Records Committee Utah Ornithological Society Web Site

Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society

Status & Comments
Year 2007 (records 16 through 30)

2007-16 Zone-tailed Hawk

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	8 Aug 2007	Acc	At least one of these birds was still present as of August 01, 2007. Unfortunately there has not been any evidence of successful nesting in the Kolob / Lava Point area, although I'd be surprised if they haven't tried the last few years.
Kristin P.	15 Aug 2007	Acc
Ronald R.	26 Jul 2007	Acc	Great photos and good description of the 2 birds.
Terry S.	2 Oct 2007	Acc	Convincing Photo
Mark S.	23 Jul 2007	Acc	Excellent photos and description.
Larry T.	1, 22 Aug 2007	Acc
David W.	27 Jul 2007	Acc	Superb photos. I agree those must be two separate individuals based on the different primaries and rectrices. This species has been seen in the Kolob Terraces/Lava Point area of Zion NP several times in the past (Jun & Jul & Aug 2004, Jul 2005, Aug 2006). It sounds like they are, at least temporarily, seasonally resident there, as well as in the Pine Park area further to the west.

2007-17 Painted Bunting

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	8 Aug 2007	Acc	I'm leaning towards this being a natural vagrant, given the timing and location. Although there is obviously evidence of worn feathers (on the breast and clearly on the tail feathers), I think this fits timing of molt into definitive basic plumage (starting mid to late July on body feathers and early August on flight feathers).
2nd round	30 Oct 2007	Acc
Kristin P.	21 Aug 2007	Acc	After studying this record, many photos and the literature extensively, I thought a good case could be made for either circumstance: Wild and naturally occurring: Straying to Utah for the annual molt migration is not out of the question considering the number of northerly states and provinces where the bunting has been recorded. Recent weather pattern might have influenced more northerly occurrence. Ragged and worn feathers due to age of alternate plumage. Bright colors instead of washed out. General wariness. Captive escapee: Presumed excessive wear of flight feathers for a male of a species that doesn t participate in nesting. Odd pattern of missing feathers (nape, greater coverts, tertials, flank) that doesn t conform to normal molt sequence for this species. Odd timing for this appearance. Same underlying issue as with the last male Painted Bunting record Utah has a high immigrant population from a country where this species is a popular cage bird. We ll never know the bird s origins for sure, however, I felt there were clues in the condition of the bird s feathers and sought an expert's opinion. I contacted Dr. Christopher W. Thompson, co-author of Cornell's Birds of North America Painted Bunting species account and an expert on Painted Buntings and molt. I asked him to review Paul Higgins photos. Not only was Dr. Thompson enthusiastic and gracious toward my request, but he also requested I send him high resolution photo files so he could review the condition of the bird s feathers closely. Dr. Thompson's best guess was that the bird was most likely wild and arrived in Utah under his own power. Here, unedited, is his assessment in two messages: Two Messages from Dr. Christopher W. Thompson Note Dr. Thompson s offer of further assistance; I'll provide his contact information to any records committee member on request.
2nd round	25 Sep 2007	Acc	I don t know of any other literature, field guide or human resources to exploit to further justify my accept vote and I hope the information assuages concerns about feather condition and wear, concerns that I shared. It was a pleasure to discuss this bird with Dr. Thompson because he was so accommodating. Once again, if any committee member has unanswered questions, I m happy to share his contact information.
Ronald R.	5 Sep 2007	Acc	Clearly a male painted bunting. The issue is whether this is a wild bird or escape. The frayed tail is consistant with a caged bird, but the lack of damage to the primary feathers suggests a wild bird. I will go with the latter.
2nd round	23 Dec 2007	Acc	My comments from the first round still apply. I also really appreciate the comments from Dr. Thompson as supplied by Kristin.
Terry S.	11 Aug 2007	Acc	Great record.
2nd round	16 Oct 2007	Acc
Mark S.	21 Aug 2007	No, Nat	I guess I'll cast the only negative vote in order to give this bird some discussion - and not just because I'm probably the only Utah birder who didn't see it (the curse of being a full-time professional birder - more than 200 species in Utah in August, not one new bird for my state list). I wish this bird had been a female. Being a male, the issue of whether or not it could be an escapee must be raised. The remote location and the timing argue for natural occurrence. However, I'm troubled by the pattern of wear in the tail, especially as compared to the lack of wear in other parts of the plumage. My first reaction to the first photos posted was "that bird's been in a cage." The tail-wear was exactly what one sees with songbirds in cages, especially cages that are too small. The later photos show a less clear picture of this, so maybe it's just a matter of camera-angle (or the bird had more "free" time for preening). I also find the bill-shape odd in a few photos, again in a way that suggests captivity, but this could be just because of molting feathers in the face. Anyway, I'll throw this to a second round just to see your comments. Tell me why this isn't an escapee. Like I said, I wish it was a female.
(Eric H. )2nd round	30 Jan 2008	Acc	Great Discussion.
Larry T.	24 Sep 2007	Acc	I really don't like the way this bird looks. The color in areas like the flanks and the feet also look odd to me. But I guess for a one year old bird coming into adult plumage it may be ok. I could go either way on this one.
2nd round	12 Dec 2007	Acc	I'm still not convinced on this one but the timing is good and the comments from others will make me accept this one. I also would feel much better is this was a female type bird.
David W.	27 Jul 2007	Acc	This is a beautiful bird that I saw yesterday. There is no doubt in my mind that this is a Paibnted bunting, and a skittish one at that. As to whether it is an escaped bird, it must be noted that Fish Springs NWR is very far from any significant human setlement. I do not know the significance of the worn tail feathers as it touches on this question (and will leave that concern to others), but the Cornell site lists the (adult) molts as follows: flight feathers from mid-Aug to mid-Oct; body feathers from early August to mid-Oct. I'm no expert in molts, but it seems that this adult male would naturally be at the end of its pre-molt period with the flight feathers being as worn as they would ever get (i.e. just prior to being replaced). Also, the migration period for this species is listed as starting in the last third of July and extending through mid October, so this sighting is consistent with a bird in tune with its natural migration urges.
2nd round	25 Sep 2007	Acc	I think Dr. Thompson makes a convincing argument. Thank you very much, Kristin.

