Hi, a friend of mine in Olympia wonders if tweeters can help id a call she's been hearing this spring in the woods around her house. Thanks in advance. Here's the description:

Twice in the last month I have been awakened by the most startling bird ruckous in the middle of the night. I live near Mud Bay in Olympia and can only remember this happening one other time in the last 15 years. It is driving me crazy to try to identify what it is. Imagine a sound more harsh than a Great Blue Heron, and about 3 times as loud. I mean LOUD. It sounds like something being tortured, however both times it has gone on for about an hour, moving a few acres away, staying there for a while then coming back close to my house again. It has a rythmic quality like young begging to be fed, maybe following the parent around and once fed it becomes quiet. It moves so fast I cannot ever see anything.

It is difficult to describe the call, but imagine a GBH/Caspian Tern combo with a cat trying to hack up a hairball mixed in, and REALLY, REALLY LOUD. Since GBH are active near my home in the daytime and I see and hear them frequently, it seems like I would have heard this in the daytime so I am fairly certain it is not. I found a website that said Great Horned Owl young sometime make a horrible ruckous, usually in the middle of the night. 2- 4 a.m. Has anyone heard of that and can tell me if my description is what it sounds like? I imagine we have Great Horned Owls here (I am in the woods) but cannot say I have heard them for certain.

Thanks for any ideas you may have.

Sherrie Wilson
Olympia



On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 tweeters-request at mailman1.u.washington.edu wrote:

> Send Tweeters mailing list submissions to
> tweeters at u.washington.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> tweeters-request at mailman1.u.washington.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> tweeters-owner at mailman1.u.washington.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Tweeters digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. re: Maps of Major Public Lands, Washington (Joseph V Higbee)
> 2. More on access on navigable rivers (Rachel)
> 3. Nest examination tool (Douglas Canning)
> 4. Re: More on access on navigable rivers (Kelly McAllister)
> 5. Horned Puffin (Vicnelson3 at aol.com)
> 6. puffin (Vicnelson3 at aol.com)
> 7. Reecer Creek Warning (Ed Level)
> 8. RE: Maps of Major Public Lands, Washington (dave templeton)
> 9. Even more on navigable rivers (Rachel)
> 10. RE: SAS Teanaway Trip (long) (amy schillinger)
> 11. Re: Even more on navigable rivers (Kristin Stewart)
> 12. Re: Reecer Creek Warning...navigable streams (Rob Blomquist)
> 13. shorebird migration in full swing! (Ruth and/or Patrick Sullivan)
> 14. Breeding Plumage Heerman's Gull_Late Post (Thomas Mansfield)
> 15. common tern (Stephen Cunliffe)
> 16. Molted Northern Pintail (Kathy Andrich)
> 17. Audubon Mag (Roger Newman)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:31:21 -0700
> From: "Joseph V Higbee" <jvhigbee at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [Tweeters] re: Maps of Major Public Lands, Washington
> To: <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
> Message-ID: <BAY136-DAV73EC1A6A4EDA0F9D4CE5BD7080 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> I purchased a map a few years ago from the BLM office in Spokane that is
> titled "Surface Management Responsibility_State of Washington_1994". It is a
> large map but even so a person would have to be sure of their location. It
> does cover all public and tribal lands in the state.
>
> Joseph Higbee
> Spanaway, WA
> Mailto: jvhigbee at hotmail.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:36:47 -0700
> From: "Rachel" <RachelWL at msn.com>
> Subject: [Tweeters] More on access on navigable rivers
> To: <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
> Message-ID: <000801c7ba84$d571e890$4400a8c0 at Rachel>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I forgot to mention: public access on navigable rivers in Washington
> includes the water itself and the banks to the high-water mark, which,
> on Washington rivers, can mean a fairly extensive area of gravel bar and
> flood plain.
