37-B-2017 Red-shouldered Hawk
Henry Griffin H
Henry saw the hawk first and shouted it out, Jean and I quickly saw it too right above us.
I use Brunton Epoch 8.5x43, I believe Jean uses Nikon Monarch 8x42 and I'm not sure what Henry uses.
FIRST ROUND VOTING:
I'm hesitant but I feel the details in the report are enough to support the identification.
The description and sketch fit that of the Red-shouldered Hawk
I'm a bit torn because I would have liked a more explicit description of the wings & tail (beyond "didn't match Red-tail") but am convinced by the brief description and sketch
Tough call on this one. The description is rather limited, doesn't mention size or structure and focuses mainly on one or two field marks (the tail pattern is kind of alluded to, but not exactly described). The sketch is very useful and suggestive, but was made after consulting references, and the written details still seem a bit too thin. The habitat seems somewhat unusual for Red-shouldered Hawk, which might be expected for an out-of-range individual, but I am used to seeing this species in association with deciduous trees. Finally, I am confused that the report indicates that 3 individuals were seen, but the write up only seems to describe a single. The (3) individuals is possibly a mistake/typo (confusing # Observed with # Observers?)? Hopefully we can get clarification on that if this goes to a second round.
Description and field sketch are good. They support the identification of Red-shouldered Hawk.
On the fence with this one. While the description is relatively brief, and lacks a good comparative analysis, the observer notes a couple of key features of an adult Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus). Namely, they mention size being smaller than a (presumably) Common Raven (Corvus corax), “stripes on wings and tail”, as well as rufous upper wing coverts. May reconsider my “accept” vote after reading other committee member comments.
SECOND ROUND VOTING:
Still believe the observers had an adult Red-shouldered (Buteo lineatus) out there that day. I’m not too concerned on habitat as this bird was most probably migrating, and this species has been observed previously in similar settings in Idaho.
I'm going to accept this record again, but with some misgivings. I was also startled when I saw the number "3" posted in the "How many observed" area of the description, which I soon understood was referring to the number of bird observers (Poo, Jean, Henry) who were present at the time of the sighting, and not the number of Red-shouldered Hawks they'd encountered. As was mentioned by others, the description was sparse, but perhaps I've let myself be convinced mainly on the strength of the sketch, which seems to only fit a RSHA.
To follow up on a previous comment (of mine), I now realize there was a mention of size (smaller than a Raven) in the submission (apologies), just not included under "Description of the Bird(s)" but rather under "Behavior".
Even with that added detail, I still find this documentation to be a little too thin.
Additionally and regardless of the identification, I'm also voting No because the submission claims 3 individuals were seen, but there is nothing in the documentation to support that. Red-shouldered Hawks are expanding their range, including their breeding range, but have not been documented breeding in Idaho. If this record of 3 were accepted, that would seem to imply a family group and give the false impression that there was evidence for breeding in Idaho.
I missed the fact that 3 individuals were reported in the first round. I was hesitant to endorse this record but the report certainly doesn't contain enough to support the presence of 3 Red-shouldered Hawks.
I am still convinced by the description of he wing and tail and the sketch.
The 3 for observed must refer to 3 observers as the description and behavior is describing only one hawk. Thj\e "3 " is a bit confusing but I'm sure it is just a error (or misunderstanding of what is being asked) on the reporters part.
See previous comments
No change from round 1 vote (still a bit hesitant without a better description of tail but ...)