2007-18 Scarlet Tanager

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	8 Aug 2007	Acc	Nice thorough descriptions. Even the tiny little thumbnail photos are helpful. Nice record.
2nd round	30 Oct 2007	No, ID	Ron has raised some very good points about this tanager. As Ron pointed out, the bird in the photo certainly does appear to have a large bill, yellow tail, and slight crest giving it the appearance of a large head; all of these characters look better for a Summer Tanager. Also both observers describe the wings as 'brown' rather than dark gray or black, and the wing contrast in the photo is not outside the range for a Summer Tanager. The timing is very peculiar for a female Scarlet Tanager as well. I've listened to the audio clip many times, and I can't make a definitive Scarlet Tanager call and what I believe I can hear, doesn't sound outside the range of the Summer Tanager.
3rd round	15 Mar 2008	No, ID	After taking another look at the material and other comments, I still feel the tanager was likely a Summer Tanager.
Kristin P.	15 Aug 2007	Acc
2nd round	17 Oct 2007	Acc	Ron, thanks for providing your notes on the photos. The physical evidence that accompanies this record is both helpful and hurtful. The photos clearly show proportions, general colors and strong contrast between body and wings; enlarging them causes pixilation and loss of detail and may negate their utility. The YouTube recording seems to document a single harsh call note given many times; both the Western and Summer Tanager's multiple notes are different than that recorded. Comparing the recording (computer speaker pressed to my ear) with multiple files from the Macaulay Library of Natural Sounds convinced me that Colby captured a calling Scarlet Tanager. LNS catalog #107334 documents a female Scarlet Tanager that sounds very much like Colby's recording, minus the background noise. Matt's experience with the species and Colby's careful and lengthy observation compensate for the image and recording quality and I believe both observers saw, and Colby heard, a Scarlet Tanager. Thanks to Colby for his valiant efforts to provide physical evidence with this record.
3rd round	16 Jun 2008	Acc	Physical evidence to accompany a rare bird record is usually a birder's Holy Grail, but I believe the photos and sound recordings have backfired on this one. We've been led toward both Scarlet and Summer Tanagers and perhaps each of us has been able to justify our opinions by squinting our eyes and straining our ears. Several comments struck a chord with me: Terry's second and third round comments on the photographs and Eric's second round comments after talking to the observers: "(I know their view of the bird was better than what we have in that photo)" When I discount the images and recording, I believe the written word picture documents a Scarlet Tanager by observers familiar with the sight and sound of this species.
Ronald R.	5 Sep 2007	No, ID	The first photo indicates a bird with a bill too large to be consistant with a scarlet tanager. Also, neither photo indicates a really dark tail that would be consistant with a scarlet tanager. (Note)
2nd round	23 Dec 2007	No, ID	My comments from round 1 still apply. I invite others to look at an enlarged version of the original image supplied. The PDF file with my note is much more pixelated than the original, but my file indicates my concerns.
(Colby N.) 3rd rnd	21 Oct 2008	No ID	I'm on the ropes regarding this record, and I do feel it could go either way...but I just changed my mind again, and I'm about to give it a thumbs DOWN. With all the flip flopping regarding this record, you'd think we are politicians...haha...but I do think this says something important about the record. And being the last person to review this record, and knowing my vote will determine the outcome (and while admittedly I'd like to accept it based off my own experience), I believe there are just too many holes in the write-up, photos provided, etc. to definitively say this bird was a Scarlet Tanager based on the record provided (not my own experience with the bird). I think the lack of any description of the call was a substantial mistake by the observer. In addition, another photo or two should have been submitted by the observer...and more attention to detail was needed in the write up at the time of the observation by both observers. However, with all of this uncertainty and holes...I still believe the recording (despite the poor quality) point towards this record being a Scarlet Tanager...even with the static in the video, the 'chick' portion of the Scarlet Tanager's 'chick-breee' call can be heard (albeit not well)...a side note for the record, the 'breee' portion of the call was never heard in real life so it was not the fault of the camera not picking it up. Nonetheless, I have never heard a Summer Tanager give this 'chick' call nor have I found a recording of a Summer Tanager giving a call remotely close to the 'chick' call heard in the video (and real life). And while I want to accept the record on this alone, I won't because I! don't feel I have spent enough time in the breeding range of Summer Tanagers as I need to have in order to absolutely say Summer Tanagers don't give some unrecorded 'chick' call...even though they don't in my experience.
Terry S.	11 Aug 2007	Acc	Excellent narrative by observer 2007-18A, separating out other tanager species.
2nd round	8 Nov 2007	Acc	I believe the evaluation of this record needs weigh more heavily on the written narrative. The pictures are poor at best and could be misleading.
3rd round	31 Mar 2008	Acc	After reviewing the audio portion of the Youtube video and the excellent write up I fell more certain this is a valid sighting. I believe this one record where the photograph has clouded an otherwise good record.
Mark S.	21 Aug 2007	Acc	Good description, and adequate photos for a distinctive species, even as a female.
(Eric H.) 2nd round	15 Feb 2008	No, ID	I am on the fence and can easily change my mind. I have taken my share of poor photos and can tell you a bird can look very odd in a bad photo. Just looking at these photos I wouldn't be confident enough to call it either species but I agree that there are enough blurs in just the right places to make scarlet tanager questionable. The plump look of the bird in the photo suggests it is fluffing out its contour feathers, could this cause a scarlet tanager to look slightly crested? http://www.thelensflare.com/large/avian_38269.jpg --- http://www.weeksbay.org/photo_gallery/neotropical/31.jpg With this record going to the third round I guess Colby will be commenting on it. If he could let us know how carefully he ruled out Summer at the time of the sighting I think that may help.
