BRYANT'S PROPOSAL (from
his email 4 March 2026)
:
So Here is my proposal: Additions in blue
A=Accidental: Species
that are recorded five or fewer times, or fewer than three
records in the past 30 years.
CA=Casual: Species
not recorded annually, but with six or more total
records—including three or more in the past 30
years—reflecting some pattern of occurrence, 2-5 per
decade
O=Occasional: Species
not reported annually, average 6-8 per decade
R=Rare
U=Uncommon
C=Common
I=Irruptive: Irruptive-present
some years, but absent or scarce other years
X=Extirpated
Bryant's Original email from
4 March 2026
Sorry for the late reply everyone. So again
let me go over the new codes and why I think we need them
My 1st issue is with our use of the term
Accidental on the checklist. We've been using that term
rather loosely as a catch all for many review species, but
since this term is widely used by the ABA, if were going to
use that term we need to follow their definition IMO which
is
Accidental. Species that are recorded five or fewer times in
the Area, or fewer than three records in the past 30 years.
This comes down to an average of less than 1
a decade.
ABA has a Casual code for birds that are less
than annual but more than 1 per decade.
Casual.
Species not recorded annually in the Area, but with six or
more total records—including three or more in the past 30
years—reflecting some pattern of occurrence
Our current usage we are calling many birds
that are Casual as Accidental, which is misleading, and
using Occasional to partially fill the Casual term
We could just continue to use Occasional as a
synonym Casual, however many birds on our list that are
currently listed as Accidental are by ABA Definition Casual.
Example: We list all 3 Jaeger species as
Accidental. That implies they all are seen less than 1 per
decade and are all equally unlikely therefore. However if
you actually look at the records they tell a different
story:
Parasitic: Reported annually the past 7
years, and over 20 in the past decade. There actual status
should be Rare,
expected annually
Long-tailed-reported every year the past 5
years, and 9 total in the past 10 years. Actual status is Occasional,
reported most years but not annual
Pomarine-4 in the past 10 years, 7 in the
past 30 years. That is not even Accidental, that would be Casual by
ABA Definition
Jaegers are not all equally unlikely,
Parasitic is the most expected, but there are enough
Long-tailed records you have to be certain of the ID to make
sure. Pomarine should only be considered if the other 2 can
be ruled out without a doubt.
I'm hoping people will actually use the
checklist as a guide to help them understand the likelihood,
but as it is now it's just saying, all Jaegers are equally
out of range here, which isn't true or helpful. That's why I
think we need more codes with actual definitions, to help
people understand the likelihood
So here is my proposal: Additions in blue
A=Accidental: Species
that are recorded five or fewer times, or fewer than three
records in the past 30 years.
CA=Casual: Species not
recorded annually, but with six or more total
records—including three or more in the past 30
years—reflecting some pattern of occurrence, 2-5 per decade
O=Occasional: Species
not reported annually, average 6-8 per decade
R=Rare
U=Uncommon
C=Common
I=Irruptive: Irruptive-present
some years, but absent or scarce other years
X=Extirpated
Irruptive is a commonly used term in many
books and checklists, and helps observers understand why
some year they are all over the place and common, but other
years they are not present. AKA Short-eared Owls, Redpolls,
Bohemian Waxwing
X=Extirpated. All the checklists Milt sent us have the X
code, so it's normal practice for BRC to publish that I
might expand on that to include XN, which would mean
formerly nested but now no longer nesting. Veery is a great
example, old records indicate they once were a common
nesting bird in the Wasatch and Uintas, but last nesting
record was in the 90's and now they are Casual or Accidental
here, that's a big change in status and something we need to
track and note. They still nest in ID,WY and CO.
Most Records Committees review Accidental and
Casual species in their states.
Here's the link again to the document with
updates
Discussion & Vote procedure:
Vernon's email form March 10th:
RESULTS OF THE VOTE ON
THE CHECKLIST UPDATE
The Committee voted to consider changes to the
Checklist Codes:
- 6 -
Consider code changes
- 1 - Keep the codes
- 2 - Did not vote
According the bylaws,
"Changes to the checklist may be proposed by any Member of the
Committee" and "Proposed changes will be voted on by the
Voting Members and accepted by majority vote."
