Comments 2001

Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society

Status & Comments
Year 2001

2-2001 - Black-throated Blue Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	20 May 2002	Accept	Well described. Good photo.
Steven H.	22 Oct 2001	Accept
Ronald R.	20 May 2002	Accept	Convincing photo.
Terry S.	11 Dec 2001	Accept	While this is my own submission I feel confident in the I.D.
Mark S.	21 Sep 2001	Accept	Great description & photo.
Steven S.	4 Sep 2001	Accept	Nice photo.
Merrill W.	18 Oct 2001	Accept	Nice photo; good description.

3-2001 - Glaucous-winged Gull

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	20 May 2002	N Acc	A very well documented record. The gull in the photograph appears to me to be a hybrid. Although this gull shows many Glaucous-winged Gull characteristics, the large head (relative to body) and the very heavy bill (long and stout) suggest it may be a Glaucous-winged X Western hybrid.
2nd round	7 Nov 2002	Acc	As I stated on the Glaucous-winged Gull record 4-2001, I've changed by position on the hybridization issue. I agree with Mark's assessment "failing other evidence, if the bird does not show intermediate characters, I think we should assume it's not a hybrid". I still think the large head relative to body size, and very strong bill may indicate prior mixing with W. Gull. However, lacking other typical hybrid characteristics, I vote to accept as Glaucous-winged Gull.
3rd round	8 Jan 2003	Acc	I again vote to accept this record
Steven H.	22 Oct 2001	Acc
2nd round	10 Jul 2002	N, ID	This record is tough. The bird in the photo looks like a Glaucous-winged Gull but is too dark, even for a western/glaucous-winged hybrid. I would expect the photo to be a little dark, given the weather conditions and time of day, but the bird still seems to be too dark to be a Glaucous-winged.
3rd round	21 Nov 2002	Acc	While this bird appears to be darker than any glaucous-winged gull I have observed, all other field marks are consistent with this species including head and bill size (I've observed some with larger bills). Uniform plumage coloration would eliminate most hybrids.
Ronald R.	4 Jun 2002	Acc	Between the photos and written information, this is well documented. I feel the primary color not showing a darker color than the rest of the wings and back suggests that this bird is largely (if not fully) a glaucous-winged gull. Obvious hybrids I have seen on the west coast certainly show darker tone to the primaries. This species probably does not need to be on the review list.
2nd round	9 Jul 2002	Acc	I am again voting to accept this record. While not quite as convincing as the 4-2001 record, this bird looks largely like a glaucous-winged gull. As Rick points out, it might contain some characteristics of Western Gull and may have some hybridization in its past. However, it clearly has mostly glaucous-winged characteristics. I think we should either call this a glaucous-winged gull or list it as a hybrid. Otherwise it gets lost from the record.
3rd round	2 Jan 2003	Acc	I am voting to accept this record. My comments in the previous two rounds still apply. I also feel that we should send this photo to gull expert(s) for their input. If their assessment is different from the committee's, we should revisit this record.
Terry S.	11 Dec 2001	D	I wish the scanned in photo showed more clearly the uniform color of the tail and primaries with the mantle and the rest of the body. Before this record is consided for acceptance I would appreciate discussion on possible hybridization. We probably need to have some gull experts take a look at the description and photo.
2nd round	12 Jul 2002	N, ID	I believe there is enough question over the purity of this bird that we should not accept it as a Glaucous-winged Gull. A hybrid, yes. The overall relative dark color, the Massive head and huge, stout bill are my main concerns
3rd round	13 Jan 2003	N, ID	We may never know for sure the "essence" of this bird's identity. I believe the lack of obvious intermediate characteristics support a Glaucuos-winged Gull. The overall shape and size of the bird, and the uniform color of the bird (with the primary tips being the same color as the mantle) strongly support a Glaucuos-winged Gull. The overall dark color is not typical, however, and there is concern on the overall shape of the head and the bill. This may fall within the range of variability for this species.... I just don't know. I am voting not to accept this bird as a Glaucuos-winged Gull to note concern reguarding possible hybridization. I plan to submit the photos and narrative discription to Gull experts. I will let you know if we need to revisit this record.
Mark S.	21 Sep 2001	Acc	Excellent description and analysis. The photo appears a bit dark, and the bird looks darker than I would like for a Glaucous-winged, which may be because of the darkness of the photo, although this was also noted by the observer. Overall shape, bill size and shape, and relative color of primaries all support Glaucous-winged. The hybrid issue is difficult to assess, but, failing other evidence, if the bird does not show any intermediate characters, I think we should assume it's not a hybrid.
2nd round	23 Sep 2002	Acc	I'll still vote to accept this one. Although the bird is dark, the overall color is uniform, and, especially important, the primaries are about the same color as the rest of the bird. All of the clear hybrids I've seen in Washington have some variation in the color on the wings and back, and typically show darker primaries and/or tips. The head size may be distorted by the angle of the photo, and the bill, though large for a Glaucous-winged, seems to be small for a Western, and is probably within the range which could be either.
3rd round	9 Jan 2003	Acc	As per my earlier comments . . .
Steven S.	4 Jan 2002	N Acc	The wing tips look just a little to dark but it isn't a good photo. Could this be the same bird as the next record?
2nd round	5 Nov 2002	N, ID	I still think the wings look a little to dark to accept this record as a pure Glaucous-winged Gull. I'd like to error on the side of caution.
3rd round	22 Dec 2002	Acc	When I take the photo off the web page and lighten it up it looks to me now that this bird most likely is a Glaucous-winged Gull. The wing tips do seem to be the same shade as the back. But still the possiblilty of a hybrid possibly can't be totally ruled out but probably enough so to accept this record
Merrill W.	18 Oct 2001	Acc	Good photo of gull.
2nd round	2 Jul 2002	Acc
3rd round	6 Jan 2003	Acc	I accepted it before; and I still vote to accept it.

