LOUISIANA BIRD RECORDS COMMITTEE

REPORT FORM

1. English and Scientific names: Ferruginous Hawk, Buteo regalis

2. Number of individuals:  1

3. Locality: Jefferson Davis Parish

Specific Locality: junction of A & D Abshire Road and Lyons Road, 2.5 miles W of Lake Arthur

4. Date(s) when observed: 11/23/2012

5. Time(s) of day when observed: ca. 3:50-4:15

6. Reporting observer and address:

Paul Conover

Lafayette, LA

7. Other observers accompanying reporter who also identified the bird(s):

8. Other observers who independently identified the bird(s):

9. Light conditions (position of bird in relation to shade and to direction and amount of light):  Overcast, but adequate

10. Optical equipment (type, power, condition): Zeiss 10s, Nikon 20-60 scope, cellphone cam, Nikon D50 with 300mm lens.

11. Distance to bird(s): I was able to pull up to within about 40 yards of the bird.

12. Duration of observation:  about 20 minutes  

13. Habitat:  Open farmland, mostly plowed fields, with few roads and light traffic through the area.

14. Behavior of bird / circumstances of observation:  I noted a couple of tractors plowing a field and throwing up sheets of dirt high into the air. I then noticed a bunch of dark shapes in the field. Most were Swainson’s Hawks, but one facing me was very bright white, which I thought might be a Ferruginous. It was next to a Swainson’s that was hooded over something. The Ferruginous was standing still, and like all of the Swainson’s, was unconcerned with my presence or that of the tractors. I was able to drive up until I was even with it, about 40 yards away. I photographed it, but began to scan the other birds, and it flew off as I was occupied. I saw it to the east, flying low over plowed fields, and saw it land on a distant levee in the middle of a large expanse of plowed land.

15. Description (include only what was actually seen, not what "should" have been seen; include if possible: total length/relative size compared to other familiar species, body bulk, shape, proportions, bill, eye, leg, and plumage characteristics. Stress features that separate it from similar species):

My main view of this bird was as it was perched with underparts facing me. The bird appeared to be a first year, but I would have liked to have seen the upperparts better, or have noted the bird in flight from a closer distance to get a better idea of age and plumage.

A large, broad-bodied hawk with feathered legs, very white below, fairly solidly dark above.

Upperparts mostly solidly brown, with some rufous tones present on wing coverts. Head with crown and nape streaked dark brown, a dark eyeline extending broadly behind eye, and a white and brown streaked cheek that was paler than both the crown and eyeline. Yellow cere and gape, dark hook of bill. Irides pale.

Chin and throat white, white extending broadly on sides of neck to nape, with some dark streaking on white neck sides. Underparts white with sparse speckling low on belly, sparse dark brown barring on flanks, with slight pale rufous barring on tarsal feathering. Undertail bright white.

In flight showed white underparts with dark flank patches, and white underwings with dusky wingtips, underwing coverts thinly outlined except for broader bracketed shape distally. No dark patagial markings.

Upperwings brown with pale panel on outer primaries tipped dusky, pale tail, in a muted Caracara-like pattern.

16. Voice: Not heard.

17. Similar species (include how they were eliminated by your observation):

Red-tailed, Swainson’s, and other buteos typically found here don’t have feathered legs. Rough-legged Hawks can be separated by plumage.

18. Photographs or tape recordings obtained? (by whom? attached?): Photos attached.

19. Previous experience with this species:  Many seen on breeding and regular winter range over the years, a few seen in Louisiana.

20. Identification aids: (list books, illustrations, other birders, etc. used in identification):

a. at time of observation:

b. after observation:

21. This description is written from: memory and study of photos.

22. Are you positive of your identification if not, explain: Yes.

23. Date: 11/23/2012