• 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.

Woodpecker ID in California, Help Please... Downy or Hairy? (1 Viewer)

Hockey.Lover

Well-known member
I took these photos today at Garin Park in Hayward. This woodpecker was way up in the tree preening. I couldn't get the best shot or angle so I can't tell if this is a Downy or Hairy Woodpecker.

Any ID help is very much appreciated. Thanks.

Gail
 

Attachments

  • Woodpecker 1.jpg
    Woodpecker 1.jpg
    82.8 KB · Views: 107
  • Woodpecker 2.jpg
    Woodpecker 2.jpg
    76.6 KB · Views: 87
  • Woodpecker 3.jpg
    Woodpecker 3.jpg
    68.8 KB · Views: 86
  • Woodpecker 4.jpg
    Woodpecker 4.jpg
    83 KB · Views: 79
I would vote Downy for this one.

The build seems more compact than Hairy and the bill seems to be too short for Hairy.

Imagine if you saw this bird as a solid black silhouette cutout.

Would you look at that silhouette and think "Hairy", or would you think "Downy"?

Likewise, a Red-bellied Woodpecker only 6 inches long would look very strange!

Hairy's are MUCH larger than Downys and their bill is more like the proportion of bill length to head depth as you would see in a Norther Flicker or Red-bellied Woodpecker.

Ignore the plumage and just consider the size and shape (since your photos don't capture the only plumage characteristic that can separate the two in most cases) of the bird.

If you would be disturbed to see a Red-bellied Woodpecker that was as tiny as a Downy Woodpecker then you know where I am coming from.

Hairy Woodpeckers look like Downy-colored big woodpeckers.
Downy Woodpeckers look like sparrows that decided to dress up like a woodpecker.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 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