Sighting Record for Utah

Common name:	Ruff
Scientific name:	Calidris pugnax
Date:	September 6, 2016
Time:	8:45 am
Length of time observed:	30 minutes
Number:	1
Age:	Juvenile
Sex:	Unkown
Location:	Utah Lake State Park
County:	Utah
Latilong:
Elevation:
Distance to bird:	50 yards
Optical equipment:	Canon 7D, Swarovski Spotting Scope (60X), Nikon Monarch Binoculars (10x42)
Weather:	Crisp September morning
Light Conditions:	Excellent lighting as the morning sun rose behind me.
Description: Size of bird:	Medium-sized shorebird
(Description:) Basic Shape:	Similar to Lesser Yellowlegs
(Description:) Overall Pattern:	Buffy tones on head and breast/flanks; darker mantle
(Description:) Bill Type:	Short with a slight droop
(Description:) Field Marks and Identifying Characteristics:	- Short, dark-colored bill with a slight droop. - Pale face with buffy cap trailing down the back of the neck. - Buffy wash on breast and flanks. - Yellow/orange legs. - About the same size as lesser yellowlegs (see picture), but larger than Stilt Sandpipers. - Posture/stature is consistent with Ruff. (see photos)
Song or call & method of delivery:
Behavior:	Feeding with other shorebirds (seemed to be most closely associated with Pectoral and Stilt Sandpipers) on the mudflats.
Habitat:	Mudflats on the edge of Utah Lake.
Similar species and how were they eliminated:	Lesser Yellowlegs: Lighter-colored mantle, buffy tones on the body and head, shorter bill. See photo for comparison with LEYE. Stilt Sandpiper: Much shorter bill, larger in size. Directly compared with two Stilt Sandpipers as can be seen in the photos. Pectoral Sandpiper: No streaking or markings on the breast or flanks. Instead, the bird showed buffy-coloration.
Previous experience with this & similar species:	No previous experience.
References consulted:	Sibley, online sources.
Description from:	From photo(s) taken at the time of the sighting
Observer:	KENDALL WATKINS
Observer's address:	2622 w Dry Creek Drive
Observer's e-mail address:	**
Other observers who independently identified this bird:	None.
Date prepared:	April 11, 2017
Additional material:	Photos
Additional comments:	This bird was not identified as a Ruff in the field. After reviewing photos, I felt more and more confident that this bird was a Ruff. Nothing else seems to fit the bird. I asked for opinions on the bird and the unanimous conclusion was that it was indeed a juvenile Ruff.