|
2008-01 McCown's Longspur
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
15 Mar 2008 |
Acc |
Great record |
|
Eric H. |
18 Feb 2008 |
Acc |
The field marks
described and the marks seen in the photo do not fit any other bird (tail
pattern + chestnut median coverts). Some of the description doesn't seem
to fit the photo exactly. Maybe there were more than two birds? |
|
Colby N. |
18 Feb 2008 |
Acc |
Good description and
elimination of similar species and photo helps, too. |
|
Kristin P. |
23 Jun 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
Terry S. |
18 Mar 2008 |
Acc |
Even though I would
have liked to have seen better description of body shape, primary
projection, and comparative bill shape with the Laplands that were
present, I believe solid narrative supports the sighting. |
|
Larry T. |
8 Jun 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
David W. |
13 Mar 2008 |
Acc |
Well, we can't complain about too sparse a description on this one. |
2008-02 Cackling Goose
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
30 Mar 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round |
22 Aug 2008 |
No, ID |
I suppose this could
be a Lesser
Canada Goose (B. c. parvipes), however I still think most of the
features point to a Taverner's Goose (B. h. taverni). |
|
Eric H. |
13 Apr 2008 |
No, ID |
The 'cackling' geese
in the photos look fairly large. The bill does look small but not really
stubby. I don't feel at all confident identifying the white-cheeked geese
that aren't at the extremes of size/shape. |
|
2nd round |
2 Nov 2008 |
No, ID |
I can't say with
confidence that this isn't a Lesser
Canada Goose (B. c. parvipes). |
|
Colby N. |
9 Jun 2008 |
No, ID |
While the written
description fits Cackling Goose, the photos make this record a little more
ambiguous. In the photos where the bird(s)' bill is observable (photos
A,B,E), it looks too long for a 'good' Cackling Goose. Now that does not
mean this bird is out of the range for Cackling Goose either. This reminds
of a bird I saw at an industrial park last winter where the bird seemed
like it could go either way. If others feel this is within the range of
Cackling Goose, and I'm out to lunch (and I do some more research) then I
will likely give this record a yes in the second round. I have no doubt
that Ryan saw a Cackling Goose, but I'm just not sure the one(s) with the
best side profile is a Cackling Goose given the photos. |
|
2nd round |
20 Oct 2008 |
No, ID |
|
|
Kristin P. |
29 Jul 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round |
2 Nov 2008 |
No, ID |
Looks like we share
the same doubts about identifying the mid-range Canada/Cacklers from each
other. See my comments on 2007-23. What's the future for these subspecies
records with our committee, especially records that don't include photos?
This one had photos and we couldn't confidently say it's one or the other,
therefore, it will not be accepted. |
|
Terry S. |
10 May 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round |
11 Sep 2008 |
No, ID |
Other reviewers have
made me have
second thoughts on this record. Colby's and David's comments are
persuasive. |
|
Larry T. |
20 Jun 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round |
23 Sep 2008 |
No, ID |
After reading other
comments I looked at this record closer and would have to agree this one
could go either way. |
|
David W. |
19 Mar 2008 |
No, ID |
At the outset, let me just say that I almost want to recuse myself from
this vote because I am still struggling with the definitive identification
of the various subspecies of the Canada/Cackling goose complex. I've seen
geese like these in Utah and have not yet had the courage to put them on
my own Utah list, out of nagging doubt.
I do feel comfortable saying these geese do not look like the the minima
or leucopareia subspecies of the Cackling goose, but could possibly be the
taverneri or hutchinii subspecies.
I am voting NO because these are not "obviously" Cackling geese, to my
mind. When I look at photos of the Lesser Canada goose (B. c. parvipes), I
see a good match that fits the photos presented with this record. That
subspecies of Canada goose also has a squarer head; shorter neck; shorter,
more wedge-shaped bill; and is 2/3 the size of our moffitti Canada geese.