(Eric H.) 3rd round	15 Mar 2008	Acc	I have had a chance to speak with Matt on a field trip. He has Lots of experience with Scarlet Tanagers and felt the bird didn't look any different than what he would expect a Scarlet to look like. I also spoke with Steve and Cindy Sommerfeld on a field trip. They also saw the bird and Steve feels very certain the birds bill was not large enough to be a Summer. And I know Colby is a very observant birder. Plus there were others that saw the bird. I feel enough competent birders saw this bird and are confident it was a Scarlet that I'm going to vote to accept. (I know their view of the bird was better than what we have in that photo.) I don't like the photo. The bird's body is plump and round unlike a tanagers 'natural' shape.
Larry T.	24 Sep 2007	Acc	Very odd time of year for this bird to be in Utah.
2nd round	12 Dec 2007	No, ID	First of all I want to thank Ron for making us take a better look at this record. I for one didn't spend much time looking at it the first time. Photo B does look like it could be a Scarlet Tanager but your not seeing much except the green back and darker wings without wingbars. Summers are typically more mustard colored but some are very green above and yellow below and can have contrasting darker wings. Photo A looks like a Summer Tanager. Even with the poor photo you can see the more of the important field marks to separate the two. The bill does look to large to be a Scarlet and the color of the underside of the tail ( yellow not gray like a Scarlet ) can be the best way to tell them apart. And I can clearly see that in the photo. I think this is a Summer Tanager.
3rd round	23 Sep 2008	Acc	I'm going to jump back over the fence on this one again. I also believe the photos certainly aren't helping this record. So on this one I'm going to go by experienced birders that know the species well and seemed to have had plenty of time to study it.
David W.	27 Jul 2007	Acc
2nd round	10 Jan 2007	Acc	I am voting to "accept" in an effort to force this bird into the 3rd round (yes, yes, you're welcome). The rest of you have pointed out some very important facts, from which I have learned and for which I am grateful. I think there are plenty of good arguments for voting either way, though that fact alone may push me to vote against in the end. It may be that this is one of those cases where we cannot be certain either way. Here are some thoughts gleaned from my review of various sources: 1) BODY COLOR: Back/body color is given by just about every source as an important field mark. Scarlet tanager should have a greenish-yellow tone, while the Summer should be more orangey-yellow. Both observers noted this bird to be greenish-yellow in tone. The photos are poor and strike me as inconclusive, though perhaps more greenish than yellowish. 2) BILL SIZE: Summer tanagers have larger bills. The 1st poor photo seems to show a relatively large bill, though not conclusively so. However, if you go to Cornell's "Birds of North America Online" site you will see photos of Scarlet tanagers showing a surprising range of bill sizes. It is my opinion that, so far as the poor photo shows, the bill of the bird we are reviewing easily falls into the range of Scarlet tanager. [I will send Milt/Dennis several photos from this site for you all to compare for yourselves, and hopefully he will make them available to you all for consideration. Note especially the molting male Scarlet tanager's large bill.] So bill size on this bird strikes me as inconclusive. Colby, who is no slacker birder, specifically said the bill size on this bird was too small for a Summer tanager. 3) SHAPE OF HEAD: Ron is correct in "pointing" out that this bird appears to have a slight crest, which would be a much better field mark for a Summer tanager. It makes the bird "jizz" like a Summer tanager to me. However, birds often temporarily raise a "crest" when alarmed, as a bird stalked by a birder might well be. Also the photo is rather fuzzy with regards to that field mark, so I am not sure how dependable it is. Neither observer noted a crested head (but neither did they note a round head--which is less telling to me because a round head is the "default" field mark and thus less notable). 4) CALL: Now, I listened to the YouTube video several times before I was even convinced the periodic noise on it was supposed to be the "call". I then compared it to the calls of a whole lot of recordings (especially on the fabulous Xeno-Canto website) and found no instance of a Summer tanager matching the YouTube noise. There was a closer match to the Scarlet tanager. Based on my audio search, I would definitely lean toward Scarlet tanager. The Cornell site states that the Summer tanager always gives a >2 or 2-note click call (plus some other one-note whiny calls), while the 2-note call of the Scarlet is highly variable (with the first note being distinctly differently pitched than the 2nd, making me wonder if the poor microphone on the videocorder might not have only picked up one portion of the call). Rick, who hears Summer tanagers infinitely more often than I do in his regular life, feels the call is within the range of Summer tanager, and that is certainly significant. I have personally never noticed a single-note call, but then I don't spend enough time in SW Utah to be an expert. I would love to know what Mark thinks about this issue, as he hears both species calling regularly on his wanderings in Mexico. It is very unfortunate that Colby did not at least attempt a description of the call, at least with regards to how many parts each one had. Still, I think the call would have to be a field mark that goes (perhaps inconclusively) onto the Scarlet tanager side of the ledger. 5) UNDERTAIL COLOR: I did not run into a statement in the field guides that the UNDERtail color was significant, but the photos I've seen sure seem to point to a yellow wash near the base of the tail being more common in the Summer tanager. [I am also sending a photo of a Summer tanager from the Cornell site as an example of this.] Again, though, the photos are not very clear on this field mark either. I am not convinced any of the other field marks (lores, wing color, size, etc.) are conclusive.
3rd round	6 Apr 2008	No, ID	As I discussed above, I believe the predominance of field marks points vaguely toward Scarlet tanager. But I do not think the bird is a Scarlet tanager beyond reasonable doubt, based on the submitted record. And that is the better standard rather than "most likely species".

2007-19 Black Scoter

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	8 Aug 2007	Acc
Kristin P.	21 Aug 2007	Acc
Ronald R.	5 Sep 2007	Acc	Good photos and adequate description. Is it time to remove this species from the review list?
Terry S.	11 Aug 2007	Acc
Mark S.	21 Aug 2007	Acc	Nice photo.
Larry T.	24 Sep 2007	Acc
David W.	7 Aug 2007	Acc

2007-20 Pacific-slope Flycatcher

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	8 Aug 2007	Acc	I'm hoping this record will stimulate some discussion.
2nd round	1 Oct 2007	Acc	Obviously this bird cannot be distinguished further than western flycatcher. I submitted this record for two reasons. The first is that as far as I know, there are no other reports of western flycatcher or any other Empidonax flycatcher in the winter in Utah. Secondly, I believe that it is an oversight that Pacific-slope Flycatcher is not currently on the Utah list. Even in hand, very few of these flycatchers are distinguishable, with nearly all measurements showing extensive overlap. The only reliable way to distinguish these species is genetic analysis (and allozyme analysis shows these are distinct species that have been separated for eons, have very limited genetic relationships, lack evidence of hybridization, and show assortative mating in areas of overlapping breeding habitat). In addition, there is strong evidence that the Channel Island Flycatcher (currently recognized by the AOU as a subspecies of Pac-slope, E. d. insulicola) is likely a separate species. Mitochondrial DNA analysis is going to provide insight into speciation and genetic relationships of many currently recognized subspecies over the next several years. And will very likely result in many, many additional splits that will be nearly as difficult as western flycatchers (e.g. Red Crossbills, Spotted Towhees, Common Ravens, Song Sparrows, Savannah Sparrows, Fox Sparrows, Bushtits ..and many more). I believe we should consider a process to evaluate these splits and their corresponding probability of occurrence in Utah as they are accepted by the AOU. As I stated above, I believe it is an oversight that the Pacific-slope Flycatcher is not on the Utah list. I m completely convinced it is a regular migrant through southwest Utah. Nearly all western flycatchers that I ve observed in lowland locations, that have also vocalized, have given both songs and calls consistent with Pacific-slope Flycatchers (including the male s two-note tseeweep contact call). Also other factors previously discussed (including, timing, habitat, lowland occurrence) suggest these are Pac-slopes rather than Cordilleran Flycatchers. In addition, several other species sharing the Pacific-slope s breeding range and migration patterns are regular or somewhat rare migrants through the southwest corner of the state (e.g. Cassin s Vireo, Townsend s Warbler, Hermit Warbler, Red-breasted Sapsucker, Vaux s Swift). So there is no reason to expect this species does not regularly move through southwest Utah. With all that said, we face a bit of a quandary, and it s likely to get much worse over the next several years. How do we empirically show a species occurs in the state, if we cannot visually or audibly recognize it? In the case of Pacific-slope Flycatchers, there is no reason to suggest it doesn t occur, and in fact it is highly likely that it is a regular migrant through the southwest corner of Utah. However, it is visibly indistinguishable from Cordilleran, shows overlap in songs and vocalizations, and even mist-netting and measurements are unlikely to be definitive. So the only empirical solution is genetic analysis, which is also prohibitive for a non-descript uncommon to rare migrant through the state (yet rangewide a rather common species). I d be very surprised if anyone has ever done genetic analysis of Pacific-slope Flycatchers in say Nevada, however, it is currently on the Nevada checklist and was added following the official split of Western Flycatchers, based on the high probability of occurrence and migration patterns of sympatric breeding species. So, I d be interested in hearing what you all think about a process to deal with future splits of current subspecies. I believe this is really just the beginning of a complex problem.
Kristin P.	25 Aug 2007	No, ID	I also believe the Pacific-slope Flycatcher occurs in Utah, but I don t think we can add the species to the state checklist on the basis of this record. The only information that infers the bird was a Pacific-slope is that the habitat was consistent with habitat from confirmed winter records in other states. Conventional wisdom counsels that the Pacific-slope and the Cordilleran can t be separated in the field unless the bird is a calling male, and even that is somewhat uncertain. This may not be a species that allows us to accept a record with a conventional sighting and documentation, even with excellent photos or audible evidence. Perhaps it will take convincing banding measurements on a future record and that seems unlikely. On another note, I m confident that the record documents a Western Flycatcher and not a Yellow-bellied.
2nd round	8 Dec 2007	No, ID	This species doesn't belong on the checklist according to our current standards and therefore, earns my "Not accept" vote again. Know that I believe the bird occurs in our state and that I think I saw and heard a Pac-slope Flycatcher in Southern Cache County in June 2004. However, our checklist doesn't have a category for birds that can't be identified by conventional means presently available to birders and banders. Adding a hypothetical category as Rick and Ron have suggested is likely the solution, but it also could open Pandora's Box if we don't carefully define what situations fit the category. I don't want our checklist to become subject to the concept known as observer expectancy bias ("I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it!") in the scientific world, or wishful thinking in layman's terms. I'll continue to vote conservatively on this issue.
Ronald R.	5 Sep 2007	No, ID	I appreciate the thorough description and review of records. However, as Rick points out, this species is not distinguishable in the field without a song (even then it can be difficult). While this may have been a Pacific-slope Flycatcher, I cannot accept it only based on past winter records. I do appreciate the submission of this record as in the future, we may have more information on how to distinquish this species in the field and the photos might be sufficient.
2nd round	3 Oct 2007	No, ID	My comments from the first round still apply. I do appreciate Rick's assessment of this bird and could support listing this species as hypothetical for Utah based on this record (seasonality being the primary supporting information).
Terry S.	1 Sep 2007	Acc	I am still not convinced the Pacific-Slope and Cordillerean are two distinct species of the Western Flycatcher. However, since they are recognized as separate species by AOU I believe the observer has done excellent research and review on determining that the bird seen is Pacific-slope given where they migrate and winter and what has been identified in past winters in the Southwestern U.S.
2nd round	4 Oct 2007	Acc	As long as AOU is recognizing Pacific- slope Flycatcher as a distinct species I agree with Steve that it is an oversight that Pacific-slope Flycatcher is not currently on the Utah list. The factors of timing, habitat, and lowland occurrence all strongly suggest to me that the bird seen was a Pac-slope. I think when empirical data is not possible we should consider other data in our evaluation of records. Juvenile Sapsuckers in late fall and winter are identified quite often by presence or absence of juvenal plumage since juvenal plummage in Yellow-bellied Sapsuckers is retained into late winter while Red-naped develop adult features by late september. Could we not identify the Western Flycatchers by what we know of timing, habitat, and lowland occurrance?
Mark S.	26 Aug 2007	No, ID	This is a really tough vote for me. I agree with everything in Rick's analysis. In as much as there are really two species here (I'm personally skeptical of the split), I believe that the Pacific-slope form must occur in Utah during migration, probably regularly, and especially likely in the SW desert, just as Rick says. "Western" Flycatchers are common throughout Mexico in winter, and the conventional wisdom is that the high-elevation birds are Cordilleran and the low elevation birds are Pacific-slope, but in most cases there's no way to test this theory. I've been noting the calls everytime I hear them call, and so far all of the calls I've heard are consistant with this idea (realizing that even vocalization isn't always reliable). Presumably in-hand measurements are the only reliable way to identify these "species" away from the breeding grounds. Although birds have been "positively" identified as Pacific-slope in neighboring states during migration, and logic says that this should be a Pacific-slope (and, in fact, I believe it is), the fact remains that we can't say so with any certainty. The only reason this is presumably a Pacific-slope is the location and time of year, something that isn't very dependable outside of the breeding season. Vocalization would add to the confidence of this identification, but to be certain we should have specimens/measurements to establish occurrence of this "species" in Utah. Perhaps with more hard data (but who will collect this?) on where and when these occur in Utah we can get a better feel for how reliable it would be to say "fall/winter 'Western' Flycatchers in riparian zones of southern Utah are most likely Pacific-slope." I don't think we have enough information to make that conclussion right now - even though I think it's the correct one.
(Eric H.).2nd round	15 Feb 2008	No, ID	Great Discussion and a very interesting dilemma. This bird is out of place/season. Is this a farther-out-of-place more-common bird, or a less-common bird less-out-of-place? I don't think elevation and season are enough to identify this bird without real convincing data about the winter records of the two species. If we were to accept this record it would become documentation of a winter occurrence of Pacific-slope Flycatcher. Documentation that others may use to make future hypotheses. We shouldn't do that without knowing it is Pacific-slope.
Larry T.	30 Sep 2007	No, ID	I do agree that pac-slopes do come through in migration and probably aren't that rare.But without having the bird in hand you can't label it a pac-slope just because it may be more likely.Most expert birders that I know if they see a Western Flycatcher in winter they call it just that a Western Flycatcher. I for one don't think they should even be split. There is just to much overlap in their calls.
2nd round	12 Dec 2007	No, ID
David W.	16 Sep 2007	No, ID	I do not argue with anything that the observer noted. I think it is very likely indeed that this species passes often through the SW corner of our state. But, as the observer notes, the two members of the "Western Flycatcher" complex are essentially indistinguishable in the field when not singing (and even in that there is some overlap). I am not sure that there has been sufficient study of overwintering birds to be statistically certain that this was a Pacific flycatcher. I would urge Rick to continue his observations of this complex and perhaps see if he can get some of his colleagues at DNR to mistnet some of those lowland migrants and overwintering individuals for more definitive data. I agree we should be able to add that species to our list with a little more scientific effort.
2nd round	2 Oct 2007	No, ID

2007-21 Gilded Flicker

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	8 Aug 2007	Acc	Kevin and I were convinced this was a Gilded Flicker, although I'm disappointed I could not get any photos. I suppose it might fit the new 'provencial' or 'conditional' category, or whatever we decided to do with the recent Gray Hawk record (?).
2nd round	1 Dec 2007	Acc	I suppose we could always pull out the "it may be a hybrid" card. However, none of the characters we observed gave any indication that it may have been a hybrid. And while we did not observe a portion of the perched bird, none of the characters we missed are diagnostic or as distinctive as the face, head, and nape pattern. However, I suppose as the saying goes, "If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it may still be a hybrid".
3rd round	30 Mar 2008	Acc
Kristin P.	27 Sep 2007	No, ID	A detailed written account of a well-seen distinctive species would be a reasonable substitute for physical evidence to accompany a first-state record. Unfortunately, the bird only allowed a partial view and the Gilded Flicker is not distinctive enough from an intergrade red- x yellow-shafted or the less common Gilded x red-shafted flicker. A hybrid needs to be eliminated from consideration. Researchers identified a flicker in Beaver Dam Wash in Washington County in 1964 as a Gilded and noted the bird was a first-state record (Behle, 1976, referring to Aud. Field Notes 18:377, 1964); Behle also noted another Beaver Dam Wash record in Arizona (Aud. Field Notes 20:591, 1966) where a researcher identified two flickers that were collected as Gilded x red-shafted hybrids. I think both pure Gildeds and hybrids are possible and therefore, the record must leave no doubt.
2nd round	9 Dec 2007	No, ID	Our bylaws provide us with guidance for voting on a first state record, and this one doesn't meet our criteria. To save everyone the additional burden of researching the germane paragraph, here it is: 11. First State Records. It is preferable that a first state record have some form of physical documentation. Acceptable evidence could consist of photographs, sound recordings, specimens, verified band numbers, etc. However, a first state record may be accepted without physical documentation with these considerations in mind: (1) The species is obvious and easy to identify and cannot be confused with a similar species. (2) The observer is familiar with the species. (3) The observer is known by the committee members as a careful competent observer with experience in documenting rare birds. (4) There are multiple competent observers that submit separate, careful documentation. Only items 2 and 3 apply to this record. I'm unwilling either to dispense with our bylaws or to accept a first state record of a partial view of a species that hybridizes with others, and no physical evidence. Sorry to flog you all with the rules; it's annoying, I know. But if it's OK to ignore our own criteria on this particular record, in what other circumstances may I dispense with our bylaws?
3rd round	16 Jun 2008 2008	No, ID	When I reviewed and voted on this record in the first round, I voted based on the merits of the record without being cognizant of our first-state criteria. I still hold the opinion that the partial view of the bird didn't provide enough information to prove the ID when pure Gildeds and hybrids are possible in the southwest corner of the state. In addition, I didn't find any additional or compelling information in the other comments either to change my mind or to make me dig for more references, and I dug a lot the first time around.
Ronald R.	25 Nov 2007	No, ID	This is a tough record to assess. The viewer's comment that the bird "appeared to have yellow shafts on wing feathers" is not real convincing. Or could it have been somewhat yellow-orangish, indicative of a hybrid? The most definitive mark was the brown on the crown and nape, but red-shafted (northern) has brown on the crown, extending sometimes beyond the eye. The lack of a view of the tail, back and barring on the lower belly make the evaluation a bit difficult. I would like further discussion of this bird.
2nd round	23 Dec 2007	No, ID	I am sticking with my first decision on this record given the lack of observation of some key characteristics of a difficult ID. Kristin's review of our bylaws is appreciated. My vote is certainly no reflection on the abilities of the observers!
(Eric H.) 3rd rnd	13 Apr 2008	No, ID	I'm voting no based on the first state record criteria. I believe the description of the head coloring rules out everything but a gilded or a gilded/northern hybrid. With hybrid possibilities a full view of the bird would have been helpful.
Terry S.	1 Sep 2007	Acc	The crown and face color and pattern are distinctive in this species and the observer has described this very well convincing me that this was not a No. Flicker.
2nd round	2 Jan 2008	Acc	The head pattern described is very convincing for a Gilded Flicker and so I am staying with my acceptance of this record. Kris brings up some interesting points but the considerations for acceptance are just that.... considerations. We are not dispensing bylaws when we believe there there is a well described species without physical documentation.
3rd round	31 Mar 2008	Acc	As per my first and second round comments.
Mark S.	26 Aug 2007	Acc	Head pattern is well described and distinctive.geese present. Otherwise, most of this description looks good.
(Colby N.) 2nd rnd	25 Mar 2008	No, ID	I think the bylaws apply well to this record as Kris points out. I think a VERY well and carefully observed bird or photos are required for a record such as this.
(Colby N.) 3rd rnd	20 Oct 2008	No, ID	My vote still is no due to the possibility the bird was indeed a hybrid.
Larry T.	9 Oct 2007	Acc	This is certainly a difficult one. The head pattern described does fit a Gilded Flicker and seems to rule out a Northern Flicker.But the problem with hybrids in flickers alway seem to be an issue. I'm not quite sure what a hybrid between a Gilded and a red shafted would look like.Sibley says they occur regularly in there range overlap.
2nd round	29 Jan 2008	Acc	There's nothing in the description that doesn't fit a Gilded Flicker. I will still accept this sighting from 2 very careful observers that feel comfortable with calling it one.
3rd round	23 Sep 2008	No, ID	I will have to go along with the possibility of a Hybrid on this one.
David W.	8 Oct 2007	Acc	Although Mark has always cautioned that any "Gilded flicker" in Utah is likely to be a hybrid of Yellow-shafted and Red-shafted forms of the Northern flicker, I will let him carry that flag if he chooses to do so in this case. I find the description convincing.
2nd round	8 Jan 2008	No, ID	OK, I have to admit Kris makes a good enough point to force this into the thrird round. Seems we should have a fourth type of "No" option--"No, due to bylaw constraints".
3rd round	26 Mar 2008	No, ID	I am voting "YES--I believe this record was a Gilded Flicker" but "NO--I do not think it meets criteria for a first state record". Clearly the voting options do not adequately cover this sort of case. Please, could someone propose a new category to cover this contingency?

2007-22 Prothonotary Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	16 Sep 2007	Acc	Very nice (and late) record. Excellent photos.
Kristin P.	15 Aug 2007	Acc
Ronald R.	5 Sep 2007	Acc	Outstanding photos clinch this record!
Terry S.	1 Sep 2007	Acc	Great photos!
Mark S.	26 Aug 2007	Acc	Excellent description and photos. I also saw and photographed this bird.
Larry T.	30 Sep 2007	Acc
David W.	10 Aug 2007	Acc	This was an exquisitely documented bird seen by very many birders.

2007-23 Cackling Goose

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	16 Sep 2007	Acc	This is a significant record whether it's a Taverner's/ Richardson's Cackling Goose or a lesser Canada Goose, as none of these subspecies should be anywhere near Fish Springs in the summer. There is not a lot to go on, other than the observed small size and steep forehead/small bill (which both suggest cackling). I'm going to vote to accept this one and see if we can get some discussion going on the characteristics to distinguish these tricky subspecies.
2nd round	30 Oct 2007	Acc	I believe the description is adequate. Although the date is unusual, perhaps it's not unprecedented for a first summer goose. I've not any experience with a summering Cackling Goose, however there have been several young geese that have remained to spend their first summer in the St. George heat, including a Greater White-fronted Goose, a Snow Goose, and two Ross's Geese since 2002.
Kristin P.	5 Sep 2007	No, ID	The lack of well-developed ID information available to distinguish between B.h. hutchinsii, B.c.parvipes, and even B.c.taverneri undermines this carefully written record. Size overlap between the three subspecies/species makes the perception of the review bird s size less relevant and although the description of the bill as stubby is helpful, comparison of the shape of the forehead to that of the other geese present, likely B.c.moffitti, is less so. It seems a no-win situation. I regret having to vote not to accept this record; my vote is not at all a reflection on the observer. I think Cackling Goose records with the best chance of acceptance will be the more distinctive subspecies.
2nd round	28 Jul 2008	No, ID	My second round of study on this record brings up this question: Why is this bird not a B. c. parvipes? Answer: I don't know. A complete description of the structural elements of the head would have been helpful. Bill size of B. h. hutchinsii approaches parvipes in many birds and overlaps in male B. h. hutchinsii and female B. c. parvipes. I don't think the difference is discernable in the field. The observer said the review bird's bill was half the length of surrounding moffitti bills, but the literature shows moffitti's culmen length is only about 20 percent longer than hutchinsii's, leaving me with questions. Body size between hutchinsii and parvipes overlaps completely--3-7 pounds for hutchinsii and 5-6 pounds for parvipes. Color of both parvipes and hutchinsii breasts is similar to that of moffitti, therefore, breast color in this record is not a useful measure. Upperparts color including feather edging would have been a more useful measure. With the above considerations in mind, I don't think the observer adequately elimanted the Lesser Canada Goose, B. c. parvipes.
Ronald R.	5 Sep 2007	Acc	I feel the description is sufficient to describe this bird to subspecies hutchinsii of cackling goose. The overall size, neck length and bill size are consistent with cackling goose as compaired to Branta canadensis moffiti.
2nd round	23 Dec 2007	Acc	My comments from the first round still apply. I agree with David and Rick about the timing of the record.
Terry S.	4 Oct 2007	Acc	I think the bird's body size, head shape, bill shape,and neck length when compared to nearby Canada goose make this a likely candidate for a Cackling Goose.
2nd round	8 Nov 2007	Acc	I appreciate Kris's concern but still feel with the information we have in separating the subspecies of the 2 goose species that this is a hutchinsii Cackling Goose
Mark S.	26 Aug 2007	Acc	I'm troubled by the date of this sighting (not during migration) and would have liked to have the bill described in relation to the head size, not relative to the other geese present. Otherwise, most of this description looks good.
(Colby N.) 2nd rnd	25 Mar 2008	Acc	Not sure which way to go given the date, but as others have brought up it would be unusual either way. I would feel much better if there was a photo of this individual. While certainly the 'short stubby' bill and small size are common characteristics of Cacklers, I do feel the interpretation of these field marks vary between individual observers so I'm very hesitant to just call it a Cackler based on the mention of these field marks.
Larry T.	9 Oct 2007	Acc
2nd round	9 Jun 2008	Acc
David W.	15 Oct 2007	Acc	I have long struggled with this record, and could have gone either way on it. The physical description sounds good. The timing of the record is very unusual, as all subspecies of Cacklers should be far to the north at that time of year (breeding season). On the other hand, any subspecies of the Canada goose that small should also be far to the north. So the timing is a wash.
2nd round	28 Nov 2007	Acc

2007-24 Reddish Egret

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	16 Sep 2007	Acc	Good record. Nice photos.
Kristin P.	6 Sep 2007	Acc
Ronald R.	5 Sep 2007	Acc	Nice photos--clearly show reddish egret.
Terry S.	1 Sep 2007	Acc	Convincing Photos
Mark S.	26 Aug 2007	Acc	The description doesn't really provide the information needed to eliminate Little Blue Heron, but the photos show a Reddish Egret.
Larry T.	30 Sep 2007	Acc
David W.	5 Sep 2007	Acc	Photos. Several other observers reported seeing this bird engage in the hopping "dance" hunting for which the species is famous.

2007-25 Blue-headed Vireo

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	16 Sep 2007	Acc	I'm not sure either of the written descriptions do an adequate job of eliminating a bright Cassin's Vireo, which certianly can show a strong distinction and contrast between head/nape and back. However, the photos are the most convincing evidence of a Blue-headed Vireo I've seen yet for Utah, and show several important characteristics in differentiating Cassin's and BH Vireos, including throat demarcation, bright wing panel, greenish edging on flight feathers, bright white tertial edging, and bold tail edging.
Kristin P.	6 Sep 2007	Acc	Dusky breast seems atypical; I couldn't find any reference that described the breast other than white. Still, Tim Avery's photos are outstanding; it's very refreshing not to have to struggle with subtle detail like pronounced white edge on outer retrix.
Ronald R.	5 Sep 2007	Acc	Great photos and good description. The photos clearly show a bluish-gray head that contrasts greatly with the back and the strong contrast between the head color and the white throat (not diffuse as in Cassins).
Terry S.	17 Sep 2007	Acc	Seems to have all the characteristics of a Blue-headed Vireo.
Mark S.	26 Aug 2007	Acc	The description is barely adequate, and doesn't cover very well differentiation with Cassin's Vireo, but the photos are the best we've had of a Blue-headed Vireo in Utah. It's a very distinctive individual.
Larry T.	30 Sep 2007	Acc
David W.	5 Sep 2007	Acc	Although the written description is sparse, the photos show the key fieldmarks. (2007-25b) - Good description. Only thing that made me pause was the white wingbars, which most literature for this species describes as yellowish white. However, the photo for this species on the Cornell "Birds of North America" site shows wingbars that couldn't be described as anything but white.

2007-26 Neotropic Cormorant

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	16 Sep 2007	Acc
Kristin P.	9 Sep 2007	Acc
Ronald R.	25 Nov 2007	Acc	Nice record with adequate photos. Photos eliminate other cormorants (both size and color).
Terry S.	2 Oct 2007	Acc	Excellent description. A great record (2) Very good review of the bird. Great find
Mark S.	12 Oct 2007	Acc	I would have liked a better look/description of the shape of the trailing edge of the gullar sac, but all of the other field marks are adequate to eliminate Double-crested. I'm not confident of the size difference alone, but the relative length of the tail and the feathered (not yellow) lores are inconsistant with Double-crested and other cormorants.
Larry T.	9 Oct 2007	Acc
David W.	5 Sep 2007	Acc	We've been long overdue for this species. Kudos to Rick for taking the time to differentiate this cormorant from those around it rather than simply assuming it to be "the only cormorant on the list". Thank you. Let me confirm that this bird really was quite different from the DC cormorants on the lake. Its body proportions really stopped me cold in my scope scan (especially the long tail). The Id was subsequently confirmed by extent/shape of bare parts on face and gular area, overall size, and the location of the eyes above the yellow bare patch on the face.

