Records Committee Utah Ornithological Society Web Site

Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society

Status & Comments
Year 2011 (records 51 through 73)

2011-51 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	6 Nov 2011	Acc	Photos extremely helpful with this species, as is the late juvenile plumage.
2nd round:	8 Jan 2012	Acc	I still feel the photos are totally compatible with a Yellow-bellied sapsucker.
Rick F.	15 Nov 2011	Acc	photo clearly shows a hatch-year YB Sapsucker, however, I wish these banding records would submit the measurements with the record.
2nd round:	13 Jan 2012	Acc	I believe the plumage of the bird looks perfect for a late October juvenile YB Sapsucker (and I can see no evidence to suggest any hybridization).
Steve H. 2nd rnd:	21 Jan 2012	Acc
Ryan O.	23 Nov 2011	No, ID	Very sparse record with little to go on other than photos, and no attempt to eliminate RNSAxYBSA or YBSAxRBSA hybrids, which are likely. I'm not sure whether the molt timing of hybrids is known, as it is not mentioned in the most thorough reference of which I am aware (Shunk 2005, Birding).
2nd round:	16 Feb 2012	Acc
Ron R.	16 Dec 2011	Acc	The date suggests yellow-bellied although it is at the limits of molt for red-naped. Best evidence is the mottled crown (photo D), rather random red feathers (photo D) on the molting crown (red-naped molts from front to back), and the rather uniform mottling across the back (red-naped has mottling in two rows). A hybrid is still possible, but the characteristics above don't show any integrade of traits.
2nd round:	29 Feb 2012	Acc	My comments from the first round still apply.
Terry S..	21 Nov 2011	Acc
2nd round:	20 Jan 2012	Acc
Jack S..	23 Nov 2011	Acc
2nd round:	8 Jan 2012	Acc
Mark S.	17 Nov 2011	Acc	Excellent photos and description.
2nd round:	24 Jan 2012	Acc
Merrill W.	28 Nov 2011	No, ID
David W. 2nd rnd:	1 Feb	Acc

2011-52 Common Ground-Dove

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	6 Nov 2011	Acc
Rick F.	15 Nov 2011	Acc	Definitive photos.
Ryan O.	23 Nov 2011	Acc
Ron R.	16 Dec 2011	Acc	Photos clearly show this species.
Terry S..	21 Nov 2011	Acc	Good documenting photos
Jack S..	20 Nov 2011	Acc	Excellent photographs!
Mark S.	17 Nov 2011	Acc	Bill color, scaliness on head and upper chest eliminate Ruddy Ground-Dove, tail pattern Inca Dove. Nice record too bad nobody gets to "list" it.
Merrill W.	28 Nov 2011	Acc
David W.	4 Jan 2012	Acc	Sad fate for such a rare visitor. Great photos.

2011-53 Hudsonian Godwit

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	15 Nov 2011	Acc	The description of this bird could be nothing other than a Hudsonian Godwit. Thus I am voting for it. The photos are a bit bothersome. The overall color is ok. I don't see much of a supercillium. One should at least see some evidence of a black tail which I don't see. Can we be absolutely sure that the photos are of the same bird that was described a few days earlier.
2nd round:	15 Jan 2012	Acc	It is clear that the original photo was not of this bird. I feel the description is definitive for a Hudsonian Godwit and feel comfortable with voting for this bird without a photo.
Rick F.	17 Nov 2011	No, ID	The description appears okay for a Hudsonian Godwit, however the photos clearly show a Marbled Godwit.
2nd round:	14 Jan 2012	Acc	I can vote to accept the record based on the description (with the photos removed).
Steve H. 2nd rnd:	21 Jan 2012	Acc
Ryan O.	23 Nov 2011	Acc
2nd round:	16 Feb 2012	Acc
Ron R. 2nd rnd:	29 Feb 2012	Acc	Good description. Sufficient to eliminate other godwit species.
Terry S..	29 Nov 2011	Acc	A very good narrative description.
2nd round:	20 Jan 2012	Acc
Jack S..	20 Nov 2011	Acc	Excellent written documentation. Description of underwing/axillary distinctive for species.
2nd round:	19 Jan 2012	Acc
Mark S.	17 Nov 2011	No, ID	I'm voting to not accept this record because we need some discussion on this. The description sounds good, and based only upon that, I would vote to accept. But the photos are of a Marbled Godwit. Some have asserted that the photos are not of the bird described in this record. Supposedly, many birders were able to find and see this bird, so I'm inclined to believe that it's a good sighting, but these photos don't fit. I suppose that if we all vote not to accept, I would suggest that it be re-submitted without the photos.
2nd round:	19 Jan 2012	Acc	A good record without the photos.
Merrill W.	28 Nov 2011	Acc
David W. 2nd rnd:	19 Jan 2012	Acc	Description is convincing. Coming to this in the second round, I am not troubled by photos (since they are no longer included).

