Articles

ID Challenge (for me!) – Glaucous vs. Iceland Gull

OK, I admit it. I often don’t have the patience to scan through large flocks of gulls to find the “oddball”, the one that ISN’T the seemingly ever-present Ring-billed Gull (here in South Dakota). Sometimes, however, you see something that’s clearly so different than you can’t help but notice. That was the case yesterday near Pierre, South Dakota, when I saw a large, nearly all white gull sitting on the ice.  My first thought when seeing the bird from a distance…Iceland Gull, since recent bird reports had frequently mentioned an Iceland Gull being seen in the area. At first glance, that seemed to “fit”.  However, as one who isn’t well-versed in the dark art (I’m think of you Ricky Olson!!) of multi-age gull discrimination…I wasn’t sure. It wasn’t until I got home, downloaded the photos, and did some sleuthing  where I think I can safely call this an immature (probably 2nd winter), quite pale Glaucous Gull. Why?

Immature Glaucous and Iceland Gulls both share some characteristics that were evident in this bird. 1) Pale overall, including pale wingtips without markings. 2) two-toned bill. 3) pink legs.  However, when looking at Sibley’s and online resources, it’s clear the bird has characteristics of a Glaucous Gull.  First…the bird’s size.  There were a handful of Ring-billed Gulls around, and this bird was clearly larger. Much larger. Iceland Gulls are larger than Ring-billeds, but Glaucous Gulls are MUCH larger. With the distance between the Ring-billed Gulls and this gull, it was a bit difficult to judge, but it really did look a much, much larger bird than the Ring-billed Gulls.

Secondly…the head. From this excellent site (South Dublin Birds), it’s noted Glaucous Gulls have a large, flat-topped head, while Iceland Gulls have a more delicate looking, rounded head. This bird clearly has the head shape of a Glaucous. Also…that site is the only one I found that notes a “tertial step”…a clear angle where the tertial feathers on wings meet the primaries when the wing is folded as in the first photo below. Here, you definitely see a clear “step” down where the tertials meet the primaries. Finally, the bill. Young Glaucous and Iceland Gulls both may share a two-toned bill such as this, but the Glaucous Gull has a heavy, longer bill, with parallel top and bottom edges. The Iceland Gull has a much more delicate and smaller looking bill.   The bill on this bird is quite large and shaped as a Glaucous.

So my final call…a first- or second-winter (probably second), very pale Glaucous Gull. Darker juveniles often have a lot of brownish speckling. This bird has a very small amount of that, primarily near the tail. Given that Glaucous Gulls gradually lose that speckling and it’s mostly gone by the third year, my guess is its a second-year bird that’s lost most of the speckling.  Third winter birds generally already have the pale gray mantle of an adult Glaucous Gull. This bird clearly doesn’t have that yet, so it can’t be a 3rd year or adult bird.

In short…the bird looks very similar to the Sibley drawing of a 2nd-winter Glaucous Gull (Page 220 of my Sibley’s guide!).

There…that wasn’t so painful! And it was kind of an interesting challenge to ID. Perhaps next time I come across a flock of gulls, I’ll pay a little more attention and do some similar sleuthing!

Glaucous Gull - Larus hyperboreus

A large, pale gull found near Pierre, South Dakota. Given that others had reported an Iceland Gull in the area, that was must first thought. But upon getting home and seeing the photos in detail, I’m pretty sure now this is a very pale, immature Glaucous Gull. Reasons…1) The heavy two-toned till, with top and bottom roughly parallel. Immature Iceland Gulls also can have a two-toned bill like this, but it’s smaller and more delicate. 2) Head shape…large, flat topped. Iceland Gulls heads are more rounded and smaller looking. 3) “Tertial Step” – an ID characteristic where there’s a distinct “step” where the tertial feathers meet the primaries (unlike Iceland).

