>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
>
>
>

Dennis, Although I did not travel to check out the alleged Red-shoulder, I
briefly reviewed the messages on Tweeters about this bird. One thing that
surprised me was most, if not all reports failed to mention this bird in
flight. In my experience (from California in the distant past and more
recently at Ridgefield), a Red-shoulder is quite readily recognizable in
flight from a Red-tail, both in flight style and silhouette. Instead, we see
the reports dealing with detailed plumage descriptions. When one considers
the incredible variation in plumage - pattern and color in Buteos - I guess
I want to skip it all. Thats why I'm a Dunne fan and have found his *Hawks
in Flight* most valuable. The line drawings by Sibley are works of a genius,
pure and simple. The prose is almost as illuminating.

Wheeler and Clark represent the "micro" view of raptors, Dunne the "macro."
Are these two groups feuding (or still feuding)? When I once mentioned my
admiration for Dunne's work to Bud Anderson, he retorted with a scoff that
spoke a thousand words. I did notice some attempts at reconciliation - Dunne
wrote the forward in the new Wheeler and Clark book! Unfortunately, jizz and
flight style are scantily mentioned in the text, even when obviously
important in id. What a pity...

Thats why I'm bothered some by Scott's "in flight" photo. The bowing of the
wings looks odd for a Red-tail. I'm not sure it is totally out-of-character
for a Red-tail...I'm just bothered by it. You did not mention anything about
this.

I'm also surprised nobody played a tape to this bird. If it responded with
even a brief call, the case would be open and shut in my opinion.

Andy Stepniewski