4-2001 - Glaucous-winged Gull

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	20 May 2002	N Ac	Another very well documented record. Although this gull clearly exhibits many characteristic traits of a Glaucous-winged Gull, and the decription is very thorough including multiple photographs, I cannot rule out that this may be a hybrid 'Olympic' Gull.
2nd round	17 Oct 2002	Acc	I have gradually changed my position on the question of possible hybrids(after much deliberation). As with the origin issue, the genetic purity of an individual bird could always be questioned, particularly with Glaucous-winged Gulls. So, in the case of this gull with no clear hybrid characteristics, I will go with the most likely probability that this is a Glaucous-winged Gull and vote to accept.
Steven H.	22 Oct 2001	Acc
2nd round	10 Jul 2002	N, ID	Another tough one. The bird in the photo appears darker than a Glaucous-winged and is similar to a Glaucous-winged/western hybrid.
Ronald R.	4 Jun 2002	Acc	Between the photos and written information, this is well documented. I feel the primary color not showing a darker color than the rest of the wings and back suggests that this bird is largely (if not fully) a glaucous-winged gull. This species probably does not need to be on the review list.
2nd round	9 Jul 2002	Acc	My previous comments still apply.
Terry S.	11 Dec 2001	D	As with record #3-2001
2nd round	12 Jul 2002	Acc	While the purity of this bird may never be certain, I believe the characteristics observered and captured on film support acceptance.
Mark S.	21 Sep 2001	Acc
2nd round	23 Sep 2002	Acc	This one looks even less like a hybrid than 3-2001.
Steven S.	4 Jan 2002	Acc	This one looks pretty good for this species. I still wonder if this is the same bird as record 3-2001. They are just 6 days apart and the locations are not that far apart.
2nd round	23 Sep 2002	Acc	I still go with my first round vote and comments.
Merrill W.	18 Oct 2001	Acc	I accepted the first one submitted earlier; this one is similar to the earlier one submitted, so to be consistent I vote to accept this one as well.
2nd round	6 Jan 2003	Acc	Tough call, but to be consistent I vote to accept.

