Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society
   
Status & Comments
Year 2006 (records 16 to 30)

  
2006-15 Red-shouldered Hawk

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 26 May 2006 Acc Very vague description, but I guess the 'black-and-white striped wings' is diagnostic.
Ronald R. 16 Jun 2006 No, ID The description of the bird is insufficient to determine whether this was a red-shouldered hawk or not. The similar species account adds some detail missing from the overall description, but I feel the description is still insufficient for acceptance. This species is not listed on the review list--why is this record being reviewed?
Terry S. 15 Apr 2006 Acc The bright red underparts including underwings along with the the black and white tail banding all sound good for a Red-shouldered Hawk.
Mark S. 12 Apr 2006 Acc This is a pretty sparse, but barely adequate, description.
I'm puzzled by why Broad-winged Hawk was not considered among the similar species. However, I think there's enough in this description to eliminate it, based upon the wing markings. A Broad-winged Hawk does not have as prominently reddish wing-linings or as strong black stripes as the Red-shouldered, and I feel the description better fits Red-shouldered. But I could be convinced that this was not adequately covered to call the record into question.
Larry T. 5 Jun 2006 Acc I didn't think we were reviewing this bird anymore.
Merrill W. 12 Apr 2006 No, ID No mention of size. No mention of behavior. Description just too sketchy for my liking.
David W. 12 Apr 2006 Acc I think the observer did an ample job eliminating other species, especially by noting tail pattern, red color, and absence of
"ptagial line" [sic]. HOWEVER, I am dismayed by the sloppy & careless nature of the submission, including confusingly vague punctuation and typos. Some of my specific observations are as follows:

#1 Many parts of the bird are described as "bright red". I could understand a description like "reddish brown", "reddish", or even "bright rufous" for this species, but "bright red" is a description better fitting a Cardinal, Summer tanager, or Vermillion flycatcher.

#2 The bird was described as having "tails". Presumably, this is a typo.

#3 The bird was described as having red "under tail". Presumably, he meant undertail coverts, as the underside of the tail is not red in this species.

#4 The body was described as being the same color as the body. I have no idea what the observer meant, and can only hope that the actual intended comparison was consistent with a Red-shouldered hawk.

#5 I am surprised that the black & white checker pattern on the flight feathers, an obvious and striking feature of the species, was not noted.

#6 I am disappointed that a Broad-winged hawk was not one of the hawks addressed under the Similar Species section, as it is rather similar to a Red-shouldered hawk. However, the striped wings should eliminate that possibility.

The above points made the acceptance of this species troubling for me, especially taken as a whole. I do not know or question the observer's birding skills, but I wonder whether an individual who can't be bothered to take the time to be more careful with his submission can be fully trusted to submit an accurate record.

  

2006-16 Broad-winged Hawk

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 26 May 2006 Acc Brief descriptions, convincing photos
Ronald R. 16 Jun 2006 Acc The description was very limited, but the photos help to distinguish this species. It seems this species could be removed from the review list.
Terry S. 3 May 2006 Acc An great sighting! The observer over the past several years has photographed quite a few Broad-winged Hawks.
Mark S. 26 Apr 2006 Acc I really don't like records that come with photos only and essentially no written description - but the photos clearly show
Broad-winged Hawks. Should we ask for more specific details on when and where each bird was? Before we pass this on, should we assume that these are all different birds, or do we need to ask the observer to explain the behavior to be sure we have five different birds?
Larry T. 5 Jun 2006 Acc I would agree with Mr. Liguori about the need to review this bird.
Merrill W. 1 May 2006 Acc Good description accompanied by definitive photos.
David W. 27 Apr 2006 Acc Remarkable record so far as the number of birds observed.

Photos were very helpful.

  

2006-17 Painted Redstart

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 26 May 2006 Acc Another very sparse (but diagnostic) description, nice photos. We observed a pair of Painted Redstarts on a nest in this area on May 7, 2006.
Ronald R. 8 May 2006 Acc Adequate photos (despite minimal written description) of a very distinct species.
Terry S. 3 May 2006 Acc Good Photos
Mark S. 29 Apr 2006 Acc Kind of sparce in the description, but the photos show Painted Redstart. Location becoming traditional.
Larry T. 5 Jun 2006 Acc  
Merrill W. 1 May 2006 Acc Photos were definitive; description adequate. Plus, this seems to be where this species has been observed every year for the last four-five years. Interesting to know if it is the same pair.
Correction on the elevation listed. It isn't 7,000 feet--more like 3000--3500 feet.
David W. 2 May 2006 Acc It is amazing how this bird (or tiny population) keeps coming back year after year to the same spot in Zion NP.

The description is truly minimal (though diagnostic with such a colorful bird), but the photos are great.

  

2006-18 Ruddy Turnstone

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 26 May 2006 Acc Convincing description.
Ronald R. 16 Jun 2006 Acc While the view was not optimal, the described field marks eliminate all other species of shorebirds.
Terry S. 8 May 2006 Acc Even though the bird was seen at a distance, dignostic markings were noted.
Mark S. 8 May 2006 Acc It's unfortunate that the lighting wasn't better - it's hard to be certain with such a distant view with heat-waves, and I
cautiously vote to accept this record. It's lucky that it's such a distinctive bird, and the observer reports just enough of the field marks to eliminate other shorbirds. I just can't imagine what else might fit the description.
Larry T. 5 Jun 2006 Acc  
Merrill W. 25 May 2006 Acc Description of head and back effectively eliminated other shorebirds.
David W. 9 May 2006 Acc Although I wish the observer had dealt with the possibility of a female Wilson's phalarope (which is similar to the described bird in size, ruddy back, white hindcrown, and dark band across breast--which at that distance could have seemed black), the behavior described should eliminate that possibility.

