I think this reminder begs the question, "WHY is Hoary Redpoll considered a
RARE regular?" Is it due to few accepted records annually? I think there are
all kinds of reasons this species would not be frequently documented that have
little to do with its rarity.
First, identifying this species requires encountering numerous redpolls and
having the chance to study many of them closely. Thus, an observer traveling
from the southern part of the state to the SaxZim Bog or Duluth for a Saturday
of birding may have a low probability of chancing on a Hoary Redpoll and
getting to observe it well enough to be confident with the identification.
Likewise, a birder from Duluth has the opportunity to view Varied Thrushes,
Snowy Owls, Harlequin Ducks, Greater Black-backed Gulls, Golden-crowned
Sparrows, and all kinds of reported and unreported birds of interest that
likely reduce time spent studying redpoll flocks. Conversely, in north-central
Minnesota, redpolls in general are abundant, species--especially chasable
listserv reports--competing for birding attention in winter are limited, and
feeders provide opportunity for careful viewing. In that context, while I
don't frequently see beautiful, snow-whitish Hoary Redpolls around, birds that
meet the field guide definition of a frostier redpoll with a mostly unstreaked
rump and undertails, as well as the other subjective characteristics are not
all that difficult to find with time spent. So, for me, documenting a Hoary
Redpoll in Itasca County seems like documenting a Black-backed Woodpecker in
Itasca County....cool bird, but not front-page ornithological news.
Second, considering that not all references agree and that with the exception
of the most obvious Hoaries and Commons, redpoll field marks lie on a
continuum, it's likely that many sightings would go undocumented because of
lack of confidence. A birder that sees an iffy female redpoll and identifies
it as a Hoary because the bill appeared stubbier, the flank streaking was
slightly finer, and the secondaries showed more white compared to Common is
probably not going to submit documentation. (Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't
think so.) This doesn't make the bird any less of a Hoary, it only means that
Hoaries are almost certainly occurring in greater numbers than the aggregate
observer bias involved in documentation would lead us to believe. Even the
field marks of such a bird, loaded with relative superlatives like "frostier,
fluffier, stubbier" and hedging like 'may appear, averages, limited" lack the
absolutes that encourage birders to document, especially when it is apparent
that my idea of "frostier" or "faintly-streaked" is almost certainly different
than that of each individual member of MOURC or even that of various field
guide editors.
My point is that I disagree with the notion that Hoary Redpoll is rare enough
in Minnesota for observations of this species to warrant special treatment or
the idea that any redpoll that doesn't look like a Snow Bunting in a red beret
is either a Common or unidentifiable by birders who would otherwise claim to
see the unbroken eye ring on a migrating Least Flycatcher. Can I be the first
to coin hornemanniphobia...fear of identifying Hoary Redpoll?
By the way, for what it's worth I saw my first--and possibly second--Hoary
Redpoll of 2009 on Saturday morning. The account, which I shared locally, is
below:
"Most interesting was a large flock of Common Redpolls feeding in a pair of
small birch trees in Coleraine, oblivious to my presence. One male Hoary
Redpoll feeding near the top was easy to pick out as its frostiness,
slightly-blushed breast, barely-streaked flanks, and unstreaked undertails were
obvious. A female was feeding very close to it, but the marks were not quite
as clear, the undertails were only visible briefly, and this bird may have
actually been a pale Common--though I think it was a Hoary."
Maybe I have this thing all wrong, but if I do, at least I'll take some of the
heat off the photographers! (And maybe I'll have to go back and erase Hoary
Redpoll from my Itasca, Koochiching, Cass, St. Louis, and Cook lists!)
Good birding.
Shawn Conrad
http://users.2z.net/itasca_chippewa_birding/ > Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 12:12:20
-0500> From: [email protected]> Subject: [mou-net] **Hoary Redpoll** Reminder>
To: [email protected]> > There seem to be increasing numbers of Hoary
Redpolls being reported recently, from several locations throughout the state.
I would like to remind EVERYONE that this species is considered to have "rare
regular" status in the state, and also presents an ID challenge, and therefore
REQUIRES documentation. NO exceptions. I have been sending e-mails to
individuals requesting documentation, but am getting a little behind, so please
consider this message to be a heads up. Please know that to have your report
published in the seasonal summary of this species in THE LOON, and included in
the permanent record/ archive it MUST be documented. The preferred method would
be to use the RQD form on the MOU web site. However, I will accept any
contemporaneous notes or photos sent directly to me. ALL undocumented reports
will merely be listed as such at the end of the introduction to the the Winter
Season article when published.> > > > Any questions pertaining to this can be
sent to me, Paul Budde (the Seasonal Report Editor) or Jim Mattsson, (Winter
Season Compiler).> > > > > Thank you in advance for your cooperation.> > > > >
Good birding!> > > > > Drew Smith> > Winter Season Compiler> > ----> Join or
Leave mou-net:http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net>
Archives:http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_012009
----
Join or Leave mou-net:http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net
Archives:http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