Neck ring is pretty variable across both species, so I will not even
address that. I do not feel the observer adequately ruled out the Lesser
Canada goose in this writeup/photos. |
|
2nd round |
31 Aug 2008 |
No, ID |
|
2008-03 Common Ground-Dove
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
30 Mar 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round |
21 Oct 2008 |
Acc |
There is no question
that Laurie's bird was a Common Ground-Dove. In regards to David's
question - yes I did see the bird, and I simply transcribed Laurie's
notes. I also took some notes on the dove and could submit them if
necessary, however, since Laurie found the dove, I encouraged her to
write-up the record for submission. And in my (biased?) opinion, I believe
the write-up (although scant) and photos (although low resolution) are
adequat |
|
Eric H. |
13 Apr 2008 |
Acc |
I wish the photos
were just a little sharper and I wish the observer would have described
the bird more.
She mentions 'pink at base of bill', 'short tail' and 'a scaled pattern on
it's neck and head', didn't say anything about scaling on the back so I'm
assuming there wasn't any. |
|
2nd round |
2 Nov 2008 |
Acc |
I believe there is
enough description to rule out similar species. It's good to know someone
else saw the bird. I was under the impression that only Laurie saw the
bird. Having additional eyewitnesses that independently identify a bird
always strengthens a record. |
|
Colby N. |
20 Oct 2008 |
No, ID |
The photos and the
description are almost conclusive? Admittedly, it appears to have a short
tail via the photos, which suggests this is a ground dove (and maybe no
tail at all?, but the description does mention a 'short tail' with a
'white edge')...I would have liked a more detailed description of the
tail, body and wing pattern...did the scaling extend anywhere else on the
bird?, what was the wing pattern perched?, what was the underpart coloring
and pattern?, etc.... |
|
2nd round |
11 Dec 2008 |
No, ID |
I think the
record as it stands is insufficient. It will probably pass regardless,
but I think a thorough description from Rick helps to solidify this
sighting. |
|
Kristin P. |
13 Oct 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round |
1 May 2009 |
Acc |
Barely adequate
elimination of other species. Chestnut-colored primaries eliminate large
doves, short tail eliminates Inca Dove, scaling pattern on head and neck
favors COGD. Other factors mentioned, like white edge of tail, is a
neutral detail since RUGDs also have white tail tips. Photos not helpful
toward plumage details. Knowing of Rick's additional observation is a
factor in my filing a second round Accept vote. |
|
Terry S. |
10 May 2008 |
Acc |
Marginal photos but
good description |
|
2nd round |
11 Nov 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
Larry T. |
20 Jun 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round |
1 Feb 2009 |
Acc |
|
|
David W. |
19 Mar 2008 |
No, ID |
I have some questions on this record, so I am voting "No" in hopes of
sending the record into the second round. Overall, I would like to see a
stronger case made against this being an Inca dove with a short tail.
Namely:
1) Was the scaling LIMITED to the head and breast? The observer doesn't
actually state that, though it is implied. When I look at the photos, it
appears there may be scaling on the wings (esp. photo B), or at least
splotching (photos A & C). In photo A, it even appears there may be
scaling on the flanks & lower breast.
2) Was the base of the bill truly pink or just pale? Juvenile Inca doves
often have a pale base to bill. The photos don't show pink, but they are
blurry. The photos also show what APPEARS to be a fairly long bill too,
more consistent with an Inca dove, but this is not at all conclusive.
3) What was the shape of the tail? Was it broad and square or like some
sort of truncated/regrowing shape (perhaps molted or ripped off)? Most
Inca doves have young during spring to fall, but may do so year-round (per
Cornell site). I mention this because the short tail could possibly be
due to a molt from juvenile to adult plumage, though I do not know exactly
how such a molt would proceed.
4) What exactly about the wing pattern differentiated this bird from an
Inca dove? Wings of these two species are fairly similar, so I think it
is important to know what was meant by this. When I look at the photos, I
do not see any signs of the dark spots on the wings that I associate with
a Comon ground-dove (though I agree the photos are not clear enough to be
definitive about this).
5) Who actually saw the dove? Depending on which part of the record
writeup I look at, it seems like it was Rick or Laurie, possibly both.