  

2006-19 Red-necked Grebe

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 26 May 2006 Acc Very thorough description.
Ronald R. 25 Jul 2006 Acc Excellent description and photo.
Terry S. 1 Jun 2006 Acc An excellent descriptive narrative.
Mark S. 13 Jul 2006 Acc Excellent description - photo shows a Red-necked Grebe.
Larry T. 10 Jul 2006 Acc Doesn't get any easier than this one.
Merrill W. 25 May 2006 Acc Pretty close to misidentify this species.  All fieldmarks adequately described plus the observer eliminated other possible grebes.
David W. 6 Jun 2006 Acc Very complete record, as one would expect from Kristin.

  

2006-20 Prothonotary Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 11 Jun 2006 Acc This description is incredibly brief, but I guess it touches on the key features for this distinctive warbler.

2nd round

 31 Jul 2006 Acc  
Ronald R. 25 Jul 2006 No, ID The description was inadequate to determine identification as a prothonotary warbler. A resubmission would be nice, but it was seen 6 years ago.

2nd round

 31 Jul 2006 No, ID I still feel this description is too brief for acceptance. In addtion, the field marks described are also not fully accurate:
Prothonotary warbler has blue-gray wings, not upperparts as described, the head is entirely bright orange-yellow, not just the face. As described, the bird is not safely distinguished from a first winter female magnolia warbler. While I believe the observer likely saw a Prothonotary Warbler, I don't feel the record is sufficient to describe this species.
Terry S. 1 Jun 2006 Acc This is an adequate description that eliminates other faintly similar species

2nd round

 7 Sep 2006 Acc  
Mark S. 13 Jul 2006 Acc Pretty limited description of a distinctive species from a very experienced observer. How to vote? I'll vote to accept based upon the idea that it would be hard for such an experienced observer to mistake this species.

2nd round

 19 Oct 2006 No, ID It looks like this record is headed for passage, so this vote won't "count," but I'm swayed by Ron's arguments that the description could easily apply to a first fall female Magnolia (enhanced by a month of looking at them here in Veracruz). I still think it would be difficult for such an experienced observer to mistake this identification, however, I have to admit that if I voted to accept, it would be based solely on the observer's experience, and that my previous vote to accept was also mostly due to my knowledge of the observer, and not on the evidence as presented. I don't think that we should put that much weight on the observer's experience.
Larry T. 10 Jul 2006 Acc Maybe getting on the late side for this species but I think it's ok. A easy bird to ID with a good look.

2nd round

 12 Sep 2006 Acc  
Merrill W. 17 Jul 2006 Acc Adequate description even if it is being submitted after the fact.  Still important to consider, especially for that part of the state.

2nd round

 29 Sep 2006 Acc I still vote to accept this record based on the adequate description.
David W. 31 May 2006 Acc Good description. I am very troubled by the fact that this record is from memory 5.5 yrs after the sighting, but the description is very good.

2nd round

 1 Aug 2006 Acc I wish the observer had mentioned whether the bird had wing bars or not, which is a basic field mark in warblers. I think Ron brings up an interesting possibility with the winter female Magnolia, but I wouldn't describe that species as ever having a bright yellow face.

 

2006-21 Painted Bunting

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 11 Jun 2006 Acc Another ridiculously brief description, but there is no  other bird with a blue head, green wings, and red undersides. Timing is consistent with vagrant Painted Buntings observed in neighboring states. (These 'partial' records are very difficult to review, should we consider some minimum standards for records that we review?).

2nd round

 31 Jul 2006 Acc Although this is a very brief description, the coloration described is distinctive. As to natural occurrence, have any of you ever met anyone who had a Painted Bunting as a pet?
Ronald R. 25 Jul 2006 No, ID This record does not contain sufficient detail to determine whether this bird was a painted bunting. The color pattern was
consistent with this species, but I feel more detail on overall shape, bill shape, and color pattern are necessary for sufficient documentation.

2nd round

 31 Jul 2006 No, ID As in with my first comments, I still feel the description is too brief. I also agree with Mark, Larry and Merrill that the bird
may be an escaped cage bird.
Terry S. 1 Jun 2006 Acc This is a rather sparse description for a state first record. This a very distinctive species, however, and the observer is very
familiar with the species.

The record should be accepted as "Hypothetical" until physical documentation for this species is submitted and accepted by the Records Committee.

2nd round

 7 Sep 2006 Acc  I don't think this is an escaped caged bird. I have talked to Owen Hogle who runs the Salt Lake Wildbird Center. He is quite familiar with the exotic and wild birds that are kept locally as pets. Even though Painted Buntings may be kept in Mexico, he has never heard of one being kept locally primarily since it is illegal. The date of sighting also coincides with when we would expect to see a vagrant Painted Bunting.
Mark S. 13 Jul 2006 No, Nat I don't really have questions over the i.d. of this bird in spite of an inadequate description but I would like a discussion of the
natural occurance of a male of this species in an urban area with a large immigrant population. This species is commonly kept as a cage bird in Mexico and I wonder about the potential of birds being kept illegally escaping.