>
> Rachel Lawson
> Seattle
> RachelWL at msn.com
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/private/tweeters/attachments/20070629/44e75d33/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:17:06 -0700
> From: "Douglas Canning" <dcanning at zhonka.net>
> Subject: [Tweeters] Nest examination tool
> To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
> Message-ID: <46850652.19808.B7A955 at dcanning.zhonka.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Tweets -
>
> The thought finally occurred to me that some of you might find useful
> the tool I use for examining the contents of birds' nests, especially
> ones buried in shrubbery, or atop a woodshed roof beam (such as the
> active Pacific-slope Flycatcher nest at my place).
>
> It?s a mechanic?s mirror - think of a very large dental exam mirror,
> but with a 2-inch diameter mirror, mounted on an adjustable ball joint
> affixed to a telescoping 7- to 11-inch handle. I bought it many years
> ago in an auto parts store. (And I do mean "many years" - except for
> the mirror, it is all metal.)
>
> Doug
>
> *******************
> Douglas Canning
> Olympia, Washington
> dcanning at zhonka.net
> *******************
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:11:53 -0700
> From: "Kelly McAllister" <mcallisters4 at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [Tweeters] More on access on navigable rivers
> To: <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
> Message-ID: <002301c7ba9a$80d1ee00$6401a8c0 at Kellyscomputer>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> MessageWow, yes, "to the high water mark"... having seen the Nisqually Valley during the 1996 flood, that's a lot of public access!
>
> Kelly McAllister
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rachel
> To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 12:36 PM
> Subject: [Tweeters] More on access on navigable rivers
>
>
> I forgot to mention: public access on navigable rivers in Washington includes the water itself and the banks to the high-water mark, which, on Washington rivers, can mean a fairly extensive area of gravel bar and flood plain.
>
> Rachel Lawson
> Seattle
> RachelWL at msn.com
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tweeters mailing list
> Tweeters at u.washington.edu
> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/private/tweeters/attachments/20070629/daa075b4/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:00:57 EDT
> From: Vicnelson3 at aol.com
> Subject: [Tweeters] Horned Puffin
> To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
> Message-ID: <cb4.147edc5a.33b6e929 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Among the hundred's of Rhinoceros Auklets present in the Point No Point area
> I had a flyby Horned Puffin last night at 8:00 pm. I realize this is an
> unusual sighting for inside the sound especially this time of year, but I had
> very good looks in my scope at 100 yards or less as the bird flew from east to
> west from off PNP to in front of my house and on into Skunk Bay where it was
> lost to my sight. Initially I thought it was a murre because of the sharp
> demarcation between the clean white underparts and the dark upperparts; however I
> quickly realized the bird had a white face and a huge yellowish beak. The
> bird was a Horned Puffin not the Tufted Puffin I have been hoping to see since
> there have been several reports of that species just 20 miles to the
> northwest of here. The white underparts separated these 2 species nicely.
>
> Vic Nelson
> Point No Point
> Kitsap County, Washington
>
>
>
> ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/private/tweeters/attachments/20070629/d3331c32/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:17:43 EDT
> From: Vicnelson3 at aol.com
> Subject: [Tweeters] puffin
> To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
> Message-ID: <c4f.164db2e4.33b6ed17 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Just one word of warning. Many of the Rhinoceros Auklets are carrying a beak
> full of candlefish/Pacific Sandlance when they are flying. At a distance
> this may look like a white face and large beak on the bird when in reality it is
> the gleaming sides of the fish. Rhinos also have a smaller area of white
> underparts and a smudgy demarcation between the lighter underparts and dark
> upperbody.
>
>
>
> ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/private/tweeters/attachments/20070629/00ded31e/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:49:03 -0700
> From: "Ed Level" <elevel at comcast.net>
> Subject: [Tweeters] Reecer Creek Warning
> To: <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
> Message-ID: <001401c7baa8$12b9ff80$251fe747 at DF4LW561>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Re Roger Leed;
>
> Remember the open range? Therefore, vacant private forest or
> range land is generally available for public use unless posted otherwise.
>
>
> If you see a sign along a road in central or eastern Washington that says "Open Range," don't assume
>
> that you have a right to enter abutting lands. Don't assume that private lands are "generally available
>
> for public use"; they are not. One using them without permission is still a trespasser, regardless of
>
> absence of criminal trespass. Trespasser status is important; if you fall in a hole on trespassed land, for example.