Did Rick just transcribe this?
|
|
2nd round |
1 Jan 2009 |
No, ID |
I'm sorry to vote
against this again, but I have yet to receive requested information on
this record which would clarify some ID points (especially the extent of
scaling). Although I think it very likely that a birder of Rick's
abilities would have correctly identified this bird, I have to vote my
conscience on this one in the absence of data. I would be very happy to
change my vote if my questions were answered, but I do not wish to hold up
this record any further. |
2008-04 Lawrence's Goldfinch
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
30 Mar 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
Eric H. |
19 Mar 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
25 Mar 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
Kristin P. |
13 Oct 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
Terry S. |
10 May 2008 |
Acc |
Great Photos |
|
Larry T. |
20 Jun 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
David W. |
19 Mar 2008 |
Acc |
I saw one of these birds still visiting the feeder on the 15th of March
2008. Thank you, Rick, for the submission of the record (saving me the
trouble), and also your help in getting me to see the bird in person. |
2008-05 Common Redpoll
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
30 Mar 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
Eric H. |
26 Mar 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
25 Mar 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
Kristin P. |
16 Oct 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
Terry S. |
10 May 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
Larry T. |
20 Jun 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
David W. |
26 Mar 2008 |
Acc |
Good photos, plus well differentiated from Hoary redpoll. |
2008-06 Cackling Goose
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
22 Aug 2008 |
Acc |
This is nice, clean, minima Cackling Goose |
|
Eric H. |
13 Apr 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
9 Jun 2008 |
Acc |
Good photos |
|
Kristin P. |
29 Jul 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
Terry S. |
10 May 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
Larry T. |
20 Jun 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
David W. |
30 Mar 2008 |
Acc |
Now this is a Cackling goose I can get behind. |
2008-07 Neotropic Cormorant
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
22 Aug 2008 |
No, ID |
|
|
Eric H. |
19 Jun 2008 |
No, ID |
I believe these are
Double-crested Cormorants. |
|
Colby N. |
9 Jun 2008 |
No, ID |
These are good
photos of second year Double-crested Cormorants. The pale edging on the
side of the one bird, is within the range of Double-crested Cormorant.
Although usually less apparent in water, given the quality of the photos,
there would be a noticeable size difference between the two species as
well. |
|
Kristin P. |
16 Oct 2008 |
No, ID |
I believe the
observer saw several young DCCOs just entering their second year. Last
year's DCCOs retain brown plumage well into the next spring and sometimes
summer and wouldn't have head plumes. An adult NECO is entirely black with
iridescent tones and is noticeably smaller than a DCCO, not brown and the
same size. In addition, photographs dispute the written word picture. Size
of alleged NECOs is the same as the nearby adult DCCOs; size, shape,
color, and proportion size of gular pouch to the head is the same on the
birds in question (alleged NECOs) as in the adult DCCOs in the
photographs. I beleive all the birds depicted and observed were DCCOs. |
|
Terry S. |
10 May 2008 |
No, ID |
Looks like this is
probably a Juvenile Double-crested Cormorant. |
|
Larry T. |
23 Sep 2008 |
No, ID |
|
|
David W. |
24 Apr 2008 |
No, ID |
These look like juvenile-plumaged Double-cresteds to me (the juvenile
plumage is retained into the first spring in DCCs, the molt extending into
at least mid April). Note the yellow supraloral skin on most, which is a
classic DCC fieldmark. In the photos, the shape of the gular pouch is
inconclusive in some of the birds (and indeed more like DCC in others).
Juvenile-plumaged DCCs also have a whitish outline to their gular pouches.
Overall feather coloration is also consistent with a juvenile DCC.
Finally, the size difference between the two species (which were
together)was not noted, as it should have been because the DCC is usually
significantly larger. When one looks at the photos and compares those
birds that are clearly DCCs to hose that are in some respects less
obviously so, one doesn't see the expected size difference. |
2008-08 Mississippi Kite
| resubmissionl comments (2021) |
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
22 Aug 2008 |
Acc |
Description is adequate (particularly 08a) and timing is perfect for a
vagrant Mississippi Kite. |
|
2nd round |
28 Dec 2008 |
Acc |
I still don't have a problem
with this as a 'provisional record'. |
|
Bob B. 3rd round |
27 Aug 2009 |
No, ID |
I really feel that this bird was
a Mississippi Kite. However there are a few nagging questions that have
all been mentioned, and for a first state record, I believe the record
should be certain, not probable. However I must say that if I had seen
this bird I would be sorely tempted to put it on my own personal list. |
|
Eric H. |
22 Sep 2008 |
Acc |
I am having a hard time with
this one and have waited way too long to vote. These are two detailed,
well written records. The write-ups both seem to eliminate similar
species.