Glaucous Gull - Larus hyperboreus

With wings spread, you can see the complete lack of markings on the wings. However, the pale wings, pink legs, and brownish mottling (VERY pale and not widespread on this bird) can be found on both Iceland and Glaucous Gull.

Glaucous Gull - Larus hyperboreus

Another photo of the bird taking flight, showing the unmarked wings (again, characteristic of both Iceland and Glaucous).

Please, if you get a chance, contact your representative in D.C.

If you get a chance, please…send a note to your representatives in Congress regarding the new GOP proposed “replacement” for Obamacare. Specific contact info is below.

Children with Type-1 diabetes, like our Alex, LITERALLY have a life expectancy that correlates with the level of care and blood sugar control. This new bill? It includes $600 billion in tax cuts, giving the richest 0.1% an average of $195,000 a year. It CUTS coverage for the poor, and eliminates many of the protections for those with chronic illness that Obamacare provides. It cuts health care access for kids like our Alex, kids whose very LIVES depend upon quality care.  As this story from several weeks ago notes, the very LIVES of these children are at stake.

Don’t let a person’s ability to pay be the prime determinant of your access to health care. Don’t let them get away with cutting health care access, JUST TO FUND TAX CUTS FOR THE RICHEST OF AMERICANS. Here are the places to go to contact your Congressional reps (for my Nebraska and South Dakota friends)…for others, please look up contact info for your state’s representatives.

Senator Ben Sasse (Neb) –https://www.sasse.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-ben

Senator Deb Fischer (Neb) – http://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

Senator John Thune (S.Dakota) – https://www.thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

Senator Mike Rounds (S.Dakota) – https://www.rounds.senate.gov/contact/email-mike

Representative Kristi Noem (S.Dakota) – http://noem.house.gov/index.cfm/email-kristi

Representative Jeff Fortenberry (Nebraska) – https://fortenberry.house.gov/contact

And my first NON-endorsement…Avoid PrairieSons Inc.

PrairieSons Inc.

Evidently we’re all going to “suffer” and the “worst is yet to come”. This is the cheery message received from the local PrairieSons company when I got the (ridiculously high) bill for looking at our furnace. But hey, at least they’re helpful about it, pointing to a website where I can “Repent”…or Perish.  Click for a larger view. DO IT…CLICK AND READ IT!!  OR PERISH!!!  🙂

Just two days ago in my last post, I gave my first ever endorsement for a product or service of any kind.  Two days later…I’m giving my first “un-endorsement”.  What a historic week!!!

We went to Lincoln, Nebraska to visit family and celebrate Christmas, the weekend before actual Christmas.  We got back to our home late that Sunday, December 18th, and it was 48 degrees in the house!  The furnace had stopped working at some point that weekend.  Knowing it was a Sunday and nobody was likely to come out, we looked in the phone book and thought we’d try somebody new (for us)…”PrairieSons Inc.” in Brandon.  They said they’d be out the next day. We turned the fireplace on, kept reasonably warm through the night, and waited for them to come the next day.  They arrived, and couldn’t find anything physically wrong with the furnace.  They hit a reset switch (the “roll out switch, that  had tripped), the furnace was running, and they said to just keep an eye on it.

6 days later, we wake up on Christmas Eve morning (Saturday) and it’s not working.  We call. They’re working that day, so they come out, and again, find nothing wrong after doing a diagnostic.  Again, the roll-out switch was flipped, and it runs again.  The guy basically said “it happens”, but didn’t recommend changing out the roll-out switch or anything, so there wasn’t anything new installed, nothing replaced. I got the bill today.  Here’s everything the bill “description” said. The bill didn’t even refer to 2 visits, just the one visit on the 19th:

  • Customer called with no heat
  • Found the roll-out switch had tripped.  Fire unit and it started up and shut down correctly.  Checked intake to exhaust for any obstructions. Found none.  Checked temp rise and filter.

For that…$270, plus $17.55 in taxes.