(See Bryant's
proposal above - from
his email 4 March 2026)
During the recent vote, I received some feedback related to
Bryant's proposal: (1) "I think people will be confused by
additional codes." (2) "I believe that adding more codes will
get confusing for regular checklist users.
PLAN
What I would like to do is open this up for discussion by
Committee Members. The plan is to vote on the changes within
two weeks on 24 March 2026. Please ask questions, clarify,
recommend modifications, or to make an alternate proposal.
However, if anyone has new proposals, please propose them in
the first week to allow time for discussion. During the second
week as we get closer to the vote, I will present the option
or options for the Committee to vote on. So, expect another
email before the vote.
Thanks all for your involvement, and for your patience with
this lengthy email.
Vernon
DISCUSSION:
(From latest comments to
earlier comments)
(Seethe
proposal at the top of this page)
Kevin Wheeler email
from:16 March
I tend to lean more toward Vernon's thoughts on the checklist;
that it
should be kept simple for birders of any level to understand
and use. It is
just a checklist. Bryant is correct in saying it needs to be
accurate and
useful and I support any effort to do that.
I do think, though, that some of Bryant's ideas exceed the
scope of a
checklist's purpose. These include different groupings of
frequency
occurrence. Experienced birders should expect to look for this
information
on ebird or other sources (Utah Birds website, breeding bird
atlas, "where
to find birds" books, etc). I note that some other states'
checklists
merely list whether a species is a review species or not,
without denoting
anything about frequency or abundance (and have not even
attempted to
include seasonality or specific geographical areas as Utah
has). This
includes birdy states like California:
https://www.californiabirds.org/checklist.asp,
Florida:
https://fosbirds.org/fos-bird-checklist/,
Texas:
https://www.texasbirdrecordscommittee.org/texas-state-list,
and Arizona:
https://arizonabirdcommittee.org/ABC/lists/state_list_2024.html.
Other
states, including Nevada: https://www.gbbo.org/nevada-state-checklist and
Washington: https://wos.org/records/checklist/ merely
have a list of birds.
While it would be great if someone published detailed accounts
of each
common or rare species, including when and where to find them
in Utah, that
information would likely become outdated quickly.
Hence my vote to keep it simple.
Kevin
Vernon White email
from March 11
I am not a voting member of the Records Committee and I can't
make a
proposal to vote on, but I will take advantage of my access to
the
Committee to express some thoughts about the codes. The first
thing that
struck me about being involved the URBC is that the Committee
owns
itself, owns the checklist, owns the review list, and the
whole process
of review. You answer to nobody else. Even stranger, each
state has a
committee that does it's own thing in their own way. This
Committee can
do whatever it decides, even as far as altering its own
bylaws.
The second thing I see is the wonderfully "nerdy" passion the
Committee
members have for the actual process and science of identifying
rare
birds. That focus is exactly as it should be. You all would be
a lot
more eager to chime in if confronted with a photo of a
Red-flanked
Bluetail than with changing codes on a checklist. So as an
average
(mediocre) birder, I'll try to make a few points trying to
persuade the
Committee to a simpler, more practical checklist.
* CHECKLISTS as in the folded pieces of paper we kept in our
pockets,
crammed with every species in the state, are now largely
historical.
But they WERE very cool. Space on that page was a premium and
we
used single letter codes to inform birders in the field about
the
probability of seeing that bird in our state. It is rare now
to find
a checklist in anyone's pocket, but birders of every stage,
beginner
to expert, now "connect" and "click" their way to lists.
* WHO IS THE AUDIENCE for the Checklist? For beginners and
most
birders, the single-letter codes that represent vague
separations in
the abundance of rare birds are overwhelming and maybe
"off-putting." Increasing the categories will be even more
confusing. I would argue for fewer categories rather than
more. With
online lists, we have space for a short word, and we don't
have to
"stick to" single letter codes.