2nd round

 19 Oct 2006 No, Nat I don't doubt that Painted Bunting occurs naturally in Utah, but this record seems suspicious to me, and without some evidence of wild origin, I'm reluctant to accept this record.
Larry T. 10 Jul 2006 No, Nat I'm sure it was a Painted Bunting but natural occurrence has to be Questioned. With this bird being in Salt Lake and without a better description of the condition of the bird like tail wear, the feet, color of the red which seems to be not as bright on a caged bird.

It's certainly possible but without photos and a better write up I can't accept this one.

2nd round

 12 Sep 2006 No, Nat I need to have more evidence on this type of bird to accept it.
Merrill W. 17 Jul 2006 No, Nat The description probably fits the Painted Bunting, but I would like more just to satisfy the fact that this is a first state bird.  I also can't escape the feeling that it might be an escaped caged bird--maybe not, but I think that has to be considered here.  And I still don't understand how "phiz" fits into a description of this particular species.

2nd round

 29 Sep 2006 No, Nat Can't accept based on sketchy description and the possibility that it could be an escaped caged bird.
David W. 31 May 2006 Acc Thin description, but hits the highlights. Odd that the observer described the "wings" as green rather than the back & "shoulder" portion of wing. But options for alternatives are limited here.

[By the way, can someone tell me what "phiz" is?]

2nd round

 1 Aug 2006 No, Nat I think Mark, et al. have a good point on the escaped cage bird possibility. I like Larry's discussion on ways to tell a caged bird from a truly wild individual, though I am skeptical whether it would ever be straight forward to eliminate the escaped bird possibility from widely-kept passerine species such as this. In this case, though, the record's pausity of description compels me to switch my vote (there is no suggestion in the record that points to wild origins).

    

2006-22 Red-throated Loon

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 11 Jun 2006 Acc Again this submission begs for minimum standards. (However the photo clearly shows a RT Loon.)
Ronald R. 25 Jul 2006 Acc Written description too limited for ID, but photo sufficient.
Terry S. 18 Jul 2006 Acc The photo convinces me this is an acceptable record. A written description would make this a more complete record
Mark S. 13 Jul 2006 Acc I really don't like records that only come with photographs - and I do have some questions about the bird in this photograph. It appears too stocky and short-necked for a Red-throated Loon, and the bill looks short. However, I'll reluctantly vote to accept because I think the shape may be due to the bird's posture, and I think the photo does show a Red-throated Loon, but I'm not happy about it.
Larry T. 10 Jul 2006 Acc Nice record.
Merrill W. 17 Jul 2006 Acc I don't really like accepting this without more description, especially the head area.  The observer should know better, based on his extensive experience with records for the CBC's in the two state region.  I still feel uneasy accepting this, and wouldn't if it were a state record.
David W. 15 Jun 2006 Acc I am disappointed with the lack of description that constitutes this record. I have some philosophical reservations about voting for a record that relies almost exclusively on a photo in lieu of words.

  

2006-23 Clay-colored Sparrow

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 11 Jun 2006 Acc Nice record, good photos and adequate description
Ronald R. 25 Jul 2006 Acc  
Terry S. 18 Jul 2006 Acc Great photos and description
Mark S. 13 Jul 2006 Acc I think the strong facial and crown stripes visible adequately eliminate the possibilty of Brewer's and Chipping Sparrows.
Larry T. 10 Jul 2006 Acc  Photos look like a Clay-colored Sparrow. Good description.
Merrill W. 17 Jul 2006 Acc Thank goodness for good photos.  The head markings certainly qualify this as a Clay-colored Sparrow.
David W. 12 Jul 2006 Acc Nice photos. Clear median stripe in springtime, gray nape, pale lores, distinct moustachial stripe, buffy wash to breast, bright
facial pattern...

  

2006-24 Glossy Ibis

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 17 Jul 2006 Acc Nice thorough description
Ronald R. 28 Jul 2006 Acc  
Terry S. 18 Jul 2006 Acc This record has an excellent description with careful elimination of a White-faced Ibis. Should be accepted as "Hypothetical" as a state first record without physical documentation.
Mark S. 13 Jul 2006 Acc Missed the drawing, but the description and analysis was excellent. Nice state-first record.
Larry T. 6 Aug 2006 Acc Nice documentation. This is one that I've been expecting to be located in the state.
Merrill W. 17 Jul 2006 Acc Very thorough description.  Convenient to have the other species nearby with which to make the comparison.
David W. 13 Jun 2006 Acc Nice, thorough description. Well done.

The recently-reported spread of this species into Idaho corresponds nicely with the reports of Glossies in Cache Valley during May/June of this year. Apparently people in Idaho and Utah had looked for this species in the past, but it is only this year that they have been found.

It bears noting that the Glossy ibis we saw on the 10th of June had a dusky blue-gray face rather than the brown face reported by Ron. I do not know whether that suggests a different individual or just different light conditions.