It’s a rip off.  It’s a ridiculous fee for a very small amount of labor.  I would NEVER use this business again, just for that reason.  But to make it worse, when we got the bill a few weeks later? A small card with a rambling message on the back.  It turns out PrairieSons Inc. has a very religious owner, by the looks of the enclosed card (photo of it shown above).  It’s quite the ramble, moving from topic to topic!  It all ends with a cheery “Godly people are basically guaranteed to suffer” and “The worst is yet to come”.

CHEERY!  Thanks for the sermon, PrairieSons Inc.!  Not that I asked for it.

I contacted the owner and complained about the bill, saying it was a rather ridiculous fee for providing no parts, and simply hitting a reset switch. I also complained about getting a religious message with my bill.  The response?

I am sure there is more to the work we did than hit a reset for the fee that was assessed Terry. I will have Bruce in our office look this up Monday for more clarification and get back to you. In regards to the Bible tract, we send that out with the bill to every new customer. We are sorry you took offense to it. That is a staple of who we are and what we stand for. It may not fit you and that is fine. Everyone will stand before him on the last day and need to make an account of their own life. That is a decision that only you can answer.

Uh…NO, PrairieSons, what I told you was 100% accurate.  You came out, found nothing wrong, reset the “roll out switch” to flip it back on, and…that’s it.  Two times, yes, and if you charge $270 for less than an hour’s worth of work? I guess that’s your prerogative. It’s also my prerogative to complain about your ridiculously high prices.

As for getting ANOTHER sermon, after I complained about the first one?  TERRIFIC customer service, PrairieSons!  What is your business model?  To TRY to piss off your customers?  That’s what it seems like.  Telling your customers they’re basically going to hell isn’t the type of message you typically expect to hear when you’re getting home appliances repaired!

Quick perusal online and I see others have complained about PrairieSons, both in terms of getting ripped off, and in terms of the religious messages.  Save yourself the bother.  Is your furnace out? Air conditioner out?  Live in the Brandon/Sioux Falls area? There are PLENTY of repair places in the area, so unless you skipped church and REALLY, REALLY want a sermon along with your repair…pass on PrairieSons and go with another company.

“Hunting” interests bringing handguns to a prairie near you!

The South Dakota legislature has been working on a bill that would legalize the use of handguns for hunting gamebirds.  From a practical standpoint, it’s a head-scratcher.  The bill would authorize the use of handguns loaded with .410 shot shells.  As the article link above points out, such a light shell, shot from a handgun, might be effective up to a ridiculously close range of 10 feet, but beyond that, there’s little chance of doing anything other than inuring a bird.

To be blunt…I don’t think this bill has anything to do with hunting. If you’re going hunting for grouse or pheasant, you’re not going to grab a handgun.  This bill is about “legitimizing” handguns, pure and simple.  It’s a bill designed to show that handguns have some supposed legitimate use, rather than turning on other human beings.

A debate has started on the South Dakota bird listserver about the bill, a debate that has brought hunters out of the woodwork.  Of course the argument from the hunting crowd has absolutely nothing to do with the bill itself.  Hunters are ignoring the actual issue, and instead rushing to come to the defense of hunting overall.  The main argument being made is that hunting overall is a net benefit to birds, because of all the habitat that’s being protected by groups like Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited, etc.

As for hunting itself, I have no doubt there’s more habitat due to the power and money of hunting interests.  Overall in the world we live in, that’s good, but again, to be blunt, there’s one very obvious difference between hunting and birding.  I have no doubt many hunters enjoy the habitat itself, but the one overarching reason that habitat is set aside is to ensure there are enough birds and other animals for people to harvest.   Someone on the South Dakota bird listserver said no “informed” birder would equate fewer hunters as a benefit for birds.  I would beg to differ, and I’m POSITIVE the birds staring down the barrel of a shotgun would beg to differ.  The habitat protection is great, but as with anything related to human beings, that habitat protection comes with a price.