My concern is with the rarity of this species and the circumstances of the
sighting, mainly the incomplete views and extreme lighting. Birds flying
overhead with the sun at such a low angle can appear much different than
in normal situations. If the bird was flying towards the setting sun
wouldn't the light wash out the underside of the bird and wouldn't the
body of the bird cast a shadow on the tail making it look darker?
I feel Ryan and Craig have both submitted very descriptive records and I'm
voting to accept. I'll ponder it more and vote again in the second round. |
|
2nd round |
8 Dec 2008 |
Acc |
The observation was not made in
ideal conditions or lighting but two observers feel they saw a Mississippi
Kite both of which have experience hawk watching and one has seen
Mississippi Kites before. It is a relatively distinctive species. I feel
from the descriptions they saw enough to rule out similar species. |
|
3rd round |
13 Aug 2009 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
9 Jun 2008 |
No, ID |
I think the brevity and quality
of the actual observation is hurtful for this record. They did an
wonderful job writing up their description though! Again, I'm going to
say no, for similar reasons to the Purple Finch even though short of
photos/recording this is about as good of a written record as possible
especially given the duration and circumstances of the actual
observation. I look forward to reading other's comments on this record. |
|
2nd round |
11 Dec 2008 |
No, ID |
I just think the short duration
and lighting of the observation throws in too much doubt. I still think
the observers did an excellent job writing this report though...and it
probably was a Mississippi Kite. |
|
3rd round |
12 Jun 2009 |
No, ID |
Concerns still stand...won't be
upset if it is accepted though |
|
Kristin P. |
18 Oct 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round |
1 May 2009 |
Acc |
Good test of our new bylaw to
consider a potential first state record on the same merits as other
records without physical evidence. Physical documentation and multiple
observers as with the first state Pacific Golden-plover record are a
records committee dream; I think this one is more typical and qualifies as
a typical sighting with good enough documentation. Masterful job on the
part of both observers in noting detail considering the lighting and
brevity of the observations. Unique dark tail and the shape noted multiple
times by both observers; record -08 even addressed a lighting issue that
might produce the illusion of white patches on the wings' dorsal surface,
lighting that was not present when the bird banked, therefore, white
secondaries are extremely likely. Excellent elimnation section in -08a. |
|
3rd round |
11 Aug 2009 |
Acc |
Ron's comment about the
usually-obvious whitish head, along with what seemed to be circumstances
to observe it, sent me into another round of research. While I can find
evidence of why a kite wouldn't have shown a whitish head (adult female
with a medium gray head and body), I can't find information to discount
the distinctive dark, long, square-cut tail observed several times by both
observers. |
|
Terry S. |
26 Jul 2008 |
No, ID |
While the color and shape of the
tail sound good for Mississippi Kite very little good observation was made
on the bird mostly because of the short duration of observation and flight
of the bird toward the sun. |
|
2nd round |
11 Nov 2008 |
No, ID |
I still feel the sighting is
questionable given the brevity and lighting |
|
Ron. R 3rd round |
8 Jul 2009 |
No, ID |
The observers did a good job documenting what they say and it
is quite possible that they saw a Mississippi kite. However, some key
features were not observed including the pattern of the head (should
appear mostly white (usually pretty obvious) with dark patch around eye
extending through loral area), clear documentation of where the observed
white was on the wings, and short outermost primary. I don't feel the
observation clearly identifies a Mississippi kite, and that the
observation relies in part on elimination of other species. Also, I am not
sure the description fully eliminates a dark phase Swainson's hawk under
the less than ideal light conditions of this observation (one was seen in
the area by others looking for the kite). |
|
Larry T. |
30 Oct 2008 |
No, ID |
The description of the poor
lighting make this record difficult.The differences in the described
flight style don't help either. |
|
2nd round |
1 Feb 2009 |
No, ID |
This could very well be a
Mississippi Kite. But for a first State record I still don't like the
lighting issue and the brief duration of the sighting.
