Some more hawks (1 Viewer)

[49bentley]

Can someone please confirm/identify these 1 just a silhouette, 2-3 Broad-winged Hawk, 4 a Red-tailed Hawk. Taken at Port Stanley Ontario in Oct.
Thanks
Chris

 

[Nutcracker]

1 American Crow, I'd suspect!
2 & 3 Red-shouldered (again, note the pale translucent crescent near the wingtip!)
4 Red-tailed

 

[RafaelMatias]

2-3 looks like Cooper's Hawk to me (overall shape: wings, tail, etc; head pattern, tail pattern)

 

[49bentley]

Thanks Nutcracker and RafaelMatias.

 

[KC Foggin]

I agree with Nutcracker's answers.

 

[Jim M.]

Broad-winged Hawk for 2-3; Red-shouldered would never have such wide white tail bands, and I see pale windows, not crescents. Not a Cooper's because, well, it's a buteo not an accipiter; note also pointed rather than rounded wings, and barring rather than streaking on the breast.

 

[RafaelMatias]

Not a Cooper's because, well, it's a buteo not an accipiter

Sorry, but it's an Accipiter, not a "buteo".

 

[The Bird Nuts]

Definitely Cooper's for 2-3. I agree with Red-tailed for 4.

 

[RafaelMatias]

The post just deleted was a must. Interesting.

 

[Deb Burhinus]

2-3 is clearly a Coopers Accipiter cooperii

 

[Jim M.]

Ok. Agree with Cooper's. I was focused on it not being a Red-shouldered. I see some adult Cooper's can have brown rather than red barring on the underparts. But the same brown barring is also found on Broad-winged.

 

[RafaelMatias]

Ok. Agree with Cooper's. I was focused on it not being a Red-shouldered. I see some adult Cooper's can have brown rather than red barring on the underparts.

I must say that the post you deleted was not very nice. But you know that, that's why you deleted it. Cheers

 

[Jim M.]

I must say that the post you deleted was not very nice. But you know that, that's why you deleted it. Cheers

For the record, that post was there for about five seconds. PM me if you feel the need to discuss further.

 

[RafaelMatias]

For the record, that post was there for about ten seconds. PM me if you feel the need to discuss further.

Sorry, but I don't want to take it to PM.
You removed the post because you saw "The Bird Nuts" post right after posting yours, you crossposted with him.
On every thread I take part of I try to give my best to help with the OP ID request. If my contribution is not welcomed by you, I won't take part on the discussion next time you post an ID request. Meanwhile I think BF is still a free space, not your own turf. Take care

 

[THE_FERN]

2-3 looks like Cooper's Hawk to me (overall shape: wings, tail, etc; head pattern, tail pattern)

And me. Clear accipiter for me

 

[Jim M.]

Sorry, but I don't want to take it to PM.
You removed the post because you saw "The Bird Nuts" post right after posting yours, you crossposted with him.
On every thread I take part of I try to give my best to help with the OP ID request. If my contribution is not welcomed by you, I won't take part on the discussion next time you post an ID request. Meanwhile I think BF is still a free space, not your own turf. Take care

Ok; since almost immediately deleting something isn't enough for you and you feel the need to make this public, I will explain myself. You are obviously a very knowledgeable birder, and probably know more than me, but to me it's rude to contradict someone without giving a reason. Especially when you already stated your opinion once, what is the point of reiterating it without additional argument (and your additional post didn't really give any specific evidence either)? I'd never contradict a european birder on his or her ID of a european bird without giving a reason. Mine is probably a minority opinion, but it is the way I've always posted here. I also note that I did not remove my original partly erroneous ID (which would have been tacky, I agree), only my protest at the way you responded.

In any event, I do appreciate your contributions here; so please keep posting. I rarely post on ID threads any more.

 

[RafaelMatias]

Ok; since almost immediately deleting something isn't enough for you and you feel the need to make this public, I will explain myself. You are obviously a very knowledgeable birder, and probably know more than me, but to me it's rude to contradict someone without giving a reason. Especially when you already stated your opinion once, what is the point of reiterating it without additional argument (and your additional post didn't really give any specific evidence either)? I'd never contradict a european birder on his or her ID of a european bird without giving a reason. Mine is probably a minority opinion, but it is the way I've always posted here. I also note that I did not remove my original partly erroneous ID (which would have been tacky, I agree), only my protest at the way you responded.

In any event, I do appreciate your contributions here; so please keep posting. I rarely post on ID threads any more.

Jim, I'm sure this discussion is anything but interesting to Chris, the OP.
I just thought you came in quite harshly, that's all, everyone is allowed a bad day or two.
If you check the posts I only tried to mirror your very own answer to my post (#3). I didn't contradict your post, I contradicted Michael's (Nutcraker) whom I'm pretty sure is not a "native" :eat:
In fact, you contradicted mine (and yes, I'm not a "native"), and it seems it was you who didn't "do your research properly", but that is not my fault (!). You should only blame yourself for that, perhaps. The aim here is to provide the best answer to the OP's request, everything else seems secondary to me in this kind of thread (as long as everyone treats each other respectfully, of course). If I "win" or "lose" does not really matter, as long as the OP is happy. Note that it was you who did not justify why you thought the bird was "a buteo, not an accipiter". I actually was going to reply by asking you what made that bird a buteo (in your opinion), but I opted to reply that way (mirroring your post), because I thought it would make it clear to you that you weren't really explaining the why for rejecting my original suggestion.
I do respect local knowledge, obviously! It was you who didn't value the contribution of "an outsider" (my words), even if it could help the OP with his request.
Look, let's just leave it at that. I think it's clear what happened and I don't have any issue with you nor I want you come out of this as the "bad guy" (my words again). Ok? Have a good night.

 

[Deb Burhinus]

i... I'd never contradict a european birder on his or her ID of a european bird without giving a reason...
.

Jim, may I just say that this is an international forum with most of us having at least some, if not extensive experience in each other’s countries. I see no reason therefore, for anyone to be ‘precious’ about accepting or giving help with IDs regardless of the origin of the bird. Your input is just as valid as anyone else's but please don’t be upset if people disagree with your IDs (whether they are correct or incorrect), we are all on a learning curve whether we are humble enough to admit it or not!

 

[Joern Lehmhus]

Not to add something to the ID, but easy solution is to see the two species close together in a photo (Hope you don´t mind I used your photos , bentley)

clearly the differences in wing shape, wing pattern, broadness of tail bars etc are visible

 

[49bentley]

I'd like to thank all for your help and input. Thanks KC, Jim M, RafaelMatias, The Bird Nuts, Deb Burhinus, The Fern, and Joern Lehmhus.