  

2006-25 Glossy Ibis

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 17 Jul 2006 Acc Another adequate description. Is this the same bird as 2006-24?
Ronald R. 28 Jul 2006 Acc Sufficient description to eliminate white-faced ibis.
Terry S. 18 Jul 2006 Acc An excellent description. White-faced Ibis carefully eliminated. Accept as "Hypothetical" until record with physical documentation is accepted.
Mark S. 13 Jul 2006 Acc Excellent description. The only question I have is the distance to the bird, but apparently the light was good and as described it would appear that a hybrid is adequately eliminated.
Larry T. 6 Aug 2006 Acc Another nice description. Could be the same bird as 2006-24 but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a different bird.
Merrill W. 17 Jul 2006 Acc Good comparison between this species and the similar White-faced Ibis.  I'm satisfied they saw a Glossy Ibis.
David W. 15 Jun 2006 Acc  

     

2006-26 Tufted Duck     | resubmissionl comments (2021) |

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 17 Jul 2006 No, ID Sounds like a Tufted Duck, however I'll await the photos (or a second write-up) for this potential first state record.

2nd round

 25 Sep 2006 No, Int I think it is important the photos accompany this record, so I'm holding out for the photos on this one.

3rd round

 18 Feb 2007 No, Int I appreciate that Mark submitted the photos, however unfortunately the scanned images don't show much detail. So based on the submitted description, I'm willing to accept this as a Tufted Duck. However I agree with Ron, that the mid-June date goes against this being of natural occurrence. By mid-May, over 95% of wintering waterfowl have moved out of southern Utah (Washington and Kane Counties). Each year there a few first summer Ring-necks, Redheads, Shovelers and a few other species that hang around.
Ronald R. 28 Jul 2006 No, Nat The description clearly described a male tufted duck. However, the legs were not observed for bands and indication of an escapee. I would like further discussion of this bird as this species is rather common in waterfowl collections at parks and zoos.

2nd round

 23 Oct 2006 No, Nat I still question the origin of the bird without someone seeing that there were not leg bands. The behavior seems good for a wild bird, but the absence of a leg band would have made the possibility of an escapee low. I have seen very "wild-like" behavior in other escaped waterfowl (e.g., bar-headed goose, Egyptian goose) so don't feel confident in using the behavior as convincing for a wild bird.

3rd round

 8 Jan 2007 No, Nat While I am still convinced the observers saw a tuffted duck (the photo is marginal at best, but may show a tuft), I still worry
about whether the bird was an escape. Most difficult is the timing of the observation, early summer when these birds should be far north. Nearly all of the california and other western records are for fall, winter and to mid-spring. Since tufted duck is no longer a review species in California, a recent summer record has not been evaluated by their records committee so it is hard to determine whether they would accept this as natural or not. For a first state record, I would at least like to have
the bird occur during fall through mid-spring, or have no leg band (not checked for this bird).
Terry S. 18 Jul 2006 Acc Good description and careful elimination of other similar species including possible hybrid. Should be accepted as "hypothetical" until physical documentation is accepted for this species.

2nd round

 7 Sep 2006 Acc  Mark's comments are helpful.

3rd round

 21 Nov 2006 Acc I am still convinced this is an acceptable record and see no indication that it is an escaped bird.
Mark S. 13 Jul 2006 Acc Good description. I saw the same bird on the evening of June 11 and took photos of it. My photos are slides and I don't have digital copies, but if I can find them (sorry, my recent accident has made it difficult to search for them) I'll scan a couple and send them to Milt. The bird I saw was much as described, but was keeping company with Ring-necked Ducks on the evening I was there. The long tuft, the completely white sides and the bill markings made the bird stand out well from the Ring-necks. I only had two concerns about this bird - was it a hybrid or an escapee? Tufted Ducks do hybridize with scaup, but the hybrids usually show some white flecking on the back, and this bird was solid black on the back, and in every other respect looked like a pure Tufted Duck.

The question of an escapee is more difficult, as Tufted Ducks are kept in a few public and private collections. However, I judged the behavior of this bird to be inconsistant with a formerly captive bird. As I approached for photographs, it was always among the most shy of the ducks on the pond, often staying on the far side, and mostly flushing first among the diving ducks (the birds flew back and forth among the three lakes). This did not appear to me to be the behavior of an escapee.

2nd round

 19 Oct 2006 Acc My regrets that because of the difficult past few months I've had that I have been unable to spend the time needed to find my photos, but hope to do so soon, and will submit them to supplement this record.

3rd round

 21 Nov 2006 Acc I won't mind waiting on this until I get back to Utah in December and can find my photos, if other committee members feel that they'd like to "table" this until the photos can be produced. Otherwise, my earlier comments apply.
Larry T. 14 Aug 2006 Acc I was a little worried about the date of this sighting.  But after a little research I found that there is at least one summer record from Cal.  And any duck can be around in summer. Especially divers.

I guess multiple observers with experience is good enough for a first state record. If there are photos I would like to see them with this record.

2nd round

 12 Sep 2006 Acc With Marks comments and multiple observers seeing this bird I feel good about accepting it. But I hope the pics will be added with this record.

3rd round

 15 Feb 2007 Acc The photos aren't much help on this record. And the date still bothers me a little. But I spoke to a couple people on the CBRC and they both said they would view the record favorably if it acted wild and wasn't in a area with other domestic waterfowl.