5-2001 - Northern Parula

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	20 May 2002	Acc	All key field marks are well-described.
Steven H.	22 Oct 2001	Acc
Ronald R.	4 Jun 2002	Acc	Good description by a very careful observer.
Terry S.	11 Dec 2001	Acc	I feel confident on my I.D given the length of time I observed the bird, the vocalization and my past experience with the species.
Mark S.	21 Sep 2001	Acc	Good description.
Steven S.	8 Oct 2001	Acc	This is a distinctive warbler especially in Spring. Description fits.
Merrill W.	18 Oct 2001	Acc	Good description.

6-2001 - Wandering Tattler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	21 May 2002	Acc	Well described, great photo.
Steven H.	22 Oct 2001	Acc
Ronald R.	20 May 2002	Acc	Good photo and description. Photo eliminates gray-tailed tattler.
Ella S.		Acc	Quite a few observers on this bird. Photo is convincing
Mark S.	21 Sep 2001	Abs	I found this bird, and also have photos. I think Terry's documentation and photos speak for themselves, and I would vote to accept this sighting.
Steven S.	22 Oct 2001	Acc	Aren't photos great!
Merrill W.	18 Oct 2001	Acc	Nice photo; I saw this one as well. No question about its identification.

7-2001 - Cassin's Sparrow

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	21 May 2002	Acc	I accept based on behavior and song.
Steven H.	22 Oct 2001	Acc
Ronald R.	4 Jun 2002	Acc	A good analysis of the key identification issues involved in this sighting. Also an experienced and careful observer. The song of this species is distinctive and very different (and easy to distinquish) from the similarly colored Botteri's sparrow.
Terry S.	11 Dec 2001	Acc	I feel confident on my I.D. on this bird given my previous observation of the species in Wah Wah Valley. Familiarizing myself with the fieldmarks and vocalization helped.
Mark S.	21 Sep 2001	Acc	Good description - the song and flight display are distinctive. Perhaps not surprising given the record from the Wah Wah Valley, and possibly an overlooked species in western Utah valleys.
Steven S.	8 Oct 2001	Acc	Given the previous breeding season record in the same county possibly there exists a small breeding population or attempting to establish a breeding population in W. Utah?
Merrill W.	19 Oct 2001	Acc	Acceptance based on song description.

8-2001 - White-rumped Sandpiper

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	21 May 2002	Acc	All key field marks are well described.
Steven H.	22 Oct 2001	Acc
Ronald R.	4 Jun 2002	Acc	These two submissions are well written, covering the key identification points of this species. Also, seen by careful observers, experienced with Baird's sandpiper.
Terry S.	14 Dec 2001	Acc	The birds were observed in detail. I believe care was taken to rule out Baird,s Sandpiper. Right time of year. There were a number of sightings of White-rumped Sandpiper through out western states this particular spring including Idaho's 4th state record, sightings in Wyoming, and an increased number for Colorado
Mark S.	21 Sep 2001	Acc	Good description, date consistant with other western occurrences
Steven S.	8 Oct 2001	Acc	Apparently these birds were seen by many.
Merrill W.	19 Oct 2001	Acc	I accept both records. [8a-2001]

8a-2001 - White-rumped Sandpiper

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	(see 8-2001)
Steven H.	22 Oct 2001	Acc
Ronald R.	(see 8-2001)
Terry S.	14 Dec 2001
Mark S.	21 Sep 2001	Acc
Steven S.	8 Oct 2001	Acc	Apparently these birds were seen by many.
Merrill W.	19 Oct 2001	Acc	(same as 8-2001)

9-2001 - Curlew Sandpiper

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	21 May 2002	Acc	Well described, and great photograph.
Steven H.	22 Oct 2001	Acc
Ronald R.	4 Jun 2002	Acc	These records (especially with photo) are very convincing and written by careful observers.
Terry S.	14 Dec 2001	Acc
Mark S.	21 Sep 2001	Acc	Photo is clearly Curlew Sandpiper.
Steven S.	22 Oct 2001	Acc
Merrill W.	19 Oct 2001	Acc	Nice photo; adequate description.

