the pram because we did not disclose the location of the initial sighting, on advice.
It is not your God given right to be given information of sightings of rare birds in your locality, and with your attitude if we discover any other rare birds you will be the last to hear about it.
 
I was not aware that the bird was in the vicinity for two days, if that was the case Nutcracker you should have been there on day two to take your photographs, it seems that one or two individuals in the area have spat there dummies out of the pram because we did not disclose the location of the initial sighting, on advice.
It is not your God given right to be given information of sightings of rare birds in your locality, and with your attitude if we discover any other rare birds you will be the last to hear about it.

Whilst I completely understand your position in regards to other birders, WolduS G, it might serve you better to let others know in cases where you cannot identify the bird. And if I can be perfectly blunt, if this was considered to be a juv marsh harrier, then I dare say there will be many birds that will be unidentified in future.

A modicum of diplomacy could allow you to further learn and enjoy birds found in the future.

Owen
 
Last edited:
We were not sure of the identification of the bird, yes we initially thought it may have been a juvenile marsh harrier, it was posted on facebook where it was suggested it may be a juv Montagus harrier, we were then advised not to disclose its location by a knowledgeable source, this advice was taken in the interests of the bird, I thought this decision was a diplomatic choice, but as they say you can please some of the people some of the time etc etc.
 
It's interesting how individuals with an axe to grind can twist the facts. So let's take this slowly..

A photograph was posted on Facebook, the photographer did not post the location. I was tagged and asked to offer an opinion on the identification. On the basis of the image posted I suggested that it had the feel of a Monty and highlighted why I thought that. This was qualified because of limited personal experience with juvenile Pallids.

As the location was unknown and, in the words of the ex-RSPB conservation manager that immediately and independently contacted me, "Monties can breed quite late, we've had juvs still on their breeding sites at this time of year as they can hang around up to a month post fledging, perhaps direct the finders to the county recorder just in case its a breeding site.."

That advice was noted and passed on to the finders in the thread. Following that other individuals became embroiled in attempts to get the two photographers to release the location, something they took issue with and the thread deteriorated into a row.

As there was no location published there was no decision to make as regards publishing a sighting on any news service. The sighting was submitted to the county recorder including the location and further images some days later, by the finders. Those images are in circulation with the CRC, having seen the additional images one of them shows a much better profile and my opinion, for what it's worth, is that the bird looks more Pallid-like in that image.

The advice provided to the finders was expanded upon (publicly in the original thread) along the lines of " if this bird was on a reserve such as Druridge Pools or a place with good viewing and parking facilities then there is little point to suppressing the location but on inaccessible private land with no public viewing may be a different matter" As the two finders were the only individuals at the time who knew the location they were the only people who could make an informed decision.

As for the report of the bird being present for a 2nd day that is based on a single post by a rather smug non-birder who claimed to have seen the bird the following day after being given the location privately by the finders. The same individual published the name of a location some 15 miles south of the correct location as now revealed. Had that information been used to publish a report of either Monties or Pallid it would have been erroneous and no doubt caused many birders to spend time searching a site that the bird was never at. It is my opinion that the claim of the bird on the 2nd day was made solely to antagonise those individuals seeking the bird's location and that in fact no one saw the bird other than the two finders. Can I prove that? No, but after six years and over 100,000 published news reports you get a feel for the stringers.
 
Last edited:
Alan, in response to your reply, yes you are correct that the only people who knew the location of the bird were my friend and I, we did not ask for help in identification of the bird, indeed it was another forum member who asked for your help in identification of the bird, on your recommendation we did not disclose the locality of the sighting, as far as the other person seeing the bird the following day that is also not true as we did not disclose the location to anyone. we decided not to disclose the location at the time as we were not aware of the significance of the sighting, and then as you say the forum post deteriorated into a row, We acted on advice given and then gave as much evidence as possible to the County recorder to help in identification, what we did not approve of were certain individuals who tried to get us to divulge the information of the sighting for their own gain. and who would not accept our decision.
 
It's interesting how individuals with an axe to grind can twist the facts. So let's take this slowly..

A photograph was posted on Facebook, the photographer did not post the location. I was tagged and asked to offer an opinion on the identification. On the basis of the image posted I suggested that it had the feel of a Monty and highlighted why I thought that. This was qualified because of limited personal experience with juvenile Pallids.

As the location was unknown and, in the words of the ex-RSPB conservation manager that immediately and independently contacted me, "Monties can breed quite late, we've had juvs still on their breeding sites at this time of year as they can hang around up to a month post fledging, perhaps direct the finders to the county recorder just in case its a breeding site.."

That advice was noted and passed on to the finders in the thread. Following that other individuals became embroiled in attempts to get the two photographers to release the location, something they took issue with and the thread deteriorated into a row.

As there was no location published there was no decision to make as regards publishing a sighting on any news service. The sighting was submitted to the county recorder including the location and further images some days later, by the finders. Those images are in circulation with the CRC, having seen the additional images one of them shows a much better profile and my opinion, for what it's worth, is that the bird looks more Pallid-like in that image.

The advice provided to the finders was expanded upon (publicly in the original thread) along the lines of " if this bird was on a reserve such as Druridge Pools or a place with good viewing and parking facilities then there is little point to suppressing the location but on inaccessible private land with no public viewing may be a different matter" As the two finders were the only individuals at the time who knew the location they were the only people who could make an informed decision.

As for the report of the bird being present for a 2nd day that is based on a single post by a rather smug non-birder who claimed to have seen the bird the following day after being given the location privately by the finders. The same individual published the name of a location some 15 miles south of the correct location as now revealed. Had that information been used to publish a report of either Monties or Pallid it would have been erroneous and no doubt caused many birders to spend time searching a site that the bird was never at. It is my opinion that the claim of the bird on the 2nd day was made solely to antagonise those individuals seeking the bird's location and that in fact no one saw the bird other than the two finders. Can I prove that? No, but after six years and over 100,000 published news reports you get a feel for the stringers.

Sounds fairly straightforward. No real agenda but picked up and Chinese whispered to this point. A one day pallid harrier. So rather than worrying about where it was, observers should worry about where it is. Every chance that bird is mooching somewhere in Britain still.

And likely more on the way. Good numbers gone through Finland this autumn so far and still coming through. I don't think the birds on shetland are the last to be had...

Owen
 
Warning! This thread is more than 9 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top