With Marks comments I see no reason to think this was an escaped bird.
Merrill W. 15 Aug 2006 No, ID Not enough evidence.

2nd round

 29 Sep 2006 No, ID Would have helped to have had a photograph.  For a record like this one, there ought to be more documentation.

Kristin P.    3rd round

 17 Jan 2007 No. ID I'm left with the feeling that the observer saw a Tufted Duck, but the record doesn't provide enough substantiation to squelch all doubts. I would like to have seen more descriptive information to accept as a first state record. For instance, presence/absence of white margin at the base of the upper mandible, extent of the black tip with comparisons to other Aythya species, etc. This type of info should have been available due to the initial proximity of the bird, optics and the
great lighting.
David W. 15 Jun 2006 Acc I am glad this record was finally submitted by SOMEONE. I would happily have done so, but I missed it by a day.

2nd round

 12 Sep 2006 Acc  I think Ron's comments regarding the origin of the bird are very pertinent, but it sounds like the bird behaved as a wild
individual from Mark's comments (as much as one can ever be sure with such a widely-kept species when one doesn't see its legs), and certainly none of the observers at the time noted clipped wings as it flew from pond to pond.

3rd round

 7 Jan 2007 Acc I was hoping for a bit more on the photo front, but I still think there is no evidence for this being an escaped bird.

  

2006-26r Tufted Duck
           Resubmission comments, (23 Feb 2021)  with "on its merits" bylaws change (IV.C.11)  | original comments |

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 10 Apr 2021 No, Nat I support the UBRC's previous decision on this record.

2nd round

25 Jun 2021

 No, Nat See comments under 2008-084 (I really don't have any problem with the written description of this record (as witnessed by my original votes to accept in 2008), but as I stated before I will stand by the UBRC's original decision on this record. I still believe this process of re-reviewing a few handpicked records (and let's be clear they were not "re-submitted") is completely arbitrary, lacks in process, and ultimately undermines the UBRC's credibility. I understand there were some slight changes in the committee's bylaws, but if we are going to apply these changes retrospectively, than we should use a systematic process. Re-reviewing a few records hand selected by the secretary appears desultory at best.)
Stephanie G. 28 Mar 2021 Acc Tuft can be seen in photo, description supports ID.

2nd round

25 May 2021

 No, Nat Mike's comments about the timing of this record, combined with original comments from the first round of voting, have me convinced enough that this could be an escaped bird. I believe it is a Tufted Duck, but I'm not convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" that it's not an aviary escapee.

3rd round

28 Aug 2021

 No, Nat I believe it to be a Tufted Duck, however, the issues with its natural occurrence brought up, and the previous voting for the record, lead me to vote no.
Mike H. 4 Mar 2021 To 2nd First, is the bird in the photo a Tufted Duck? I would say yes. So, the question should be provenance. There has been nearly 15 years of additional occurrence data for this species since its original review. For the month of June there has only been 1 eBird report of TUDU in the lower 48 prior to, and after the record in question. I personally feel if there isn t credible info on a bird being an escapee, it should be treated as a free roaming, wild bird.

2nd round

20 Jun 2021

 Acc Mike's comments about the timing of this record, combined with original comments from the first round of voting, have me convinced enough that this could be an escaped bird. I believe it is a Tufted Duck, but I'm not convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" that it's not an aviary escapee.

3rd round

1 Jul 2021

 Acc  
Max M.    3rd:

20 Aug 2021

 No, Nat No question on the ID, but the timing is questionable. I think Bryant makes some good points about captive birds/escapees, but I don't think I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.
Bryant O. 23 Feb 2021 Acc Photo does seem to show a drake Tufted Duck, and description seems to eliminate other possibilities including hybrid.

2nd round

 3 May 2021 Acc Now that I can see the original comments, I can see the issue was of providence, not ID. I work at an aviary and we have many captive ducks. All of ours our "pinned", which means they can never fly. This is a common practice even at private aviaries, but even given that some do not, captive raised ducks don't act like wild ducks. They swim up to you looking for hand outs and give you that Audrey "Feed Me" look. From the description of the behavior of this bird, it seemed like a very wild bird. Why not just a lost vagrant that paired up with Ring-necked Ducks instead of making the 5000 mile journey back to Asia? Ducks do like dabble in love affairs with other species, we have a wild RNDU that follows around a captive pinned LESC hen probably because its the 1st female duck he ever meet that didn't immediately fly away from him (because she can't), he's been at her side for 5 years. Love works in mysterious ways. Also captive ducks are DUMB and not likely to survive in the wild long on their own.

3rd round

2 Jul 2021

 Acc I've not been swayed to believe this is an escapee, and the bird is clearly a TUDU.
Mike S. 4 Apr 2021 No, Nat I believe the ID is established in the description, and is backed up in the poor photos. I was prepared to accept until I saw the timing of this observation, which would be exceptional in June, and I wonder about the provenance of this bird. According to eBird, there are no Tufted Duck records even nearing this far south during June.

I realize we just changed our bylaws to only vote on records based on their "merits." However, I still believe factors such as expected vagrancy timing should be considered under the "merits" of a record. If I am misinterpreting how we are defining "merits" then I open to changing my vote.

