tsheunglai

Dear all

Points not in favour of the bird being not a Northern goshawk are:

a) arm of wing not a lot longer in trailing edge than that of the hand (fingers collectively)
b) wing tip too pointed
c) tail corners too sharp instead of being round
d) underbody's bars not dark enough

However other points in favour of it being a NG not mentioned by others are:
a) pronounced head protrusion
b) heavy body keel

Overall, the bird remains indeterminable unless there are more photos showing upperparts and how it soars
and glides.

S L Tai

[ Last edited by tsheunglai at 12/12/2011 21:38 ]

tsheunglai

Dear all

Honestly, I am not experienced with paeleartic NGs. I gave my last comment to stimulate discussions which
has achieved its purpose abundantly. I cast doubts though the size of the bird had the overwhelming effect of tipping it in favour of being a NG. I favoured Eurasian sparrowhawk for I was and still am against the white fluffy feather on the undertail and vent and the black face aspect as key features. For a Japanese photo bird book showed me both features appear in both species.

It must be emphasized here birdwatching is much more than action with electronic-assisted devices. Proper knowledge and experience of birdwatching is of paramount importance. Modern people tend to pay little attention to that importance and focus on the application of photographic devices almost alone. As photgraphic skills take top priority, their progression in birwatching skills and anything touching ornithology lag far behind. Also, photographic activities makes birders sedentary, diminishing greatly birdwatching's athletic aspects.

I'm very thankful to have seen so many excellent bird photos on the forum which greatly helped me in studying bird plumage, structure and coloration in great details. But as yet I still rely solely on my eyes and ears (plus of course a good pair of binoculars) for basic obersvation which activate my brain to high levels of active learning (by building and modifying mind maps and reinforcing and wiring up my brain cell networks) and less on muscular reflexes.

Not without a little regret I am witnessing here a lot of good photographic bird analysers more than true birdwatchers, especially among the young ones. Can someone count the number of primaires and measure  their respective lengths of an accipiter when they are out on the field? Surely they can do so by shooting first and look at a computer monitor later on. Such skills develop what I can at most categorize as photographic identification ones which are nothing different from surfing on the internet.

S L Tai

[ Last edited by tsheunglai at 14/12/2011 12:24 ]

tsheunglai

Dear all

I've and am not criticizing those who had taken photos of the bird in question, nor those who saw the bird no matter how they responded on that day. If any of my words have been found are pointing at them
I could only regret for misunderstanding.

I'm only commenting on the present trend of shifting birdwatching to bird-photographing which has its obvious and serious shortcomings of which I have listed some only.To be able to fully identify a bird, photos are just not enough, the reasons of which I will not elaborate here. Of those who participated
here I found none who are experts of the bird in question. A majority opinion has been reached solely because there has been good luck of the presence of a crow. Other than that, nobody has been given us a comprehensive and convincing analysis.

Accipiters are always hard that most of the experts about this genus will readily agree.

About Matthew's citation of John Dewey, my opinion is that Dewey said those words in the early part/first half of the twentieth century, though they still has their values. What he wants to say is that teaching methods change according to methodologies and social changes which do not touch on the philosophy of education. I still maintain that when you are taking photos of birds, you are not learning as much as you could. For newcomers it amounts to take photos and learn later and for more experienced ones, it mean they can do the same and produce some photographic evidence in case it is a rarity or for discussion.

I still maintain that while you are using your cameras and video-recorders you are missing a lot of the bird's behaviour, such as its calls, wing beats, wing position while it glides or soars. Take one example
when I look at a Spotted eagle soaring, it is always helpful to check if its tail is spread widely and check the uppertail coverts for its U-shaped whitish patch. Long narrow wings in shallow-V of course, as many of us know, are good indicators of it being a harrier.

As Confucius says, '(in face of comments/criticisms) Examine yourself (for what you have said or done). If nothing guarantees reproach, then fear not nor worry. 內省不咎，乎何憂何懼 (personal translation)

For sensitive ones who have participated in the discussion, I am very satisfied with the participants so far. So far John's words seem to echo nearest mine. I repeat again, I am not pointing my finger at those who were present at the scene when the bird appeared. I am so far only commenting on trends and the present general birding situation. Examine my words said previously and you will agree so.

S L Tai

[ Last edited by tsheunglai at 15/12/2011 21:10 ]

tsheunglai

Dear all

One misunderstanding about my comments is that I talked about a lot of young birders who were also
(more) skilful in photographic identification (than field identification skills). I didn't say they did not birdwatch and relied solely/heavily on cameras.

So far I have been humble enough to re-examine my words as well as others. Can those who are hurt and have retorted against non-existent personal attacks do the same? Perhaps I should attempt to write even better.

S L Tai

tsheunglai

Dear Thinfor

I'm curious if you would kindly tell me your real name so that I can address you properly.

If you just casually read the contents of the previous contributors to this thread (?) again, you will
surely find there have been out-of-context comments like betting on his previous good experiences and
doubts and disappointment about his records being disregared. Further more, this thread has Dr Cheung's
praise of the power of electronic-assisted birdwatching and Mr Yu Yat Tung (wrong spelling?)'s short
comments. Lastly here we have Matthew's quotation of Dr Dewey's saying on teaching although I talked about learning about birds? Do they all bear direct relevance to the identification of the bird in question? Answer me. We humans are emotional as well as rational. As I am not presenting a mathematical
solution, so why should I make my comment logical all the way? Anyhow, I should be grateful if you would
kindly find from my words any self-contradictions.

If you care to note, my first comment about the bird is all in point form which gives pros and cons
though my conclusion is vastly unpopular and consequently gets me unwarranted verbal attacks.

I couldn't have cared less about such attacks. I reach my present state of being for what I am as a birder is quite hard won (which is largely self-taught and I have been wise enough to follow good birders, notably Paul Leader and John Edge and various book authors.

Let me end here with an advice. Photograph taking and bird observation making use of all you senses (I say all your senses) are quite different. Making a good balance between the two is quite hard. You see,
Geoff Welch (wrong spelling?) once said in the forum here that he had more than once at a loss as which to pick up, his pairs of binoculars or his camera. And Geoff is by all means a good birder. Of course, to me at least binoculars are far more enjoyable and exciting but photos are surely one of the most accurate means to depict a bird for records. One British lord, who is an eminent Victorian foreign minister, enjoyed birding with unaided eyes all his life without chasing after rarities, just like C Y Lam our president. At the moment I am enjoying both. But one thing, I will think twice when I want to go for the bird. The cost and the benefits I might get may turn out quite unbalanced. I am now just half of a twitcher.

To reach my present state of intelligence, one certainly needs more than a fair share of natural endowments and some fortunate encounters. Do you have both? Good luck to you.

S L Tai

tsheunglai

Dear Thinfor

Kwai Kuok Chi is quite wrong. Shakespeare produced some thirty plays and every one is a literary gem by all standards. Sir Winston S Churchill gave five years of war speeches, some of them are quite long. And by them and a few British fighter pilots he saved Great Britain from Nazi conquest and shortened human suffering as a result. Speak less and talk carefully is a good advice for mediocrities. And I don't consider my pieces here too long. Every sentence carries at least one point. No repetition.

S L Tai

tsheunglai

Dear Manson

Thank you for telling me your name.

S L Tai

NB I think it's time for me to stop strutting and fretting upon this stage.
   From now on I won't be heard here anymore.