I'd been wanting to get a copy of Wheeler & Clark's new _A Photographic
Guide to North American Raptors_, and the McNary NWR buteo finally pushed
me over the edge. I brought it back to my office and compared photos with
those on Scott's rarebird web site. This leaves me with no doubt that the
bird is an immature Red-tail. If any of you have the book and access to
the photo, check Scott's photos against the immature California
Red-shoulders on p. 55 of the book. This is a very different bird, with
dark throat, more sparsely barred sides,and quite different tail pattern.
Then look at the immature rufous-morph Red-tail on p. 99. Especially
compare the tails, also the shape of the birds. Note also the banding on
the primaries/secondaries is that of Red-tail, not Red-shoulder.

Sorry to add anything superfluous, if this has been pointed out already on
tweeters. If anyone would like the defend the ID of this bird as a
Red-shoulder, please post me directly; I'd be happy to discuss it further.

I'm gonna use this forum as a soapbox once again, I can feel it coming.

I've lost track of some of the earlier comments, but I recall someone
saying this bird looked "just like the illustration in the NGS guide."
That's a perfectly rational statement when identifying a Black-billed
Magpie or an adult Bald Eagle, but it's probably inappropriate for an
empidonax, a molting shorebird, or an immature buteo.

One of the reasons the old guard like myself (i.e., most members of the
bird-record committee) are so critical of rare-bird reports is that we
find--again and again--that there is a strong tendency for people to assume
that any bird they see that they can't immediately pigeonhole as a common
species must be something rare. This is Fallacy #1 of birding and has
certainly been caused by the (not surprising) emphasis on rare birds. I
was elated at finding some rare birds this weekend; it's a rush, no doubt
about it. But I think it may border on the addictive and cause snap
judgments that are unwarranted. It calls for a combination of caution on
the one hand and superb documentation on the other hand. A Really Right
Rarity Reporter should have (a) exhaustive knowledge of common birds, and
(b) a camera.

Birders should be quite reticent to put a "rare" name on a bird until they
know very well indeed the variation that occurs in the common species. It
appears to me that basic knowledge of Red-tailed Hawk variation was
insufficient in this case. I'm so programmed in the opposite direction
that when I saw a pure white gull in the distance at Nisqually, my thought
process was immediately "albino of what species?" The thought was
accompanied by another "gee, wouldn't it be nice if that were an Ivory
Gull?" But I never believed it for a minute. This is an appropriate
example, as I know of cases in which albino gulls have been "transformed"
into Glaucous, Iceland, and Ivory gulls.

I really believe there was some kind of subtle, probably subconscious,
internal *and* social pressure for the McNary buteo to be the RARITY, not a
slightly (and only slightly, at that) unusual example of the common
species. I wish birding hadn't come to that.

I apologize for not being on the list. If anyone has a response that I
should read, please cc. to me.

Dennis Paulson phone: (206) 756-3798
Slater Museum of Natural History fax: (206) 756-3352
University of Puget Sound e-mail: dpaulson at ups.edu
Tacoma, WA 98416