I'm sure most of us have had brief looks or saw birds in bad light
thinking we had a certain species ( rare or not ) only to get a better
look and see that we were wrong. It's to bad but I think this is one that
we have to let go. I've had plenty of those over the years. |
|
3rd round |
16 Aug 2009 |
No, ID |
I still can't get past my
earlier issues with this sighting. |
|
David W. |
2 Jul 2008 |
Acc |
Convincing. I'm surprised we don't get more reports of this species when
one considers its migratory habits. |
|
2nd round |
1 Jan 2009 |
Acc |
|
|
3rd round |
1 Jun 2009 |
Acc |
|
2008-08r Mississippi Kite
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, ID |
I support the UBRC's previous decision on
this record. |
|
2nd round |
25
Jun 2021 |
No, ID |
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 |
Extensive description has effectively ruled out
other species in my view. |
|
2nd round |
24
May 2021 |
Acc |
Continuing to accept; detailed report rules out
other species in my perception. |
|
Mike H. |
11 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
Great description and detailed report. This is
one of two reports of Mississippi Kite that was observed by very competent
birders. |
|
2nd round |
20
Jun 2021 |
Acc |
No change in my initial opinion. |
|
Bryant
O. |
23 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
Very thorough written description by both
observers seems conclusive to eliminate other possibilities. Like the
observers noted, we should have more records of this species than we do,
particularly in southern Utah. |
|
2nd round |
12 May
2021 |
Acc |
Description rules out all other possibilities. |
|
Mike S. |
10 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
I believe that the combination of field marks
described establishes the ID as a Mississippi Kite. The timing is
consistent with multiple records from both Nevada and California. |
|
2nd round |
4 Jun 2021 |
Acc |
I believe this record contains very good written
documentation, and adequately rules out similar species. |
|
Bryan S. |
11 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
Good description of the bird and the
characteristics that the observers report eliminates any other similar
species |
|
2nd round |
19 May
2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S.
2nd: |
26 Jun 2021 |
No, ID |
|
|
Mark S. |
14 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Nothing else fits this description - adult
Mississippi Kite is strikingly distinctive. |
|
2nd round |
6 Jun 2021 |
Acc |
A good observation and description from an
experienced observer. This species is long overdue on our list; I've seen
one myself, during the time that the committee was not active. |
|
David W. |
5 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
The reports do an admirable job eliminating
other species. I wish the white secondaries had been seen/seen better, but
I think there is enough here to vote to accept. |
|
2nd round |
19 Apr
2021 |
Acc |
I maintain these descriptions eliminate other
possibilities. |
2008-09 Yellow-billed Loon
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
22 Aug 2008 |
Acc |
Nice description, excellent photos |
|
Eric H. |
19 Jun 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
9 Jun 2008 |
Acc |
Good photos |
|
Kristin P. |
18 Oct 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
Terry S. |
22 Jun 2008 |
Acc |
A well documented record with
outstanding photos |
|
Larry T. |
23 Sep 2008 |
Acc |
Nice bird! |
|
David W. |
28 May 2008 |
Acc |
Photo C is just superb. |
2008-10 Mountain Quail
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
22 Aug 2008 |
No, Int |
Based on the description, it appears a Mountain Quail was observed. |
|
Eric H. |
30 Jul 2008 |
No, ID |
I need more detailed notes on
plumage, taken at the time of the sighting, for a bird as rare as a
Mountain Quail. She admitted that she was unfamiliar with western quails
at the time, "Before I had seen those in person, I thought it could be a
California or Gambel's Quail." and wrote this up a few months after the
sighting. She also mentions a couple places near her that raise or keep
captive animals. |
|
Colby N. |
9 Jun 2008 |
No, Nat |
Certainly an interesting record,
but I question the natural occurrence given quail's flight skills and
especially the proximity of the location to nearby farms (pet, barnyard
escapee, etc.) in the Cache Valley. |
|
Kristin P. |
18 Oct 2008 |
No, Nat |
It's unlikely that this bird
arrived in Paradise under natural circumstances due to the short migratory
journeys for which the species is known. In addition, since the species
has experienced significant declines in Idaho, Northern Nevada and
Eastern Oregon, the
likelihood of the population expanding into Utah is extremely low. This
bird is more likely an escapee. Contra to that statement however, is the
fact that a UDWR representative told me back in June that no one in the
Paradise area holds a permit to raise quail.
Good establishment of ID by the observer through plumage, size, behavior
and sound. |
|
Terry S. |
24 Jun 2008 |
No, Nat |
While this narrative describes
what may be a Mountain Quail I'm concerned this is probably a captive bird
that has been released or escaped. Mountain Quail have a restricted range
with altitudinal migration. |
|
Larry T. |
23 Sep 2008 |
No, ID |
|
|
David W. |
9 Jul 2008 |
No, Nat |
I don't know what to think about this record. The description of overall
color, long head plume, and voice matches a Mountain quail. However, I
have some reservations:
1) The bird was described as looking like a Chukar (which matches the
description much better than a MQ other than the head plume), but a Chukar
is rather different than a MQ in appearance (face, breast, belly, and even
back color). Unfortunately, the description of this bird was very general
and omitted any field marks other than the head plume that would
differentiate between the two species.
2) The bird was described as being notably larger than a quail. That
matches a Chukar, but a MQ is only an inch larger than a California quail.
3) The sound is described as "short, screechy, queark", which is a very
good match for a MQ. However, there are several Chukar vocalizations which
are rendered similarly on Cornell's Birds of North America Online. So I do
not think the call can eliminate that species either. Some examples which
jump out at me are: a) Hawk Alarm. Overhead movement or shadows generally
elicit short, guttural kerr, b) On Guard. Low-pitched undulating kweer
emitted if overhead disturbance (such as a soaring hawk) continues, and c)
All s Well. Soft plaintive coo-oor of loafing or feeding bird that is not
under stress. Can also signify end of period of alarm.
4) The natural range of this nonmigratory species is nowhere near Bear
Lake. It seems much more likely that, if this is indeed a MQ, it is an
escapee from some hunting club, or similar game farm. I contacted Idaho
Fish & Game and was told that a fellow named Mike Bird raises exotic game
birds on the Idaho side of Bear Lake, and they suspect his place may be
the source of this bird (though they are not sure what exact exotic
species he is raising).
In summary, I think there is adequate doubt as to the identity and source
of this non-migratory bird to accept this record. |
2008-11 Black-throated Blue Warbler
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
22 Aug 2008 |
Acc |
The description is barely adequate, but I suppose is convincing for this
distinctive warbler. Also description of song and timing are correct. |
|
2nd round |
28 Dec 2008 |
No, ID |
I suppose two in
June is very peculiar, and casts doubt on this record. |
|
Eric H. |
9 Jun 2008 |
No, ID |
I would like a better
description. Where exactly was the blue? The Black? Similar Species?
What about
Cerulean Warbler, Lazuli Bunting or Yellow-rumped Warbler? Did
the observer actually see the bird singing or could there have been other
birds present? Insufficient Description. |
|
2nd round |
8 Dec 2008 |
No, ID |
|
|
Colby N. |
20 Oct 2008 |
No, ID |
The fact he heard the song is
good...but I'm hesitant about the after the fact 'song was a dead on
match'...time of year and habitat/location is, in my opinion, actually
very good for this species migrating through the Intermountain West as
there multiple records for this species moving through the higher
elevations of the region at this time of year...however, the description
is poor with few details, and the fact a female was 'tagging along' seems
odd to me at best. And there was no description of the female. |
|
2nd round |
11 Dec 2008 |
No, ID |
Same issues |
|
Kristin P. |
19 Oct 2008 |
Acc |
Very difficult decision based on
multiple shortcomings of this record and improbable timing of two BTBWs.
However, I regard the male as unmistakable and the song description as
accurate, even if it looks like a
field guide description.
I vote to accept the sighting of the male only, and not the female, which
the observer did not describe. |
|
2nd round |
1 May 2009 |
No, ID |
Committee members'
comments have nudged me from my barely-adequate, what-else-could-it-be
opinion to not adequate, elimnation section poorly documented. |
|
Terry S. |
22 Jun 2008 |
Acc |
A distinctive species |
|
2nd round |
11 Nov 2008 |
No, ID |
Other comments have
raised some doubt even though this is a distinctive species. |
|
Larry T. |
30 Oct 2008 |
No, ID |
Very distinct
Warbler But the
female doesn't fit or the song seems a little off. Not sure what else this
would be but a second round is in order for this one. |
|
2nd round |
1 Feb 2009 |
No, ID |
|
|
David W. |
2 Jul 2008 |
No, ID |
OK, I will admit that my vote on this record was influenced by the
dismissively vague description in the report, and perhaps I am being
unduly stringent on this one as a result. What does "distinctive" mean to
a birder who has never seen the species in question? How far did the
distinctive colors extend?
Was a Lazuli bunting adequately eliminated? The song of that species can
be vaguely similar to a Black-throated Blue Warbler's, and it is Blue &
black above, with white patch(es) in the wing & below.
What are the odds of a pair being lost together as described here?
The description is a good match for a Black-throated Blue Warbler, in a
general way, but I would have wanted more detail to eliminate doubt. |
|
2nd round |
31 Oct 2008 |
No, ID |
|
2008-12 Whip-poor-will (Resubmitted on
12 Aug 2014 as a Mexican Whip-poor-will)
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
22 Aug 2008 |
Acc |
Nice record of a "Mexican" Whip-poor-will! |
|
Eric H. |
30 Jul 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
20 Oct 2008 |
Acc |
Happy to have recordings despite
the multiple observers |
|
Kristin P. |
15 Nov 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
Terry S. |
26 Jul 2008 |
Acc |
Great Find! Good recordings |
|
Larry T. |
23 Sep 2008 |
Acc |
Great record. Not exactly the
area of the state I would have thought the first one would be found. |
|
David W. |
2 Jul 2008 |
Acc |
Nice record of the Mexican Whip-poor-will race. |
2008-12R Mexican Whip-poor-will (Resubmitted on
12 Aug 2014 as a Mexican Whip-poor-will)
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
13 Oct 2014 |
Acc |
|
|
Bob B. |
17 Aug 2014 |
Acc |
|
|
Rick F. |
20 Oct 2014 |
Acc |
|
|
Ryan O. |
12 Aug 2014 |
abst |
[submitted original record] |
|
Terry S.. |
15 Aug 2014 |
Acc |
|
|
Dennis S. |
14 Aug 2014 |
Acc |
Acceptance from 2008
shouldn't be changed. Recordings are convincing a second time. |
|
Jack S.. |
13 Oct 2014 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
6 Sep 2014 |
Acc |
|
|
David W. |
12 Aug 2014 |
Acc |
Comments back in 2008 vote. [2008
comments] |
2008-13 Chestnut-collared Longspur
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
22 Aug 2008 |
Acc |
Great record. Adequate description, nice photo. |
|
Eric H. |
30 Jul 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
20 Oct 2008 |
Acc |
Good photo and description |
|
Kristin P. |
18 Nov 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
Terry S. |
26 Jul 2008 |
Acc |
Good photo |
|
Larry T. |
30 Oct 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
David W. |
31 Aug 2008 |
Acc |
Well done. Another great photo by Tim. |
2008-14 Glossy Ibis
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
22 Aug 2008 |
Acc |
This is a very intriguing record. I appluad the observer for a detailed
description and numerous photos. Despite the observer's claim that the
bird is an "adult in breeding plumage", I'm not so sure of the age or
plumage of this bird. It certainly doesn't appear to be a typical adult
alternate-plumaged Glossy or
White-faced Ibis.