2nd round

27 May 2021

 Acc I'll switch my vote on this one as well. Although I am still concerned about the timing, Mark's described behavior doesn't seem to match that of a captive escapee. The fact that this bird was only around for a short period of time may also indicate increased likelihood of a wild vagrant.

I'd be more hesitant to accept under our previous 'state first' voting guidance, but I believe there is a compelling argument based on the evidence we have.

3rd round

30 Jun 2021

 No, Nat  I hate flip-flopping on these records. However, I have struggled with determining the proper 'criteria' in which to judge some of these re-reviews. I don't think we should discount the committee's original decision on these records, particularly specific concerns that were raised (and for this record, it appears that provenance was the main concern).

For records that were originally rejected under the previously higher standard for a state first, I believe we have to decide if the committee originally considered the "merits" of the record (to take the wording from our bylaws). If we are in general agreement that vagrancy timing and provenance should be considered under the merits of a record, then I have to determine that the merits were considered when first reviewed.

Although I have argued for both sides on this one, I am most comfortable deferring to the committee's original decision on this record.
Bryan S. 11 Apr 2021 Acc Curious why this wasn't accepted when originally submitted. Even though the photos aren't great the bright white flanks and all black back should eliminate similar species. Was there a question about it being an escapee?

2nd round

19 May 2021

 Acc The description and photos are a tufted duck. Not sure why it is around so late in the year, but also not sure why it is in this hemisphere in the first place. Without anything else pointing toward an escapee I lean toward accept

3rd round

4 Jul 2021

 Acc  
Steve S.  2nd:

26 Jun 2021

 No, ID Again I don't know why we are re-reviewing this record as it was sent in with documentation the first time.I will stick with the original votr of the committee.
Mark S. 12 Mar 2021 Acc Having seen a number of Tufted Ducks since this one, I don't think there is much evidence of a hybrid in this bird - the back was solid black, the flanks uniformly white, and the tuft long and obvious. The poor photo doesn't illustrate well how distinct it was.

I also don't think and escapee is likely, as the time of year is consistent with other U.S. records, and the bird was even more wary of our presence than the Ring-neck Ducks it was accompanying. We chased it through all three of the lakes, as it continually fled our approach.

2nd round

6 Jun 2021

 Acc As per my previous comments.

3rd round

28 Jul 2021

 Acc As per my previous comments.
David W. 23 Feb 2021 Acc Although the photos make it seem there may have been psychedelics involved, Larene's written report describes a Tufted duck. I am sad to say that I can personally testify that the duck was gone by the following day.

2nd round

 19 Apr 2021 No, Nat  First, to address Mike S's question: Yes, species migration patterns are definitely cogent to our deliberations. So, if you feel the timing of this record bears significantly on its provenance, please vote accordingly.

Second, Mike is absolutely right that BY FAR most of the eBird records for the western USA and adjacent Canada are for winter and spring (most before May, but some into that month). I did find three summer records, but these records are definitely the exception. The records I found in my scattershot clicking on eBird's occurrence map are:
20 Jul @ Lake Mitchell, BC
26-27 Jun @ Snohomish, WA
14 Jul-18 Aug @ Lancaster, CA
That is definitely a small percentage of the records I clicked on. However, I note that Mark's record isn't even recorded on that map. I do not know whether eBird has chosen to question and suppress "out of season" records for the (circular) argument that there are not many of them, or whether Mark never entered the record into eBird to begin with. [Maybe Colby & Mark could shed some light on this question of whether eBird occurrence maps are edited in this way.]

Third, it sounds like we all believe this was a Tufted duck. So the question comes down to whether this was a wild bird. I agree with the Mike H. argument. What evidence do we have this bird wasn't wild (other than the timing)? It acted like a wild bird. Looks like a duck, flies like a duck...

Fourth, this bird was seen back in the "stone age" of birding before eBird and cell phone alerts when there were far fewer birders around to monitor our skies and ponds. The sentries were fewer, so it was much easier for a bird to slip through the net. This bird could easily have bopped around North America for months after first arriving without being reported. The fact that this bird was so flighty at the sight of humans (and indeed was gone by the next day) supports the wild origin hypothesis. In Europe, in areas where this species has become accustomed to humans (as in the larger cities along the major rivers), Tufted ducks are not that flighty. They seem more tolerant of human approach than described here.

But the timing is definitely a good argument. Ron R. did a very fine job addressing this issue back in the 2006 round. Why isn't this bird up north during the summer? Then again, in Eurasia the Breeding range of Tufted ducks extends south to the Pyrenees, the Balkans, and Japan, which is not that far from of our latitude.

As you can tell from my arguing both side of the issue, I am truly torn. I think, to be consistent with my previous years of voting, I will change my vote toward the conservative unless I hear something ameliorating from Colby. I reserve the right to change my mind if other evidence comes in.

3rd round

27 Jul 2021

 No, Nat My only concern is the timing. I believe this was likely a wild duck, but not beyond a reasonable doubt.
Kevin W. 3rd: 27 Aug 2021 No, Nat It seems that most are in agreement that the identity of the duck is not in question, but that its provenance is. There are enough comments, including timing, to convince me that natural occurrence may be questionable.

