Of special interest is how Cooper's hawks live along the other two Accipiters native to North America. Little distinguishes outright the distribution, habitat, ecology and prey spectrum of sharp-shinned hawks from Cooper's hawks. Throughout the range of the Cooper's hawk, sharp-shins may be found breeding, migrating and wintering in similar areas. So too is there much overlap between the ranges of Cooper's hawks and northern goshawks, such as throughout southern Canada, the western United States, the Upper Midwest (and sometimes in the Northeastern United States) and during times of passage. In general, sharp-shinned hawks tend to utilize younger and denser stands of trees than do Cooper's. Meanwhile, goshawks tend to favor old-growth forest area with taller and older trees and generally lower tree densities. However, all three species prefer fairly enclosed canopies over their nesting areas, i.e. canopy coverage are generally thought to need to be at least at 60-70%. A particular opportunity was taken to study the three Accipiters ecology when living near one another in Oregon. Unusually, nests were not consistently well spaced between the species, and 2 sharp-shin nests were approximately from active Cooper's nests, while 5 Cooper's nests were from active goshawk nests. However, the patch habitat and dietary behavior of each species was still fairly partitioned. Here, for sharp-shinned hawks, the tree stands averaged 22-50 years old and had a mean density of 1180 trees per hectare (ha), while the Cooper's stands averaged 30-70 years old and had a mean of 907 trees per ha while the goshawk used in oldest and most open stands, with trees of an average age of 150 years, and a mean of 482 trees per ha. The data from the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico was largely corresponding with the goshawk occurring in areas with a median of 781 trees per ha, the Cooper's in areas with a median of 1229 trees per ha and the sharp-shins in a median of 1482 tree per ha. In the New Mexico data, goshawks used the largest trees with the lowest median canopy coverage (77.4% vs 78.4% for Cooper'