10-2001 - Golden-winged Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	21 May 2002	Acc	Adult males are very distinct. In my experience the yellow crown, black auriculars and throat, and large yellow wing patch are immediately noticeable, even with a short view such as this.
2nd round	10 Jul 2002	Acc	Description covers key field marks. It is my experience that even a very short look is adequate to identify this striking warbler. The only warbler that remotely resembles a breeding male Golden-winged is a male Chestnut-sided warbler (yellow crown, black eyeline, black malar, yellow in wings). Six seconds seems like plenty of time for an experienced birder to note enough details to differentiate these quite different species. I would be more concerned with the brevity of the observation if this was a difficult species to indentify.
3rd round	8 Jan 2003	Acc	As described in previous votes, I would be more concerned with the short observation time if this was a difficult identification.
Steven H.	22 Oct 2001	Acc
2nd round	10 Jul 2002	N, ID	This species is very distintive and not easy to confuse with much else, but I'm not comfortable with a 6 second view of only part of the bird. Drawing birds from memory the next day is risky. Was the observed bird the same as the one in the drawing? The crown color is a concern. The few golen-wings I have observed had distinctly yellow foreheads with no orange. This bird may very well have been a Golden-winged Warbler but I'm not totally convinced.
3rd round	13 Jan 2003	Acc	I still have general reservations about accepting sightings based on a very short observation time. However, a distinct species such as this one can be positively ID in only a few seconds. There isn't any species similar to Golden-winged Warbler. I have to assume the drawing submitted is the actual bird observed, so I am voting to accept this record.
Ronald R.	3 Jul 2002	N,ID	While the drawings are quite convincing, I question whether a 6 second observation of part of a bird with which the observer had no experience is sufficient to produce such detailed drawings. I can't say for sure the observer did not see a golden-winged warbler, but the length of observation and partial view of the bird are not sufficient to make a clear determination.
2nd round	9 Jul 2002	N, ID	I vote to again not accept this record, primarily due to the short observation period, partial view of the bird, and the lack of experience of the observer with this species. I also wonder about the orange-yellow color of the crown patch. I have seen many golden-winged warblers in Michingan and Minnesota, but have never seen orange-yellow color on the head. All individuals I recall had pure golden yellow patches with no hint of orange.
3rd round	6 Jan 2003	N, ID	I am voting to reject this record based on the short observation time, lack of observation of the complete bird, and observer's lack of any experience with this species. I feel all three issues together make positive identification uncertain. Whether we adopt a time limit is not completely the issue here. I feel that the incomplete view and the lack of experience with this species in light of the short view are the issues. This is not to say the observer did not see a golden-winged warbler--just that the circumstances are not the best for accepting this record.
Terry S.	14 Dec 2001	Dis	The observer certainly describes a Male Golden-winged Warbler. Seems to have alot of detail including the drawing for such a short 6 second view of the bird but if he is a good observer that's possible. Could he possibly have seen a Black-throated Gray Warbler? I will probably vote to accept if other committee have no problem with this.
2nd round	12 Jul 2002	N, ID	The brevity of the observation and only partial description of the bird are my primary reasons for rejection.
3rd round	16 Jan 2003	Acc	I,ve gone back and forth on this record. The brevity of the observation and only partial desciption are concerns. I have to assume the bird drawn was the one observed,however,and given the distinctness of this species my final vote is to accept the record.
Mark S.	21 Sep 2001	Acc	A Good drawing, this species is distinctive. I'm a little concerned about accepting such a brief and incomplete view, so if the sense of the committee is to not accept on these grounds, I'd be willing to go with the majority. I somewhat reluctantly accept.
2nd round	23 Sep 2002	N, ID	This is still a tough call, but perhaps we need to establish a standard that brief, incomplete looks are not sufficient for birds this rare. I do, however, have a hard time imagining what it might have been mistaken for.
3rd round	9 Jan 2003	N,ID	I'll stay with my second-round vote, based upon the brief and incomplete view.
Steven S.	25 Oct 2001	Acc	Nice drawings, can't refute the drawings if that's what the observer saw!
2nd round	5 Nov 2002	Acc	This is a rather distinctive species with a fairly well written description and a drawing that can't be refuted. There has been a question raised about accepting rarities with very brief observation times. I think this needs to be addressed on a case by case basis. Very distinctive birds, such as this one, can be instantly recognized in a matter of seconds. As a point of matter, I only saw the Lawrence's Goldfinch for about 10 secs. but it was obvious what it was. When there are no other really similar spieces to consider a quick view can be good enough. Now there is also the other possibility that an inexpiernced observer can be way off, but unless an observers ability is known by the committee it's not fair to vote solely on that.
3rd round	8 Jan 2003	Acc	Same reasoning as before.
Merrill W.	19 Oct 2001	Acc	This is pretty risky accepting a sighting such as this based on a six second observation. However, the drawing is detailed and depicts, accurately I think, the key fieldmarks on this species.
2nd round	6 Jan 2003	Acc	Still have problem with length of time. Jon Dunn or Kenn Kaufmann stated that to accept a bird on such a limited amount of observation time is very risky, and should not be accepted. I tend to agree. Eric is a carefull observer, and I voted to accept this as a valid species on the first round. However, if we want to establish a time criteria (in spite of observer competence), then I would have to vote against accepting this record. But, since we haven't established a time criteria as a records committee, and since most on the committee have voted to accept it, then, in order to speed things up, I will vote to accept it; but with great reservations
3rd round	22 Jan 2003	Acc	I still like the drawing. And like Ron stated, it isn't so much a time issue (although down the line in order to be consistent, we ought to address the time frame issue)as it is accuracy with the identification. So I voted to accept.