>
> Re Rachel Lawson:
>
> If a fisherman (or birder) is wading or floating in the actual stream, the landowner
>
> cannot prevent him/her from passing through the private property.
>
> I have trouble with this. The State may own navigable waters, but in many shoreline situations it does not own the bed of the body y of water. Not all navigable waters are owned by the state; don't figure that you have a right to wade or otherwise utilize waters of a private lake even though it may be navigable. . Obviously one walking on a private tide lands at low tide is trespassing; I don't see how walking (wading) on the same land at high tide ceases to be a trespass. Not all streams are navigable, even though the state or other public entity may own the water flowing in it..
>
> Conclusions:
>
> 1. Don't assume that the law is simple in any situation.
>
> 2. Don't enter the private lands of another without permission.
>
> Ed Level. Olympia, WA
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/private/tweeters/attachments/20070629/79b84fdb/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:17:30 -0800
> From: dave templeton <crazydave65 at inbox.com>
> Subject: RE: [Tweeters] Maps of Major Public Lands, Washington
> To: Kelly McAllister <mcallisters4 at comcast.net>,
> tweeters at u.washington.edu
> Message-ID: <88881FED35A.00000588crazydave65 at inbox.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> given the number of land swaps completed or pending, how accurate for how long will the maps be??
>
> regards,
>
> dave templeton
> fall city, wa
>
> crazydave65atinboxdotcom
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mcallisters4 at comcast.net
>> Sent: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:54:47 -0700
>> To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
>> Subject: [Tweeters] Maps of Major Public Lands, Washington
>>
>> Doug refers to the Major Public Lands quadrangles produced by the
>> Washington
>> Department of Natural Resources. These are 1:100,000 scale maps and I
>> agree
>> with Doug, they are invaluable. It's a shame that these maps, produced by
>> a
>> public agency and depicting public lands, are not available, free of
>> charge,
>> in the World Wide Web. I suspect DNR believes that, because they are a
>> product of the proprietary side, the side of the agency that has
>> obligations
>> to manage all assets for the school trust, that they cannot make the maps
>> available without charge (or maybe they simply see is as a revenue
>> generator). A statewide version, much smaller scale and not as useful,
>> can
>> be downloaded free of charge from the DNR web site.
>>
>> There may be a number of places to obtain these maps. DNR has a
>> publications
>> outlet along old U.S. 99, across from the Olympia Airport in Tuwater. The
>> maps are $6.03 each and 43 maps comprise the entire state. Here's a link
>> to
>> the website with ordering instructions:
>>
>> http://www.dnr.wa.gov/dataandmaps/maps/100k_product.html
>>
>> Kelly McAllister
>> Olympia, Washington
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tweeters mailing list
>> Tweeters at u.washington.edu
>> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:27:15 -0700
> From: "Rachel" <RachelWL at msn.com>
> Subject: [Tweeters] Even more on navigable rivers
> To: "'Ed Level'" <elevel at comcast.net>
> Cc: tweeters at u.washington.edu
> Message-ID: <000001c7bace$f0cd6390$4400a8c0 at Rachel>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> A clarification for Ed Level:
>
> I didn't say all streams were navigable (they aren't), just that all
> navigable streams are open to public access. Since the laws were
> written regarding passage of freight canoes, it's obvious that the laws
> are rather old. Apparently, at the time, the state felt that the needs
> of commerce, in the form of freight-carrying boats and their operators,
> outweighed the property rights of those owning land bordering the
> rivers. This may be an outdated concept, but it's still the law.
> Fishermen legally can, and do, wade along rivers that pass through
> private property. In this case, the law IS simple: if they are in the
> bed of a navigable river, they are on public property, and as long as
> they stay in the river, they are not trespassing. Property owners that
> try to prevent people from wading the river have no legal standing. The
> Washington law regarding navigable rivers does not refer to lakes or
> saltwater shorelines, however, so the situation is different there.
> Lakes and saltwater shorelines definitely can be private property.
