Hi Tweeters,

In my experience, our local Harlan's Hawks (Puget Sound Basin) can show a huge variety of plumages, some so close to normal red-tails that most people would be hard pressed to separate them. Light morphs are particularly variable, although I have to admit I have only seen a few in the wild, plus alot of photos. To me, they are still one of the rarest hawk plumages in Washington.

In the 1930's, A. C. Bent commented that Harlan's were the shyest of all hawks. Alot of the hawk banders I know would agree with his assessment. It is usually very difficult to get close to them and have a good look at their plumages. One exception is the well known Harlan's on Darcy Road (Samish Flats, Skagit County). She has been strongly philopatric, returning there for well over a decade. She has a very distinctive tail pattern and head so you can ID her as an individual, even without a band.

Anyway, I think it might be wise to use caution in calling juvenile Harlan's. My question has always been how would you really know it was a Harlan's? Just because it is a dark red-tail? Obviously they don't stick around to molt down here. So you can't see them transform during the process unless you happen to live up north where they breed.

The only way I would be convinced it was a juvenile Harlan's is if someone (and a falconer or rehab person would probably be the best person to do this) captured the bird as an immature and took it through its first molt. Then, if it turned out to be an adult Harlan's, you could link the two plumages. I've actually done this with a crippled bird many years ago that turned out to be a Harlan's. I thought I had found some definitive characters, e.g. dorsal and ventral barring across the alulas, dark speckling on the white in the primaries, overall chocolate coloration, the usual stuff, but unfortunately I have since observed all of these characters on fairly typical juvenile red-tails too. I think perhaps some people (authors included) are calling them juvenile Harlan's without the benefit of really knowing what they are.

As an example of how this might happen, Bill Clark recently published an article with Pete Bloom totally changing the ideas about male and female, juvenile, second year and third year Rough-legged Hawk plumages. Who would have expected that we would not know this stuff as late as 2004? Especially in a species as globally widespread and common as the Rough-leg.

So I suggest this might be a really good study for someone. What exactly does the juvenal plumage of a Harlan's Hawk ("normal" and light morph) look like empirically and can you truly separate the former from dark morph immature red-tails in the field?

And please let me know when you figure it out....

Bud Anderson
Falcon Research Group
Box 248
Bow, WA 98232
(360) 757-1911
bud at frg.org