 

2006-27 Glossy Ibis

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 17 Jul 2006 Acc Well, there is no description....., but the photo is certianly definitive.
Ronald R. 28 Jul 2006 Acc Insufficient description, but good photos safely eliminate white-faced ibis.
Terry S. 18 Jul 2006 Acc Great photo but no narrative.
Mark S. 13 Jul 2006 Acc He's right, I don't like the lack of description. The photos, however, do show a Glossy Ibis.
Larry T. 6 Aug 2006 Acc The photos are nice. I'm glad this wasn't the first one to be found.
Merrill W. 17 Jul 2006 Acc Nice that I read the descriptions submitted by the previous observers to make up for the lack of a description on this record, assuming that it could be the same bird......  The photo pretty well substantiates the previous sightings eventhough they were good enough to stand on their own.
David W. 27 Jun 2006 Acc Great photo.

  

2006-28 Pileated Woodpecker

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 25 Sep 2006 No, ID I'd like to have some discussion on this one. Any chance this could have been a Kingfisher (size, underwings, bill description
could fit)? A few other things about the description are puzzling, as Pileated Woodpeckers are decidely smaller than American Crows.

2nd round

 7 Dec 2006 No, ID  
Ronald R. 28 Jul 2006 No, ID I am siding with the observer that the observation was too brief for complete confidence in the identification of this species.

2nd round

 5 Dec 2006 No, ID My comments still apply. I also feel Rick and David have valid points.
Terry S. 18 Jul 2006 Acc This is a very distinctive species and the description given by the observer, while not complete, convinces me this record should be accepted as "Hypothetical"

2nd round

 11 Oct 2006 No, ID With further consideration I believe the details on this record are lacking. The very brief view does not entirely rule out a kingfisher or some other species that gave the appearance of a Pileated Woodpecker
Mark S. 13 Jul 2006 Acc I'd like to see this record get some discussion. Although it's hard to imagine for what it could be mistaken, and the description sounds good, especially the described flight pattern, I feel that such a remarkable record deserves more scrutiny. I do have questions beyond the obvious reservations of a poorly-seen bird in less than perfect light. The bill seems long, and I would think it would appear pale from below - the bill sounds more kingfisher-like. Also, how visble would the crest be at this angle? The white underwing area seems too extensive (though this can be variable), as only about half of the underwing should be white. For a remarkable state-first record I would be more comfortable with a better-seen and documented bird.

2nd round

 21 Nov 2006 No, ID I feel that there's not enough here to accept such a rare record.
Larry T. 12 Sep 2006 No, ID This is a distinct looking bird and could be identified while driving. But for a first state record I think we need a little more
evidence.

2nd round

 30 Sep 2006 No, ID Not enough to go on.
Merrill W. 17 Jul 2006 Acc Hypothetical because no photo and only one observer.  The description seems good, even for 10-15 seconds.  Eventhough I accept this conditionally, I can't justify it being a state record based on my first comment.

2nd round

 29 Sep 2006 No, ID Sorry to change my vote on this one, but feel that the arguments against accepting are more persuasive than the ones I had for accepting.  Even the person submitting the report suggested that there ought to be more certain data for accepting.
David W. 12 Jul 2006 No, ID This was an interesting record, with lots of detail, especially considering how briefly the bird was seen. I seriously considered voting for the record until I saw the additional comment by the observer, urging us not to accept the record. I commend the observer for being so willing to point out doubts about his own record, even after going
to all the trouble of writing it up.

The observer pointed out that the bird he saw looked most like a kingfisher. This seems to be an astute observation, and my imagination fails me in thinking of a more obvious alternative. I think this comparison bears some more exploration:

Size: although the Pileated is supposed to average about 3-4 inches larger, a bird in flight can be hard to accurately size-up, especially while driving.

Bill size: 3 inches seems a bit large for a Pileated woodpecker. A kingfisher is not a bad match for this.

Crest: Again, a kingfisher has that.

White face: I would not really describe either species as having a "pure white face", but both have extensive white in the face area to varying degrees. The black face mask on a white face is definitely a better field mark for the Pileated woodpecker, but I suppose at highway speeds one might possibly mis-see the dark head as a mask contrasting with the white neck & chin, especially from below.

White wings edged black: Both species have very similar wing patterns matching this description.

Rest of bird nearly all black: A very convincing field mark to eliminate the kingfisher, which is mostly white below.

Neck: The description of a bird with a visible neck is a better match for a Pileated woodpecker than a kingfisher.

Flight: Definitely, the described flight style points to a woodpecker rather than a kingfisher.

Again, were this not the first official record for this species, were it not for the observer's brief view while driving, and were it not for the observer's urging us to vote against the record, I would likely vote to accept this record.

I would like to point out, smiling, that the observer also ably eliminated the possibility of an Ivory-billed or Imperial woodpecker, both of which are similar at highway speeds (not that I speak from personal
experience, mind you), with the description of the wing pattern. Nice...

2nd round

 29 Sep 2006 No, ID Although I'm tempted to go with the "Hypothetical List" option, I will defer to the observer's reservations.