>
> Is anyone familiar with the laws in California regarding access to
> beaches? All ocean beaches in California are absolutely public, to the
> extreme displeasure of the rich people who own beachfront property. The
> most they can do is keep people from crossing their property to get to
> the beach. If these people want to walk from a public access point to a
> place on the beach that is in front of private property, there is no
> legal way to prevent them. There are books available with maps of all
> the public access points. Though the original rationales for the
> Washington river laws and the California beach laws might have been
> different, the end results seem similar.
>
> Note that I am not advocating trespass or ignoring the property rights
> of landowners. No matter how much I want to see a bird, I will NEVER
> cross a fence line or ignore a "no trespassing" sign to do it. I am a
> firm believer in asking permission to enter private property, and I
> agree that a little politeness and consideration goes a long way.
> However, I do not think I should be intimidated by landowners into
> staying off of public property, just because it borders private
> property.
>
> Rachel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tweeters-bounces at mailman1.u.washington.edu
> [mailto:tweeters-bounces at mailman1.u.washington.edu] On Behalf Of Ed
> Level
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 4:49 PM
> To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
> Subject: [Tweeters] Reecer Creek Warning
>
>
> Re Roger Leed;
>
> Remember the open range? Therefore, vacant private forest or
> range land is generally available for public use unless posted
> otherwise.
>
>
> If you see a sign along a road in central or eastern Washington that
> says "Open Range," don't assume
>
> that you have a right to enter abutting lands. Don't assume that private
> lands are "generally available
>
> for public use"; they are not. One using them without permission is
> still a trespasser, regardless of
>
> absence of criminal trespass. Trespasser status is important; if you
> fall in a hole on trespassed land, for example.
>
> Re Rachel Lawson:
>
> If a fisherman (or birder) is wading or floating in the
> actual stream, the landowner
>
> cannot prevent him/her from passing through the private
> property.
>
> I have trouble with this. The State may own navigable waters, but in
> many shoreline situations it does not own the bed of the body y of
> water. Not all navigable waters are owned by the state; don't figure
> that you have a right to wade or otherwise utilize waters of a private
> lake even though it may be navigable. . Obviously one walking on a
> private tide lands at low tide is trespassing; I don't see how walking
> (wading) on the same land at high tide ceases to be a trespass. Not all
> streams are navigable, even though the state or other public entity may
> own the water flowing in it..
>
> Conclusions:
>
> 1. Don't assume that the law is simple in any situation.
>
> 2. Don't enter the private lands of another without permission.
>
> Ed Level. Olympia, WA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/private/tweeters/attachments/20070629/268a577c/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:01:14 -0700
> From: "amy schillinger" <schillingera at hotmail.com>
> Subject: RE: [Tweeters] SAS Teanaway Trip (long)
> To: bellasoc at isomedia.com, tweeters at u.washington.edu
> Message-ID: <BAY109-F19C1FFEB571E087BBC5512C80F0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/private/tweeters/attachments/20070629/efa1275a/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:09:33 -0700
> From: "Kristin Stewart" <kristinstewart01 at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [Tweeters] Even more on navigable rivers
> To: "Rachel" <RachelWL at msn.com>, "'Ed Level'" <elevel at comcast.net>
> Cc: tweeters at u.washington.edu
> Message-ID: <003301c7bad4$d9321680$6501a8c0 at Kristin>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> MessageAnd as I understand the saltwater access: it is that you can walk (or boat) along any beach, but that you cannot stop on someone else's property to picnic, or sunbath, or swim, etc. For example, anywhere along Budd Inlet in Olympia, the public is entitled to walk the beach when the tides allow that, but the public is not allowed to access the non-tidal property along the way...so that if the tide is high, and there is no beach, the public has no right to walk along another person's land. Also, the public cannot access the beach through another person's property. Access must occur at a public/community spot, unless you own property along the way.
>
> I could be wrong...