11-2001 - Least Tern

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	21 May 2002	Acc	All key fields marks adequately described.
Steven H.	22 Oct 2001	Acc
Ronald R.	3 Jul 2002	Acc	This is a good, careful description and rules out other species
Terry S.	14 Dec 2001	Acc	description fits Least Tern ( size, bill, tail,head markings). Description of wing pattern would have been helpful. Time of year of sighting is interesting.
Mark S.	21 Sep 2001	Acc	Good description- could have said something about the flight style, which is distinctive, but it doesn't seem that this bird flew much while being observed.
Steven S.	25 Oct 2001	Acc	The description seems to eliminate any other tern other than Least.
Merrill W.	19 Oct	Acc	Good description

12-2001 (13-2001)- Ruff

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	31 May 2002	Acc	Very thorough descriptions.
2nd round	2 Oct 2002	Acc	Very good descriptions.
Steven H.	22 Oct 2001	Acc
2nd round	17 Sep 2002	Acc	Good description with second report.
Ronald R.	20 May 2002	Disc	I would like to know if the photos of Mark Stackhouse are available for review before voting on these submissions.
2nd round	2 Jan 2003	Acc	The descriptions were sufficient to accept this species, especially the second submission. The bird was also seen and identified by many observers. I also looked at the photo in NA Birds. We should have this in our records--even a copy from NA Birds would be nice.
Terry S.	19 Dec 2001	Acc	There were two observations submitted. while the first observer documentation was weak the second observer was convincing in the detail given and eliminating similar species.
2nd round	21 Sep 2002	Acc	If photos are availabe for this record it would sure be nice considering this would be a first state record.
Mark S.	15 Sep 2002	Acc	I also saw this bird and concur with the I.D. and the description. I have photos of this bird, which I'll submit when I get the time to write it up.
2nd round	13 Jan 2003	Acc	I've finally sent my photos to Milton.
Steven S.	4 Jan 2002	Acc	To bad the photos aren't with the record yet.
2nd round	22 Dec 2002	Acc	The photo was in North American Birds. But it still would be nice to get it into our records.
Merrill W.	22 Oct 2001	Acc	I accept both accounts of this species.
2nd round	6 Jan 2003	Acc	I accepted this one before; I support it again.