* COMMON, I like this category. Its intuitive and useful. If I
see a
bird that is anything other than common, I will take a second
more
critical look.
* UNCOMMON. I don't like this category because it is rarely
useful
unless qualified (as with the ABA Code-2) as "restricted
range" (for
example Washington County), "low density," "secretive," or
inaccessible habitat. Those are useful facts, but more for
someone
seeking out a specific bird, than someone keeping a list of
birds
they saw.
* RARE. Meaning seen annually but in low numbers. I like this
category. Everyone gets excited by a rare sighting.
Identifying a
rare bird make birding funner.
* STATUS CODES of Permanent (P), Summer (S), Winter (W), and
Migrant
(M) are useful Codes although they make the make the list
harder to
read when the the seasonal populations vary.
* OCCASIONAL, CASUAL, ACCIDENTAL, and IRRUPTIVE. As an average
birder,
I find these codes more distracting than helpful. Only
Accidental
has an intuitive meaning. Used here, these are esoteric
categories
for different levels of rareness, they are typically only
useful to
expert birders who are seeking out birds that have
been reported by
others. I would eliminate them all.
* REVIEW LIST. It is an absolute requirement that the State
and the
Committee have a list of birds that should be reviewed. The
list
should clearly indicate and encourage reporting of appropriate
species. With review birds I would leave off the seasonal
codes. We
have the data on accepted sightings, and we have space on
checklists
to include a numerical number per time period on the list
without
resorting to a code. For example, the American Black Duck
could be
identified as "Rev (12 since 1938)" or "Review (12 in 88yr)."
I can't propose a change, but here I go. My recommendation
would be like
this:
* Leave P, S, W, M Codes, or just use permanent, summer,
winter, migrant
* Common
* Rare
* Review - with data in parentheses as above updated at least
yearly.
So a random section of the list might look like this:
* Mallard Common Permanent
* Mexican Duck Review (14 since 2018)
* American Black Duck Review (12 since 1938)
* Northern Pintail Common Summer, Rare Winter
* Green-winged Teal Common Permanent
* Canvasback Common Migrant, Rare Summer &
Winter
...
Vernon
Bryant: (11 Feb 2026)
Vernon et al
I started birding in the analog age before the internet and I
had a couple books that I always cross referenced and maked up
with my sightings and had a copy of a 4 cassette tapes series,
'Stoke's Birds calls of North America' which I would listen to
to learn bird calls. When I traveled I collected the local
checklist pamphlets at all the NWR, National and State Parks
that I visited and read them carefully. All of the codes that
I'm proposing were actually inspired by those checklists and
I've seen all of them used. It is confusing because every
entity seems to have their own terms, but they would usually
do a good job keying them out at the top of the checklist to
make the checklist useful. I do remember seeing lots of
errors, and being the skeptic that I am, I would always cross
reference those with range maps in books. Some were great and
helpful, others a complete disaster with inaccurate misleading
information.
Our job is not just to create a simplified checklist that
beginners can understand, but to create an accurate checklist
that is useful to people of all different skill levels, and
help everyone understand the when, where and likelihood of a
species being seen in Utah. With the digital age and eBird, it
has revolutionised our understanding of birds, and its become
apparent that many species that we once considered one off
accidental vagrants actually have a more frequent pattern of
occurrence than we thought(Sabine's Gull is a great example)
and armed with a little understanding of those patterns, a
beginner or intermediate birder can now much more quickly move
into the advanced realms of birding. Take MaKay Olson, 2 years
ago no one had ever heard of him, but armed with knowledge
from our records and eBird ,he suddenly appeared and broke the
big year record! That wouldn't have been possible 30 years ago
for a beginner to do in 2 years, so we shouldn't assume a
beginner is not capable of understanding advanced terms like
Accidental, Casual or whatever we chose to use. I do think it
is very important we put accurate frequency and seasonal data
on the occurrence of birds on our checklist, so that anyone
can understand when and where to look for that species, even
the vagrants. Birds don't just occur randomly, there is a
degree of probability in season and habitat and if that
probability can be understood it can greatly increase the
likelihood of finding that species again. Today's beginners
are tomorrow's voting committee members.