Despite the benefits of preserving that habitat, it’s also impossible to ignore the motivation behind that habitat protection, what the real goal is for setting aside that land.  In my utopian world, we’d protect land just for the sake of conservation, not to ensure there’s an adequate pool of creatures to kill.   In short…birders love the resource, love the wild bird itself. For birders, it’s about the birds, and in my perfect world it would be nice to set aside land just to let nature take its course. For hunters, it’s about the ensuring there’s something to harvest.  For hunters, it’s about the hunter him/herself, it’s about using the resource for their own benefit and satisfaction, more than the resource (THE BIRD) itself.

When I drive on the grasslands West River, and I see a group of hunters lined up on a fence, popping off prairie dogs for no other reason than to have something to kill, it’s damned hard to see the “good” side of hunting. To be blunt (why pussyfoot around at this stage and hide how I really feel), in a situation like that, I see a sick desire to kill for the sake of killing.  When you see hunters clamoring to have the chance to kill a mountain lion, or a coyote, or any other animal that’s not being harvested for food or other actual purpose other than to satiate some kind of blood lust….it’s damned hard to see the “good” side of hunting.  When I’m driving around Presho in the late fall looking for raptors, and I see hordes of hunters slowly driving around, jumping out and blasting away when they see a pheasant or grouse, it’s hard to equate their activity with “enjoying the outdoors”, and much easier to see that it’s all about the desire to harvest as many birds as possible. When I’m in the same area and I see a shot raptor lying in a ditch…it’s hard to see the “good” side of hunting, and it’s awfully damned hard to see the birds themselves being put first.

Give me the habitat protection, by all means.  But hunters…don’t pretend it’s all about the birds. It’s all about YOU.

Revisiting Dowitcher Identification

Short-billed Dowitcher - Limnodromus griseus

Photo of a Short-billed Dowitcher. At least now, after 15 years, I’m finally making a call that this is one, given the advice of several folks. Click for a larger view.

Ok, after much debate and consulting with other folks, I think I have a better handle now on identification of Short-billed Dowitchers vs. Long-billed Dowitchers. It’s still not an easy call, but after 15 years of birding, I’d never mentally/physically “checked off” Short-billed Dowitcher on my life list.  Long-billed Dowitchers are the ones that are more often found in fresh water areas, and are more often found on the interior of the continent, and until this point, I’d just mentally called any Dowitcher I saw in South Dakota as a Long-billed.

I’m now adding Short-billed Dowitcher to my list, based on the top photo here and the advice of several folks.  I had a photo of about 10 different Dowitchers, but this is the one (a crop of the photo showing 10 birds) that most people pointed to as being most clearly a Short-billed Dowitcher  What’s interesting is that opinions varied as to why, but the ID points hit the ID points provided in the exhaustive SurfBirds page on Dowitcher identification.  For this bird, ID keys are the following:

 

  • V-shaped lower coverts with white running up the sides of the feather more than a Long-billed Dowitcher.  Long-billed Dowitcher lower coverts are described as more “squared off”, with white that doesn’t run up the side of the feather a bit.
  • Droop in last 1/3rd of the bill.  You definitely see that on this bird.  I’m not totally sold on this ID mark though, as I’ve seen conflicting information online about whether this is diagnostic.
  • Primary projection.  Short-billed Dowitchers are supposed to have slightly longer wings, and have primaries that extend out from the tertials more. This guy has long primaries.
  • Slimmer shape than a Long-billed Dowitcher.  I forget whether I read it or whether it was an ID key someone sent me, but supposedly Long-billed Dowitchers are chunkier looking, with the description being that they look like they “swallowed a grapefruit”. In terms of shape/structure, this also results in a straighter back for the supposedly slimmer Short-billed Dowitcher, while in profile a Long-billed Dowitcher has a kink/dip/indentation in the back towards the tail.
  • “Arched” supercilium. This is a mark from the SurfBirds article online, and there are also other sites that note Long-billed Dowitchers seem to have a straighter, less steep slope on the forehead than Short-billed Dowitchers. The result is supposedly a straighter supercilium on a Long-billed, with a Short-billed Dowitcher having the “arch” in the supercilium shape.
  • Light looking underparts with modest barring/spots.  Hard to see in this angle, but the bird does seem to be relatively light-colored underneath, with lighter/white areas.  Long-billed Dowitchers are supposed to be more uniform and colorful below.