14-2001 (15-2001, 14b-2001)- Prairie Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	21 May 2002	Acc	Since I saw this bird (after considerable effort) and submitted one of the records, I feel absolutely certain it was a Prairie Warbler. In addition, all three descriptions are consistent on key characters. Please let me know if the correct protocol is to abstain from voting on your own records.
Steven H.	22 Oct 2001	Acc
Ronald R.	7 Jul 2002	Acc	Good descriptions by three indepent observers.
Terry S.	19 Dec 2001	Acc	Three very good observations submitted.
Mark S.	15 Sep 2002	Acc	Good descriptions by all three observers, however, I did note differences as to the interpretations of the colors seen (whitish vs. yellowish eye crescents; gray vs. green upperparts) - interesting, but not critical to the I.D. Rick's drawing of the tail pattern was useful for eliminating Magnolia. Streaked flanks, facial pattern and completely yellow underparts eliminate most of the other possibilities.
Steven S.	22 Oct 2001	Acc
Merrill W.	5 Oct 2001	Acc	Guess I'm biased because I submitted this record, but I saw the bird as it has been described, especially the dark streaking on the flanks. The following day about five other birders observed the bird as well.

16-2001 - Black Swift

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	21 May 2002	Acc
Steven H.	22 Oct 2001	Acc
Ronald R.	20 May 2002	Acc	Good description. This is a regularly occurring species in Utah (although rare) and probably does not need review although the nesting record is interesting.
Terry S.	19 Dec 2001	Acc	Very careful observation and good literature review.
Mark S.	21 Oct 2001	Acc	This species probably doesn't need to be reviewed, but this was a nice contribution by Merrill which certainly advances our knowledge of it's occurance in Utah.
Steven S.	25 Oct 2001	Acc	If this is a nesting species in Utah and records go back in time this shouldn't be a review species.
Merrill W.	5 Oct 2001	Acc	I spent a lot of time going after this bird--six trips just to Stewart Falls. When I finally found the bird it was just a great relief. All the characteristics of the Black Swift were present, and based on the characteristics I observed on the bird on the nest it was a juvenile Black Swift.

17-2001 - Magnolia Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	21 May 2002	Acc	good description and photo
Steven H.	22 Oct 2001	Acc
Ronald R.	20 May 2002	Acc	Photo convincing.
Terry S.	14 Dec 2001	Acc	Photo convincing enough
Mark S.	21 Oct 2001	Acc	This one's obvious.
Steven S.	22 Oct 2001	Acc
Merrill W.	22 Oct 2001	Acc	Nice photo.

18-2001 - Magnificent Hummingbird

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	21 May 2002	Acc	All key field marks of adult female Magnificent Hummingbird are well described.
Steven H.	22 Oct 2001	Acc
Ronald R.	7 Jul 2002	Acc	I am voting to accept this species based on large size, the description of the bird having a disproportionately long bill, and the bird having small outer tail spots. These features are a bit subjective, and indication that the tail was green and not blackish would have additionally eliminated blue-throated (perhaps the description of the "golden-green" back included the tail). The uniformly gray, unmarked underparts are more like blue-throated, but the fine marking of the magnificant are not always easy to see.
Terry S.	19 Dec 2001	Acc	Very good documentation especially in eliminating other possible species
Mark S.	21 Oct 2001	Acc	Good description - size, dark gray underparts, and small white tail corners eliminate all the other possibilities.
Steven S.	25 Oct 2001	Acc	I guess I have to accept this one.
Merrill W.	22 Oct 2001	Acc	Accept with some hesitancy.

19-2001 - Eurasian Wigeon

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	21 May 2002	N Acc	Although he probably saw an Eurasian Wigeon, I believe this record lacks sufficient detail for acceptance.
2nd round	2 Oct 2002	N ID	Inadequate description.
Steven H.	16 Jan 2002	N Acc	It's hard to evaluate a record without a description or photo, no matter how obvious the bird might be.
2nd round	17 Sep 2002	N ID	Still no description on which to evaluate.
Ronald R.	20 May 2002	N Acc	Minimal description of the bird was given. It is likely the bird was a European widgeon, but the submission was not adequate to make this determination.
2nd round	2 Jan 2003	N, ID	First round comments still apply.
Terry S.	1 Jan 2001	N Acc	While this probably will not be a review Species much longer the detail given in describing the bird was not adequate for acceptance.
2nd round	21 Sep 2002	N, ID	same as with first round
Mark S.	15 Sep 2002	Acc	I reluctantly vote to accept - the description was inadequate, though I don't doubt the I.D. A more unusual record would have to be rejected for insufficient details in the description.
2nd round	13 Jan 2003	N, ID	I'll go with the rest of the committee on rejecting this due to inadequate documentation.
Steven S.	2 Nov 2001	N Acc	A record (no matter how likely it is to be good) cannot be accepted when the only written description is "very obvious". There are several records of hybrids with American Wigeons from N.Amer. and from what little description is given under similar species this cannot be ruled out.
2nd round	11 Oct 2002	N, ID	First round comments says it all.
Merrill W.	5 Dec 2001	N Acc	The species may have been "obvious" to the viewer, but the description of this species was woefully lacking in any kind of detail. Nothing to base approval of this sighting on.
2nd round	6 Jan 2003	N, ID	Not enough information to accept this.