Another big daunting task before us is that we are living in
an age of rapid change, the scale of which the world hasn't
seen before in any of our lifetimes. Birds are actually better
suited for change than most other species but nevertheless
many species are showing strong declines and are at risk. I
also work with various conservation organizations doing bird
monitoring so we can, if nothing else, have strong clear data
to track those declines, and to hopefully inform policy
decisions. As a committee, it's important we be at the
forefront of analysing that data to keep an accurate list of
the changing status of birds, and we should expect more birds
to go the way of the Inca Dove and we need ways of
communicating that changing status to the public at large. So,
we should expect frequent revision of the status of birds and
need tools to help us do that.
One more thing, I know many of us are very busy with our field
season just starting to get going, meaning many of us will
have less time to do UBRC work in the next few weeks and
months. So I think we will need more time to go over these
proposed checklist changes and it may take a few months to get
things finalysed. So I'm requesting more time to chew on this,
maybe a soft deadline in June?
Pre-final proposal discussion:
Bryant: (12 Feb 2026)
Just to give some context, I think it's important we use
codes that are understandable and usable to the general
public, which is why it is important to define them. Here are
ABA definitions:
ABA Code-5 (Accidental) refers to bird species with five or
fewer total records in the American Birding Association (ABA)
Area, or fewer than three records within the past 30 years
ABA Code 4 (Casual) designates bird species not recorded
annually in the ABA Area, typically with six or more total
records and at least three in the past 30 years.
ABA has no "Occasional" code, however I think it's useful to
say less expectional than Casual, but still not seen every
year. Such as Black-and-white Warbler.
It seems we were using Accidental to also refer to Casual, by
ABA definitions.
It is a soft line between rare and uncommon, and between
uncommon and common. There are many shades of gray and I
personally use finer scale terms like
Very Rare
Rare
Fairly Rare
Very Uncommon
Locally uncommon
Generally Uncommon
Somewhat uncommon
fairly common
Locally common
Generally common
Abundant
But I don't think we need to do that. But a definition of what
is "Rare" and what is "Uncommon" is needed, which is where the
"no more than ten per year" came from to draw that line, but
open to discussion on that.If a bird is resident and present,
but hard to find like many owls, rails or Ptarmigan, I think
Uncommon works better than Rare, rare implies a degree of
randomness and uncertainty, rather than just difficult to
detect.
As far as seasonal status. eBird has increased the data and
reportes exponentially, and our climate is changing rapidly,
and bird populations are adjusting accordingly, and many of my
changes reflect that. But it's meant to be a working document,
please add your edits in your own color and eventually we can
get a point to vote on it
I added a column for original status and a column for notes on
status so we can explain why the change in status
Milt - (12 Fec 2026)
It looks like we're going to have to decide on the codes
(Status and abundance), before we start suggesting changes in
the codes on the checklist.
I checked out Bryant's suggestions and find that we would have
3 abundance codes that would all be applicable for species on
the Review List. (O, L and A). We do have actual numbers of
sightings we've documented for these species, but it doesn't
make much sense to split that finely for those records, as far
as I'm concerned. Out "general" rule for Review Species it
less than 20 sighting in the previous 10 years ("average
two or fewer times per year in each of the ten years
immediately preceding revision of the Review List"). Almost
all of the Review Species on our checklist are designated as
"A" (Which would mean
"Less
than 1 reported in a 10 year period, or less than 5 in the
past 50 years", if the new designation were to be
adopted. (We'd certainly have to change those designations --
we've documented those sightings).
The problem with putting numbers of sightings per period, on
the checklist is that they would vary in meaning with the
difficulty in locating and in ID'ing each individual species.
That's why the "in general" is in the bylaws for the
"suggested line" for review species, is on there, I believe.