>
> Kristin Stewart
> Olympia
>
>
>
> From: Rachel
> To: 'Ed Level'
> Cc: tweeters at u.washington.edu
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 9:27 PM
> Subject: [Tweeters] Even more on navigable rivers
>
>
> A clarification for Ed Level:
>
> I didn't say all streams were navigable (they aren't), just that all navigable streams are open to public access. Since the laws were written regarding passage of freight canoes, it's obvious that the laws are rather old. Apparently, at the time, the state felt that the needs of commerce, in the form of freight-carrying boats and their operators, outweighed the property rights of those owning land bordering the rivers. This may be an outdated concept, but it's still the law. Fishermen legally can, and do, wade along rivers that pass through private property. In this case, the law IS simple: if they are in the bed of a navigable river, they are on public property, and as long as they stay in the river, they are not trespassing. Property owners that try to prevent people from wading the river have no legal standing. The Washington law regarding navigable rivers does not refer to lakes or saltwater shorelines, however, so the situation is different there. Lakes and s!
> altwater shorelines definitely can be private property.
>
> Is anyone familiar with the laws in California regarding access to beaches? All ocean beaches in California are absolutely public, to the extreme displeasure of the rich people who own beachfront property. The most they can do is keep people from crossing their property to get to the beach. If these people want to walk from a public access point to a place on the beach that is in front of private property, there is no legal way to prevent them. There are books available with maps of all the public access points. Though the original rationales for the Washington river laws and the California beach laws might have been different, the end results seem similar.
>
> Note that I am not advocating trespass or ignoring the property rights of landowners. No matter how much I want to see a bird, I will NEVER cross a fence line or ignore a "no trespassing" sign to do it. I am a firm believer in asking permission to enter private property, and I agree that a little politeness and consideration goes a long way. However, I do not think I should be intimidated by landowners into staying off of public property, just because it borders private property.
>
> Rachel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tweeters-bounces at mailman1.u.washington.edu [mailto:tweeters-bounces at mailman1.u.washington.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Level
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 4:49 PM
> To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
> Subject: [Tweeters] Reecer Creek Warning
>
>
> Re Roger Leed;
>
> Remember the open range? Therefore, vacant private forest or
> range land is generally available for public use unless posted otherwise.
>
>
> If you see a sign along a road in central or eastern Washington that says "Open Range," don't assume
>
> that you have a right to enter abutting lands. Don't assume that private lands are "generally available
>
> for public use"; they are not. One using them without permission is still a trespasser, regardless of
>
> absence of criminal trespass. Trespasser status is important; if you fall in a hole on trespassed land, for example.
>
> Re Rachel Lawson:
>
> If a fisherman (or birder) is wading or floating in the actual stream, the landowner
>
> cannot prevent him/her from passing through the private property.
>
> I have trouble with this. The State may own navigable waters, but in many shoreline situations it does not own the bed of the body y of water. Not all navigable waters are owned by the state; don't figure that you have a right to wade or otherwise utilize waters of a private lake even though it may be navigable. . Obviously one walking on a private tide lands at low tide is trespassing; I don't see how walking (wading) on the same land at high tide ceases to be a trespass. Not all streams are navigable, even though the state or other public entity may own the water flowing in it..
>
> Conclusions:
>
> 1. Don't assume that the law is simple in any situation.
>
> 2. Don't enter the private lands of another without permission.
>
> Ed Level. Olympia, WA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tweeters mailing list
> Tweeters at u.washington.edu
> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/private/tweeters/attachments/20070629/47a09dca/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:32:14 -0700
> From: "Rob Blomquist" <rob.blomquist at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Tweeters] Reecer Creek Warning...navigable streams
> To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
> Message-ID:
> <dad5e4060706292232h454ebd8eu8d28f94d75f12075 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> A real twist to this law in Washington is that there are some locations were
> WDFW has purchased an easement with private property owners through the
> fields. The only sign that such an access exists is the crowd of cars during
> fishing or hunting season.
>
> I know just such a spot on the Stillaguamish River outside of Silvana. When
> the salmon are coming in the cars parked along the roadside will be
> numerous. But the access exists all year around. Just stay to the dirt road
> when you walk down to the river, and don't block the gate with your car.