2007-27 Tennessee Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	16 Sep 2007	Acc	I think this record is marginal, and I could go either way. The timing of this record is marginal, as Tennessee Warblers are not typically moving south of their breeding areas until late August / early September. However, I suppose the "un-streaked yellow-tinged breast" and "white undertail coverts" may be adequate to eliminate an Orange-crowned Warbler. The rest of the description could easily fit a first-fall OC Warbler.
2nd round	15 Mar 2008	No, ID	White on the bend of the wing does not rule out a Tenn. Warbler, as they often show this mark. However, I really can go either way on this one; the description is vague, and I still think the timing is questionable.
3rd round	22 Aug 2008	No, ID	I'm still worried about the early timing for a Tennessee Warbler, and believe at this early date, a juvenile / immature Orange-crowned Warbler is more likely.
Kristin P.	9 Sep 2007	Acc
2nd round	16 Jun 2008	Acc	Regardless of the references noting that the pale mark at the bend of the wing is better for an Orange-crowned (which almost got me to change my vote), I believe that Tennessees can have the mark, too. The link that Ron supplied, Rick's comment, and a Jack Binch observation on a Tennessee I saw (record 2005-27) convinced me that Tennessees can have that pale mark. I did not see or report the white mark on "my" Tennessee, but Jack told me later that he saw the mark on the bird a couple days later. His comment surprised me because I felt like I had observed the bird thoroughly and hadn't seen it. His noting the mark was unsolicited, as well. Is it possible this mark is present on some birds, but not visible all the time? Another field mark, the white undertail coverts, is not an Orange-crowned field mark.
3rd round	15 Nov 2008	Acc	I purposely withheld my third round vote until all members had voted because my last stone to turn was to consider other comments. Now I see that my vote will not be decisive and this record will not be accepted. Ron Ryel researched and found a photo of a Tennessee with a white wing bend to show that feature is not definitive for an Orange-crowned. Nowhere can I find a reference that shows an Orange-crowned can have white undertail coverts. Odd timing does not indicate Orange-crowned; odd timing is inherent in many of the rare bird records we deal with. I believe this bird was a Tennessee Warbler.
Ronald R.	25 Nov 2007	Acc	Sufficient description to eliminate vireos and OC warbler. Key marks are black line through eye to bill, pale supercilium, white undertail coverts and bill shape.
2nd round	23 Dec 2007	Acc	I feel this description fits a tennessee warbler. The white arc on forward edge of folded wing is clearly seen in the following photo (also on others I found under Google). http://www.saveoursongbirds.org/picture_library/Tennessee_Warbler.jpg
(Eric H.) 3rd rnd	22 Sep 2008	Acc	The description seems brief but when I think about it I don't know what else could have been added to help differentiate between a fall Tennessee and an OC. Maybe tail length. If Tennessee can also show a 'white arc'.
Terry S.	2 Oct 2007	Acc	While this is a very limited description I believe there is enough given to correctly identify the bird
2nd round	2 Jan 2008	Acc	Thanks, Ron, For researching this record
3rd round	22 Jun 2008	Acc
Mark S.	12 Oct 2007	Acc	Good description, analysis of similar species properly eliminates Orange-crowned Warbler.
(Colby N.) 2nd rnd	25 Mar 2008	No, ID	While the white undertail coverts suggests a Tennessee, I just don't think the description adequately rules out a first year Orange-crowned Warbler.
(Colby N.) 3rd rnd	20 Octr 2008	No, ID	Date is a little weird, but probably still ok. I think a more detailed description of the underpart coloring would have be helpful.
Larry T.	9 Oct 2007	No, ID	The white on the bend of the wing certainly isn't a good mark for Tennessee. I always thought it was distinct for a Orange-crowned Warbler.
2nd round	8 Jun 2008	No, ID
3rd round	23 Sep 2008	No, ID
David W.	5 Sep 2007	Acc
2nd round	1 Dec 2007	No, ID	After reading Larry's objection, I went back to the literature and found him to be correct. According to the Peterson's Field Guides -- Warblers: "Orange-crowneds show a pale patch at the bend of the wing, an excellent distinction from Tennessee when visible." (p. 146) I am left sufficiently doubtful of my original vote after seeing the conflicting fields marks to change the vote to NO, even if the majority of field marks support a Tennessee.
3rd round	22 Jun 2008	Acc	This has been an interesting process. Thank you, Ron.

2007-28 Bronzed Cowbird

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	30 Oct 2007	Acc
Kristin P.	8 Dec 2007	Acc
Ronald R.	25 Nov 2008	Acc	Good description and adequate photos.
Terry S.	16 Oct 2007	Acc
Mark S.	12 Oct 2007	Acc	Hard to argue with the red eye.
Larry T.	18 Nov 2007	Acc
David W.	8 Oct 2007	Acc	Nice record.

2007-29 Zone-tailed Hawk

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	16 Sep 2007	Acc	I think the description is adequate to accept as a Zone-tailed Hawk. A note however, I've frequently observed Common Black-Hawks soaring with Turkey Vultures.
2nd round	1 Dec 2007	Acc	While the description is limited, and I too would have liked to see more detail, I think this record is probably adequate based on the primary barring and described flight behavior.
Kristin P.	17 Sep 2007	Acc
2nd round	9 Dec 2007	Acc	I agree with Terry's comments about the lack of detail in this record. This is the most frustrating record of the year, especially because a critical detail like the position of the white band within the tail must have been visible, but the observer failed to mention it. Still, I distilled enough information from multiple reviews to convince me that the observer really did see a Zone-tailed Hawk. Those features included size smaller than a TV, sailing with a TV, rocking flight pattern, black/grayish black color, and barring on flight feathers.
Ronald R.	25 Nov 2008	Acc	Generally a good description, especially the wing and tail patterns and the flight pattern (rocking TV-like). The flight pattern and light area in front of the eye should eliminate a dark broad-winged hawk.
2nd round	23 Dec 2007	Acc	My comments from the first round still apply. I feel other species are safely eliminated, despite the lack of some details.
Terry S.	2 Oct 2007	No, ID	I don't feel comfortable accepting this record on the first round. I believe there is critical information lacking such as description of the bare parts(i.e. cere, beak, legs)
2nd round	2 Jan 2008	Acc	I Change my vote on this one to accept based on other committee members' comments.
Mark S.	12 Oct 2007	Acc	Excellent description and analysis of similar species - noting similarities with Turkey Vultures also present helps.
(Colby N.) 2nd rnd	25 Mar 2008	Acc	Adequate description
Larry T.	9 Oct 2007	Acc
2nd round	8 Jun 2008	Acc
David W.	16 Sep 2007	Acc	The barring on the flight feathers was a nice detail.
2nd round	28 Nov 2007	Acc

2007-30 Red-necked Grebe

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	30 Oct 2007	Acc	nice photos
Kristin P.	8 Dec 2007	Acc
Ronald R.	25 Nov 2008	Acc	Well documented. Excellent photos!
Terry S.	16 Oct 2007	Acc
Mark S.	12 Oct 2007	Acc	Nice description, and he photo helps.
Larry T.	18 Nov 2007	Acc
David W.	12 Oct 2007	Acc	nice record