I can accept the identification as a Glossy Ibis, based on two characters
visible in the photos. The eye color appears brown in all photos, and the
grayish facial skin on the lores does not extend behind the eye, or under
the chin (as seen in photos E and G).
In regards to leg color and bill color, which are sometimes mentioned as
important features separating the two species, in my opinion these are
highly variable and non-diagnostic field marks.
Hybridization does regularly occur where the breeding ranges of the two
species overlap in Louisiana, so I suppose a hybrid is possible, however
unlikely. |
|
Bob B. 2nd round: |
27 Aug 2009 |
Acc |
I believe this is a pure Glossy Ibis and not a hybrid. I am a bit
concerned about the eye color. In one of the photos I am not absolutely
sure of the dark color, but overall I am convinced this is a Glossy Ibis. |
|
Eric H. |
8 Dec 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
20 Jul 2009 |
Acc |
If the observer got a good look and the bird didn't show any signs of
hybridization I will accept as a Glossy Ibis. |
|
Colby N. |
20 Oct 2008 |
No, ID |
It seems the lack of a red eye
is good. However, I have a really hard time seeing red in general. Also,
I'm not sure how we can eliminate a hybrid? I don't like being this anal,
but I'd also like to hear others' thoughts on this bird and the relatively
undocumented hybrids of White-faced/Glossy. The observer did note some
blue-ish facial skin, but that it wasn't extensive. At what point, do we
accept or not accept birds based on the relative lack of documentation
regarding hybrids and their variability or maybe this is completely within
the range of a pure Glossy?
Here are some additional photos of alternate plumage birds that may be of
some use to others...
http://schmoker.org/BirdPics/plegadis.html |
|
2nd round: |
12 Jun 2009 |
Acc |
|
|
Kristin P. |
4 May 2009 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
11 Aug 2009 |
Acc |
Observer carefully noted most of the fine distinctions between the Glossy
and White-faced Ibises to accept this bird as a Glossy, including color
and pattern of facial skin (although no mention of whether blue wrapped
behind the eye), lack of white facial feathering, and eye and bill color.
Would like to have his impressions of leg color, although I appreciate the
observer mentioning that this was not observable. Excellent elimination
section. Photos not particularly helpful. One possible new ID point for
Glossys vs. White-faced Ibis and hybrids (still to be proven) is color of
tertials as mentioned in Leukering, Colorado Birds, April, 2008. The
suggestion is that Glossy Ibis tertials tend toward green and violte with
no bronze (same color as greater coverts), while White-faced and hybrids
may show some bronze. This theory appears borne out in the photos. |
|
Terry S. |
11 Sep 2008 |
Acc |
Good Description and photo |
|
Ron R. 2nd round: |
5 Jul 2009 |
Acc |
The description and photos eliminate white-faced ibis and are most
consistent with glossy ibis. The observational comments effectively
address this for this individual and I feel safely eliminate a hybrid. In
addition, the fine line of light coloration on the face does not look like
feathers. However, given the prospects of interbreeding, the likelyhood of
hybrids in Utah are high. Unless there is distinct breeding by these
glossy ibis or regular in-migration, hybrids are likely to become the
normal siting in the near future. |
|
Larry T. |
30 Oct 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
23 Jun 2009 |
Acc |
|
|
David W. |
1 Oct 2008 |
Acc |
Very thoroughly presented. The main distinguishing features of the
species are discussed: iris color, facial skin color, extent of pale
outline to face, bill color, and (though vague) leg color. Thankfully,
this was an adult, so the ID was more straight-forward. |
|
2nd round: |
3 Jun 2008 |
Acc |
I think the observer does an admirable job eliminating the possibility of
a hybrid. |
2008-15 Eastern Phoebe
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
25 Aug 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
Eric H. |
26 Aug 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
20 Oct 2008 |
Acc |
Good photos |
|
Kristin P. |
28 May 2009 |
Acc |
|
|
Terry S. |
11 Sep 2008 |
Acc |
|
|
Larry T. |
14 Dec 2008 |
Acc |
Probably the same bird that has
been wintering in the area the last couple years. |
|
David W. |
29 Aug 2008 |
Acc |
Good photos. |
|