>
> I am not sure if there is a list on the WDFW site, but all are open provided
> the parking certificate is displayed.
>
> Rob
>
> --
> Rob Blomquist
> Mountlake Terrace, WA
> firstname period lastname at gmail period company
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/private/tweeters/attachments/20070629/fc1cab38/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:55:24 -0700
> From: "Ruth and/or Patrick Sullivan" <godwit513 at msn.com>
> Subject: [Tweeters] shorebird migration in full swing!
> To: <Tweeters at u.washington.edu>
> Message-ID: <BAY116-DAV15CAFD18922A8B04094877F40F0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hello Tweets,
>
> Today Jim Pruske joined us,as we birded in the Ocean Shores area for returning southbound shorebirds and other birding. We enjoyed a great day filled with many shorebirds,a swell as decent weather too. We started off the day in the Brady area with cloudy rainy skies,but by the time we reached Ocean Shores conditions had cleared considerably and remained that way for the remainder of the day. It was nice to have a great birding day since the weather forecast wasn't the best! Arriving at Ocean Shores we began with 8 BLACK-BELLIED PLOVER noted flying over in the direction of the outer beaches,which were our only representatives of that species for the day. The main shorebird species present at Ocean Shores was Western Sandpiper with good numbers of adult birds present at many locations. The main concentrations of Western Sandpipers were noted at the Oyhut Wildlife Area(accessed behind the Ocean Shores STP),which hosted 500+ birds along with other smaller and more scattered floc!
> ks. We also encountered a flock of 250+ Western Sandpiper along the open beaches directly west of the Quinault Beach Resort and Casino. 8 SEMIPALMATED PLOVERS were also noted in a separate flock along the upper beach area at this location too.
>
> Additionally, we encountered 3 SEMIPALMATED PLOVERS and 5 Least Sandpipers at the Oyhut Wildlife Area. Our last 2 species of shorebirds to note included 13 WHIMBREL at Bill's Spit and a flock of 15+ Sanderlings observed from the beach shoreline west of Griffith-Priday State Park at Copalis Beach. It was a great day for shorebirds considering it is late June,although there have been recent shorebirds noted from other locations recently in both Oregon and Washington.
>
> Away from shorebirds probably our most significant highlight were 3 PURPLE MARTINS observed on the main road between the Quinault Beach Resort and Casino and S.R.115. The birds were observed in flight at fairly close range that consisted of 1 male and 2 females and we never heard them calling. We could only speculate that they could be part of a breeding population somewhere in the immediate vicinity,as well as considering the time of year. Nonetheless, it was a nice species to add to our day list,as well as for the outer coastal area of Grays Harbor Co. A single "BLACK"BRANT was noted off the ocean beaches while walking at the Marine View Drive beach access. this species is quite noteworthy for a summer record at Ocean Shores.
>
> Our visit to the Ocean Shores Jetty hosted good numbers of Common Murres,as well as small numbers of Sooty Shearwaters too just off the tip of the jetty itself. Our main highlights from this location included 12 BLACK-LEGGED KITTIWAKES and 8+ Heermann's Gulls both present resting on the tip of the jetty. A flock of 20 Western Sandpipers also rested near the tip of the jetty after flying in from an unknown location. A single Western Grebe was also noted off the tip of the jetty,as well as small numbers of both Surf and White-winged Scoters.
>
> We also checked the Hoquiam STP on route to Ocean Shores that hosted a few additional species to our day's list. These species included 8 Greater Scaup, 1 Lesser Scaup and 1 Gadwall.
>
>
> Other notable species located during the day included the following:
>
> Red-throated Loon
> 1 bird off the Ocean Shores Jetty
>
> Pacific Loon
> 1 bird off the ocean beaches west of the Quinault Beach Resort and Casino
>
> Brown Pelican
> 20 birds off the Ocean Shores Jetty
> 4 birds off Griffith-Priday State Park
>
> Green Heron
> 1 hatch-year bird at the Ocean Shores Marina
>
> Northern Shoveler
> 2 females with broods at the Ocean Shores STP
>
> Common Merganser
> 21 birds along the Copalis River at Copalis Beach(including 1 female with 8 young)
>
> Turkey Vulture
> 1 bird along S.R.109 east of the Hogan's Corner Airport
> 1 bird along S.R.109 at Hoquiam
> 3 birds along Hwy.12 west of Montesano
> 8 birds over the Schouweiler Rd. wetland
>
> Osprey
> 1 nesting pair along Brady Loop Rd.