 

Dowitcher Tails in Flight

Three dowitcher tails captured while in flight. Black-and-white barring thickness is supposed to be diagnostic for Dowitchers, with Short-billed Dowitchers having wider white bars than Long-billed Dowitchers

One other potential difference between the two species is the width of the black-and-white barring in the tail (visible in flight).  As this group of birds flew by at one point, I did get a (rather bad) photo that captured parts of 6 birds. For Long-billed Dowitchers, the black bars in the tail are supposed to be significantly thicker than the white bars.  For Short-billed Dowitchers, the white bars are wider, and can be as wide as the black bars.  This 2nd photo shows the 3 tails captured in that bad flight photo.  To me, the white bars in that bottom photo are definitely wider than the white bars in the top 2 photos.  I of course have no idea which bird may be the wading bird depicted in the top photo, but it could be possible 2 of these 3 birds are Long-billed Dowitchers, and the bottom one is Short-billed.

I also find it interesting how the relationship between leg length and tail differs between the top 2, and the bottom image.  In the bottom image, the legs appear to stick out further from the tail than in the top 2 photos.  It could just be the poor quality of the photo, or the fact that in the bottom bird, the tail isn’t fanned out as much.  But Long-billed Dowitchers ARE supposed to a have a longer tail than Short-billed Dowitchers.  Could that be while the tail seems to cover more of the legs and feet int he top two birds, compared to the bottom one?

Whew.  If you take just one of any of the ID keys above, there’s no way I’d make a call, particularly on my own.  But given the “match” of several different ID keys, and given the opinions of others, I’m (finally) comfortable calling the bird in the top photo a Short-billed Dowitcher.

Short- vs. Long-billed Dowitcher

Short-billed Dowitcher vs. Long-billed Dowtitcher

Which kind of Dowitchers are these? Click to get a much higher-resolution version.

Alright, I admit I have no freakin’ clue how to tell apart Short-billed Dowitchers vs. Long-billed Dowitchers.  I DID find this great website:

http://www.surfbirds.com/ID%20Articles/dowitchers1005/dowitchers.html

More info than you can shake a stick at!  But I’m still not sure that it helps me.  Given that I live in South Dakota, where we’re much, much more likely to find Long-billed Dowitchers, I have pretty much always called Dowitchers I take photos of here Long-billed Dowitchers.  But over the years, I also have no doubt I’ve seen, if not photographed, Short-billed Dowitchers.

So, tonight I was birding around Newton Hills State Park, and came across a group of 15 Dowitchers.  Long- or Short-billed?  Check out the photo above.  What are they?  All Long-billed?  A mix?  Bill length, as expected, is one of the ID marks in the SurfBirds article above.  Check out the 2 birds with an “A” by them.  The one on the left has a much longer billl than the one on the right.  Leg length is supposed to be another mark, with Long-billed Dowitchers having longer bills.  Again check out the birds labeled “A”.  The one on the right has the water reach his belly, while the birds right around him have leg showing.  Same for the one bird in the back by the “B”, where one bird has water reaching the belly, and the other two don’t.

The SurfBird site has many more ID keys, such as a supposedly straighter supercillium on the Long-billed, but even on their example images I find that hard to see.  Plumage differences and shape differences are noted there as well.  Any thoughts out there? What are the Dowitchers in this photo?

%d bloggers like this: