Help I.D. Bird of Prey I.D. in Southern California USA (1 Viewer)

[B Lagopus]

Hi JanJ, you have done your usual excellent link work, and yes, when we are talking light and dark and exposures and angles, just about any one feature in any single photo can deceive or be unreliable.

I guess this would be a good point to be gracious and concede the bird is a juvenile RTH, likely of the intermediate rufous morph. But I can't do it! :gn:

I've seen too many broad-winged and handed RTHs with properly bulging secondaries in the last month, to call that long and slender winged bird with the prominent dihedral a proper Buteo jamaicensis. Nonetheless, some quite telling observations have also been made about the issues with Ferruginous, and I don't feel able to assert anything, only to discuss. So, I will just say the discussion has been a pleasure, and I look foward to discussing the next ambiguous raptor of interest with all the talented and knowledgeable people in this thread!

 

[W.coast Raptor]

Hi JanJ, you have done your usual excellent link work, and yes, when we are talking light and dark and exposures and angles, just about any one feature in any single photo can deceive or be unreliable.

I guess this would be a good point to be gracious and concede the bird is a juvenile RTH, likely of the intermediate rufous morph. But I can't do it! :gn:

I've seen too many broad-winged and handed RTHs with properly bulging secondaries in the last month, to call that long and slender winged bird with the prominent dihedral a proper Buteo jamaicensis. Nonetheless, some quite telling observations have also been made about the issues with Ferruginous, and I don't feel able to assert anything, only to discuss. So, I will just say the discussion has been a pleasure, and I look foward to discussing the next ambiguous raptor of interest with all the talented and knowledgeable people in this thread!

I too, enjoyed all the educated remarks as well. Some of these pictures that get sent in here are real tongue twisters and mind benders. I mean I have seen some real out of focus, you can barely tell it’s a bird photos here.

This picture(s) had a lot of tell TAIL signs, the barring on the top of the tail seems so obvious, as does the dark patagial, but I also see 'lights" near the primaries, is this just reflections, or windows? Anyhow it was a great debate, just like in the field some will get away from you. I see all the points made for the RTH. I am just sitting on the fence watching all the hours of field ID at work here.

With regards to habitat? The Sonoma-Marin over wintering Ferruginous are very near the ocean, marshes, they don’t hang out there but they trek by, yes the habitat up here is open farm land and natural grasslands with ground squirrels and rabbits (hares), yet also there is different habitat very close. I did a search and there have been Ferruginous in the location discussed in this threads bird sighting.

Regards to size? yes we all know what a ferrug, to RTH, to TV are, but sometimes the sighting, distance, viewer, lighting and silhouette can all be mixed up and the reference made, may not be what the initial person was trying to convey and the recipient could not interpret proper.
Anyhow :gn: seems in order. For me at least.
In this case the thread poster was very clear about getting sizes mixed up, and I know that can happen a lot.

Maybe the shooter can go back out and look for the bird again.

 

[JANJ]

Hi all.

Compared to this one:

http://www.pbase.com/tgrey/image/25797247

the subject bird:

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=63084

might seem to be narrower winged than the linked bird, but the linked is similar in it´s lack of bulging secondaries, which all comes down to angle and the frozen moment of it.

JanJ

 

[Chris Benesh]

Hi JanJ, you have done your usual excellent link work, and yes, when we are talking light and dark and exposures and angles, just about any one feature in any single photo can deceive or be unreliable.

I guess this would be a good point to be gracious and concede the bird is a juvenile RTH, likely of the intermediate rufous morph. But I can't do it! :gn:

I've seen too many broad-winged and handed RTHs with properly bulging secondaries in the last month, to call that long and slender winged bird with the prominent dihedral a proper Buteo jamaicensis. Nonetheless, some quite telling observations have also been made about the issues with Ferruginous, and I don't feel able to assert anything, only to discuss. So, I will just say the discussion has been a pleasure, and I look foward to discussing the next ambiguous raptor of interest with all the talented and knowledgeable people in this thread!

Hi All,

Since BL and I are agreeing on other birds in other threads, I am hoping that this will not come across the wrong way, as its intent is to only address the points he has made and perhaps rehash a few of my own. I've said all along that I can see where BL is coming from. He is after all, a Buteo himself, so we should respect his opinion. :bounce:

To my eyes, the dihedral shown by the mystery raptor is too deep (pronounced) for any of the species under consideration in a typical soaring flight profile. I completely agree with BL that Ferruginous shows a consistently more pronounced dihedral, though Red-tails do emply some dihedral at times too. But we are assuming the bird is soaring on set wings when assessing the dihedral. My guess is that these are shots capturing moments of flapping or otherwise non-soaring posture. Anyway, it is easy to find images of Red-tails in similar dihedral (a half dozen or so in Wheeler' Western Raptors, more in Liguori's Hawks from Every Angle). So I just don't think that this one feature should warrant as much weight as it is being given. So, what about the bulges? I would argue that the combination of angle and the fact that the bird is a juvenile with comparatively less bulgy secondaries, accounts for the slim winged look. I also suspect that the white patches visible in the webs of the inner primaries are reflected light, since similar markings appear on the tips of P9-P10 where they would not be expected, as well as on the rachis of a couple middle secondaries, where again they are not expected. The entire upperparts appear strangely muted to me (i.e., lacking contrast) and I wonder if lighting/post processing is affecting this. There was clearly some harsh lighting involved. Regarding the paler primary panel field mark, I think that JanJ demonstrated that it is variable, but I also want to add that I think it is a difficult thing to assess in these photos (at least for me).

Since I've got to pick up my kids soon, I guess I cannot really rehash to much of the other plumage characters. I think that the ones I spoke of in earlier posts and those touched on my JanJ are ones that are typical of Red-tailed and not a feature of Ferruginous Hawks. One quick comment on the patagial markings of this bird. I said that I thought they were better for Red-tailed. My reasoning is this. On the mystery bird, the densest, darkest part of the mark is toward the leading edge of the wing while quickly peetering out toward the trailing edge. This is unlike the markings on Ferruginous Hawks (which are normally adults when they show them) that are not most densely dark toward the leading edge. I doubt its universal, but I have not come across it in my perusal of FH images nor in life.

I'm not really thinking that I'll sway anyone, but just wanted to pass along some of my additional rationale for going for Red-tail.

On a final note, I am waiting to hear back for OC birders as to the status and distribution of Ferruginous Hawk in the county. Will post when answered.

Chris

 

[Terry O'Nolley]

The tail bands seem too narrow and plentiful for Ferruginous

 

[B Lagopus]

Hello Chris and JanJ,

I was trying to do my best to gracefully exit this thread in a non-argumentative manner, ya know! So I don't want to even talk about this bird anymore -- except as part of a discussion of structure. An interesting thing about structure is that while our perception of structure changes with angle, the structure itself does not change.

I thought that three of the photos that Katy posted covered the wing structure differences between a long and slender winged bird like F, compared to the broad-winged RT quite well:

http://birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=63187
http://birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=63188
http://birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=63189

When we look carefully at the wing between the body and the tip of the greater coverts, we see a different relationship between the surface area of the underwing coverts, compared to the surface area and length of the secondaries (and inner primaries). The narrow and long winged Ferruginous Hawk has the secondaries only slowly increasing in length, and they generally appear to make up half or less of the total surface area of that section of the underwing.

With a Red-tailed Hawk on the other hand, the secondaries quite rapidly increase in length, peaking by the time they are parallel to the end of the patagial bar, usually forming the maximum "secondary bulge" by around that point. From there on out on the wing, the secondaries appear quite long, and make that part of the underwing usually appear mostly flight feathers. This same relationship can be seen on the bird in JanJ's link, even though it lacks a prominent secondary bulge, those outer secondaries are all loooong feathers, and make the underwing coverts at that point seem narrow in comparison.

When I look at the subject bird, in either photo -- I see a structure (to my eye) of secondaries that gradually increase in length, never appear all that long, and never make the coverts look narrow in comparison. The surface area between the body and tip of the greater coverts seems more coverts than flight feathers. Not at all good for Red-tailed in my opinion.

Leaving aside any positions on this particular bird (I'm no longer participating ), do you see what I am referring to?

Chris, you do make a number of very good points in your thoughtful post, particularly about the reduced secondary bulge with juveniles, the darkest portions of F "patagial" markings, and exposure issues in these images. As to the dihedral, part of my issue is that the bird is rocking left with a big dihedral in one, and right with a big dihedral in the other. Assuming they were taken close together in time(?), that seems very odd for accidentally freezing a Red-tailed in flight.

 

[Chris Benesh]

FH status in Orange County

Hi All,

I'm happy to put this to rest too, but since I promised it, here is some commentary on the status of FH in Orange County from someone who knows it better than anyone else, namely Doug Willick who has compiled records for Orange County for North American Birds (and many of its predecessors) for many years. Again, I don't disagree with WCR that birds can show up in weird places, but unless something weird is going on with FH this year, it is safe to say it is highly improbable where it was reported. Orange County is a really heavily birded area with heaps of really talented birders, so I really doubt that FH has been flying under the radar so to speak.

Quote from Doug Willick:
FEHA has become a rare and very localized winter visitor to the county with very few seen in migration it seems. The problem of course is just lack of typical FEHA habitat (hard to find wide open terrain anymore, rangeland or ag fields, etc.). The few places that still regularly get one or two birds (at least wintering) are restricted to a couple military bases (MCAS El Toro, and MCAS Tustin—both of which are on borrowed time, in the process of closing down and being developed), the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, and a limited amount of private rangeland in south county, which is largely off-limits to birders. Elsewhere, like over most of the coastal plain including SJWS, and coastal foothills, it has become a pretty rare, irregular migrant these days (undoubtedly rarer than the numbers we now get of Swainson’s Hawk during migration). I’ve keep records for Orange County since 1985, and have been actively birding here about 28 years. I have not heard of a FEHA being reported anywhere in the county yet this fall, but most observers don’t start looking for them at the wintering locales until a bit closer to CBC time. I think I’ve only seen one or two FEHAs in the SJWS/Upper Newport Bay area in the last dozen years or so. There has been a rapid decline in numbers throughout the county as suitable foraging habitat has dwindled. I remember them being much easier to find, at least wintering birds, only 15 or so years ago, but even back then they weren’t seen very often as migrants along the coastal plain. End quote.

I also sent an email to Bill Clark to get his thoughts on the bird. I'll post that if I hear back but otherwise am ready to move along. Thanks to all for a thought provoking discussion. :clap: :clap: :clap:

Chris

 

[paintball_karl]

i am actually quite new at this, however i get that urge to learn.
i seem to be getting a rough-legged hawk out of the first picture. a light morph im presuming.
he states that the size is larger then a RTH, which i didnt take into consideration.

 

[W.coast Raptor]

i am actually quite new at this, however i get that urge to learn.
i seem to be getting a rough-legged hawk out of the first picture. a light morph im presuming.
he states that the size is larger then a RTH, which i didnt take into consideration.

Welcome to the bird forum and identification debates.

Yep well, we have been round and round here at this thread and this bird, and its pretty much a given fact its a red tail, I mean there are a few things that point to ferruginous and maybe a couple that point to RLH, but there is overwhelming evidence of RTH, maybe not your average RTH, maybe a intermediate, dark, harlan or rufous morph. I am sure the experts will be along to correct you and me. I mean its a real challenging picture, just like some birds in the field are challenging.

I have done some research on ferruginous hawks in the southern California area and there were more reports than some have stated, I think the ferrug is really an oddity, not everyone knows everything about this bird, with its migratory distances and its mortality rate, there is much to be learned and just cuz someone doesn’t see one there doesn’t mean it couldn’t have been there or for that matter do waht this bird was doing FLYING through, yet I am not really into this debate. I like to watch birds not argue about them.

That’s why I rarely post here and spend most of my time in the field. I saw a few rough legged qualities as well, but I saw more ferruginous, yet there are just a couple things missing for a ferrug, So RTH does seem a nice fit even tho its a tricky pic.

You really can learn a lot here, we have zoologists and professional guides that like to share their unquestionable knowledge.