     

2006-29 Least Tern

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 31 Jul 2006 Acc Very limited description, but I suppose it's adequate for this distinctive tern.
Ronald R. 28 Jul 2006 Acc I feel this sufficiently describes a breeding plumage least tern.
Terry S. 22 Sep 2006 Acc Characteristic field marks noted.
Mark S. 26 Jul 2006 Acc Decent, if a bit spare, description eliminates other possibilities. This species seems to be becoming quite regular in northern
Utah.
Larry T. 12 Sep 2006 Acc Good description.
Merrill W. 29 Sep 2006 Acc Identified the salient fieldmarks.
David W. 1 Aug 2006 Acc Not a great job on eliminating other terns, but adequate.

  

2006-30 Parasitic Jaeger

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 25 Sep 2006 Acc Outstanding record, nice write-up and photographs. Clearly documents a Parasitic Jaeger and photos show several diagnostic characterists, including; bill coloration, shape, length, and pale crescent at base of upper mandible; photo I shows at least 5 pale primary shafts; underwing with extensive white crescent at base of primaries; pointed central tail feathers, etc.
Ronald R. 23 Oct 2006 Acc Nice description and very helpful photos. The bill shape, pointed, protruding central tail feathers, and white on upper wing surface are most definitive marks.
Terry S. 5 Oct 2006 Acc Great Photos which convinces me this is a Parasitic Jeagar.
The observers in their analysis have, I believe, eliminated similar species especially Long-tailed Jeagar.
Mark S. 19 Oct 2006 Acc This bird received considerable attention from experts worldwide on ID Frontiers. No consensus was initially reached based upon conflicting field marks, however, the photos of the retrieved specimen, along with the presentation of published references of extensive examination of museum specimens that showed that shape of the tips of the central rectrices is the only 100% reliable field mark in juvenile jaegers, caused most (all?) commentors, including myself, to settle upon Parasitic Jaeger as the correct i.d. for this bird. The sharply pointed, but short, tips are consistent with Parasitic, but not Pomarine or Long-tailed.
Larry T. 30 Sep 2006 Acc I think it's a Hybrid! This is a very difficult bird and I don't think I would have been able to put a name on this one in the
field. But I would have to go with the experts who called it a Parisitic.
Merrill W. 29 Sep 2006 Acc Fine description plus great photos help identify this species.
David W. 1 Oct 2006 Acc I have long put off voting on this record because I remember how confusing this bird was back when people were struggling with its ID on the birdnet/-talk last year.  I must admit that I am no expert on immature jaegers, despite having seen a fair number in various places over the years.  I therefore rely here on identification advice gleaned from Kaufman's "Advanced Birding" and ID-Frontiers on the internet, as well as Olsen & Larsson's "Skuas and Jaegers:  A Guide to the Skuas and Jaegers of the World"  and Harrison's "Seabirds:  An Identification Guide."  I apologize for the length of my comment to follow, but I thought it important to lay out my thinking for those of you more expert in this genus to dissect in the event this record should go to the second round.

My thoughts:

1)  The tail looks exactly as a Parasitic tail should, with pointed central tail feathers (see fig 37 in Kaufman).  According to one of the ID-Frontiers postings, this is the most reliable field mark in immature (1st two years) jaegers.

2)  The bill seems very slightly more like a Parasitic than the other two jaegers, but only marginally. 
   --The bill looks a bit too delicate to be a Pomarine, especially the "hook" and the gonydeal angle.
   --The ratio of the nail to the rest of the bill strikes me as very indeterminate, in that the nail is nearly half the length of the bill measured on the upper mandible (I measure it at 42.45% from the close-up photo).  In Kaufman's book, the Parasitic is shown as having a proportionally shorter nail and the Long-tailed as having a proportionally longer nail.  So, to me, this ratio isn't conclusive.  According to one of the posts on ID-Frontiers, the ratio is not terribly reliable anyway (and from my unscientific perusal of flight photos in "Skuas and Jaegers", I'd have to agree that bill lengths vary quite a bit within any one species).

3)  The upperwing primary shafts again strike me as somewhat ambiguous, though leaning toward Parasitic or Pomarine.  According to Kaufman, the Long-tailed has significant white primary shafts on only the outer two primaries, whereas the Parasitic has it on 3-6.  When I look at the close-up of the upper wingtip on this bird, I see 2 1/2 to 3 white shafts (though the third is less white than the other two).  This matches the drawings in the "Skuas and Jaegers" book for the Parasitic and Pomarine, but not the Long-tailed jaegers.  However, not having studied photos of wingtips nor skins of these species (some of which apparently have been misidentified over the years, by the way), I don't feel I am calibrated on this field mark.

4)  Head shape is fairly rounded in one of the photos, appearing more like a Long-tailed than either of the other two species, but in another photo, the bird under review has a head shape more consistent with a Parasitic or Pomarine.

5)  Since the review bird is such a dark morph individual, many of the field marks used to differentiate juvenile/immature jaegers are obscured (like pale tips to primaries at rest and head/facial markings).  However, the rufous on the undertail coverts does appear to be a trait most consistent with a Parasitic, as is the rufous on the underwing.  The other two jaegers tend to have "colder" coloration.

6)  Kaufman also mentions the paleness in the malar region as being a good sign of a Parasitic, which this bird seems to exhibit.

Overall, I'd have to say that this is not a "classic" Parasitic jaeger, in the sense of one that is easy to identify, but nothing about this bird precludes a Parasitic jaeger either.  The the other two jaegers, on the other hand, do appear to be eliminated by various field marks.