> 1 nesting pair at the Hoquiam STP
> 1 bird over Ocean Shores
> 1-2 birds at the Quinault Beach Resort and Casino
>
> Northern Harrier
> 1 bird with prey at the Oyhut WA
>
> Cooper's Hawk
> 1 adult birds at the Oyhut WA
> 1 bird near Lake Minard(Ocean Shores)
>
> Olive-sided Flycatcher
> 1 nesting pair near Bill's Spit
>
>
>
> Good shorebirding,
>
> Ruth and Patrick Sullivan
> Fircrest,WA
> godwit513 at msn.com
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/private/tweeters/attachments/20070629/b0995887/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:07:04 +0000
> From: "Thomas Mansfield" <tmiseattle at msn.com>
> Subject: [Tweeters] Breeding Plumage Heerman's Gull_Late Post
> To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
> Message-ID: <BAY115-F3264E5B8ADEFE3884F843DCB0F0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> Sorry for the late post. Last Sunday on the Port Townsend to Keystone run,
> about half way across (so perhaps close to the Jefferson/Island County line)
> we saw a Heerman's Gull in his bright/striking breeding plumage flying west
> toward Port Townsend.
>
> Tom Mansfield, Seattle.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:50:41 -0700
> From: "Stephen Cunliffe" <sjaycee at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Tweeters] common tern
> To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
> Message-ID:
> <2ddf1e050706300650j2e74c21ag2b32655a3a255275 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Yesterday I saw what appeared to be a single common tern off the entrance to
> Chimacum Cove on the NE Olympic Peninsula. I'm new to the area, and
> according to my books the terns should be elsewhere right now. Is this
> unusual or to be expected?
> Stephen Cunliffe
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/private/tweeters/attachments/20070630/5335ed60/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:27:32 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Kathy Andrich <chukarbird at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [Tweeters] Molted Northern Pintail
> To: tweet <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
> Message-ID: <192948.78894.qm at web52907.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>
> Hi Tweeters,
>
> It is hard to pick out a single Mallard or Gadwall to
> watch molt. It was interesting to see the Northern
> Pintail at Medina Park has lost all of his breeding
> head and neck feather in a week. That part of him was
> only looking a little ragged last week but I could see
> had lost a lot of other body feathers last week and
> his speculum was easy to see. I hardly recognized him
> and made the mistake of thinking he was a she.
>
> Lot of ducks around including a seemingly out of place
> male Cinnamon Teal in the bigger pond. I didn't see
> the Wood Duck ling so I presume it didn't make it.
>
> All but two or three Great Blue Herons have fledged.
> The Bullock's Orioles have fledged but I saw the male
> around. A nest of Bushtits had fledged too. Barn
> Swallows were calling and diving on an immature
> Coopers Hawk.
>
> For directions this is the best link, go to directions
> from the menu on the left of the website. The park is
> directly across from the church:
>
> http://www.stthomasmedina.org/
>
> Kathy
> Roosting in S King County
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection.
> http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/norton/index.php
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:11:04 -0700
> From: "Roger Newman" <rhnewman at hctc.com>
> Subject: [Tweeters] Audubon Mag
> To: "Tweeters" <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
> Message-ID: <000f01c7bb39$a5967720$298cb840 at Rogers>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> For those that are interested.
>
> Jul-Aug issue of Audubon has article entitled...
> "State of the Birds 2007--Common Birds in Decline...and How You Can Help"
> by Greg Butcher.
>
> Roger Newman
> Shelton, WA
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tweeters mailing list
> Tweeters at mailman1.u.washington.edu
> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters
>
> End of Tweeters Digest, Vol 34, Issue 30
> ****************************************
>