20-2001 - Red-throated Loon

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	31 May 2002	Acc
Steven H.	16 Jan 2002	Acc
Ronald R.	9 Jul 2002	Acc	Very good and careful description. Well distinguished from similar loon species.
Terry S.	1 Jan 2002	Acc	The juvenile described is very distinct. The observer gave a thorough description and carefully ruled out other possible species.
Mark S.	15 Sep 2002	Acc	Good description and comparison with the other loons present.
Steven S.	4 Jan 2002	Acc	I think the bird is well described. The fact that the eye was so clearly in the white and the lack of great contrast between the front and back of neck are good for this species.
Merrill W.	25 Jan 2002	Acc

21-2001 - Brown-capped Rosy-Finch

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	10 Jun 2002	N, ID	Very limited description for acceptance as first state record. Does not adequately rule out females of the other species.
2nd round	2 Oct 2002	N, ID	This description lacks sufficient detail to be accepted as a first state record (as Mark and Steve more eloquently pointed out).
Steven H.	16 Jan 2002	N Acc	Observer had no experience with this species. Some female Gray-crowned RF in winter plumage can appear similar to field guide descriptions of male Brown-capped RF. A first state record needs much better documentation.
2nd round	17 Sep 2002	N, ID	Nothing new to help with ID.
Ronald R.	9 Jul 2002	N, ID	This is a tough bird to ID without individuals of the other species for comparison. Some females and first year birds of gray-crowned and black rosy finches can show no or little crown color. Observation of extensive pink on underparts would have helped, but apparently lighting was poor. Certainly this part of Utah is where this species is most likely to show up. Tough call, but I don't think there is quite enough for definitive identification.
2nd round	2 Jan 2003	N, ID	My comments from the first round still apply.
Terry S.	8 Jan 2001	Dis	While this is a very likley area for this species to show up the description of the bird is weak. No description is given for over all feather pattern of the head other than it had a brown cap. The observer also admits the lighting was such that it was hard to see the colors on the belly.
2nd round	21 Sep 2002	N, ID	Same concerns as with first round
Mark S.	15 Sep 2002	N, ID	I think that it's probable that this was a Brown-capped Rosy-Finch, and I would expect them to occur in this area, even though we have no accepted records in Utah. I'm not sure that the description completely rules out Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch, though it would be early in the year for those to be in SE Utah. For a first state record, I would like to see a better description, with detail of body color, etc., and preferably a photo and descriptions from other observers. This I.D. problem is not very straight-forward, even for experienced observers.
2nd round	13 Jan 2003	N, ID	The description didn't get any better since my last vote.
Steven S.	4 Jan 2002	N Acc	It really is apparent that Utah birders need a lesson on writing rare bird reports. This report cannot be accepted (especially as a first state record) because there basically is no real description of the bird. The full bird needs to be described. The only field marks given are that the bird had a brown cap with a little red on the breast, this could describe a House Finch. Although I think it is likely this observer saw a Brown-capped Rosy-Finch we still need a full description proving that the bird was first a Rosy-Finch and then in fact a Brown-capped. A description, especially of a first state record, needs to stand up 100 years from now to future reviewers.
2nd round	11 Oct 2002	N, ID	Again, insufficent description for a first state record
Merrill W.	25 Jan 2002	D	Note enough information on this description to eliminate other similar species. The only reference was to the crown and to the breast plumage. Would have been helpful to have had more description on other parts of the bird.
2nd round	6 Jan 2003	N, Nat	Information was too sketchy to accept.