2011-54 Chestnut-sided Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	20 Nov 2011	Acc	Did St George have a run on these, or what?
Rick F.		abst
Ryan O.	23 Nov 2011	Acc
Ron R.	16 Dec 2011	Acc	Good photo and description eliminates other fall warblers.
Terry S..	21 Nov 2011	Acc
Jack S..	20 Nov 2011	Acc	Distinctive plumage/photo.
Merrill W.	28 Nov 2011	Acc
David W.	4 Jan 2012	Acc	Great write-up & photo.

2011-55 Brown Thrasher

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	20 Nov 2011	Acc
Rick F.		abst
Ryan O.	22 Nov 2011	Acc
Ron R.	16 Dec 2011	Acc	Good description and photos.
Terry S..	29 Nov 2011	Acc
Jack S..	20 Nov 2011	Acc	Good documentation.
Merrill W.	28 Nov 2011	Acc
David W.	4 Jan 2012	Acc	Distinctive. Great write-up. Good photos.

2011-56 Prairie Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	20 Nov 2011	Acc	Again a great photo. It should be noted that there has been a taxonomic change, and Dendroica no longer exists, and Prairie Warbler, Chestnut-sided Warbler, and Northern Parula are all now in the genus Setophaga.
Rick F.		abst
Steve H.	21 Jan 2012	Acc	Excellent description and photo.
Ryan O.	23 Nov 2011	Acc
Terry S..	29 Nov 2011	Acc	Excellent Photo
Jack S..	20 Nov 2011	Acc	Distinctive photograph.
Merrill W.	28 Nov 2011	Acc
David W.	4 Jan 2012	Acc	The tail description and pumping behavior distinguish this from the similar Pine warbler.

2011-57 Tennessee Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	20 Nov 2011	Acc	Description and photos help in differentiating this from Orange-crowned Warbler. I believe the new generic name for this bird is Oreothlypis.
Rick F.		abst
Steve H.	21 Jan 2012	Acc	excellent photos and description.
Ryan O.	23 Nov 2011	Acc
Terry S..	29 Nov 2011	Acc
Jack S..	9 Dec 2011	Acc	Excellent photos. This bird has structural and plumage characteristics consistent with Tennessee Warbler, the only exception is the pale patch at the bend in the wing (pointed out in report). This field mark, when seen, is usually strong support for Orange-crowned Warbler. This field mark bothers me somewhat, John Dunn writes in his book 'Warblers', 'Orange-crowneds show a pale patch at the bend of the wing, an excellent distinction from Tennessee when visible'. Everything else about the birds says Tennessee, which I also favor.
Merrill W.	28 Nov 2011	Acc
David W.	4 Jan 2012	Acc	Great write-up. Good photos.

2011-58 Northern Parula

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	20 Nov 2011	Acc	Convincing photos and description
Rick F.		abst
Steve H.	21 Jan 2012	Acc	Good photos and description
Ryan O.	23 Nov 2011	Acc
Terry S..	29 Nov 2011	Acc
Jack S..	20 Nov 2011	Acc	Excellent photos and written documentation.
Merrill W.	28 Nov 2011	Acc
David W.	4 Jan 2012	Acc	Great write-up.

2011-59 Chestnut-sided Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	20 Nov 2011	Acc
Rick F.		abst
Steve H.	21 Jan 2012	Acc
Ryan O.	23 Nov 2011	Acc
Terry S..	29 Nov 2011	Acc
Jack S..	20 Nov 2011	Acc	Good documentation.
Merrill W.	28 Nov 2011	Acc
David W.	4 Jan 2012	Acc	Distinctive. Great write-up. Astute of the observer to catch the fact that this was a different individual than 2011-60!

2011-60 Chestnut-sided Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	20 Nov 2011	Acc
Rick F.		abst
Steve H.	21 Jan 2012	Acc	good photo
Ryan O.	23 Nov 2011	Acc	I was wondering whether any of the three Chestnut-sided Warblers from the St. George area could be the same individual, but I believe that subtle plumage characters show that each of the three (2011-54, 2011-59, and 2011-60) is unique.
Terry S..	29 Nov 2011	Acc
Jack S..	20 Nov 2011	Acc	Good documentation.
Merrill W.	28 Nov 2011	Acc
David W.	4 Jan 2012	Acc	Distinctive. Great write-up.

2011-61 Prothonotary Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	20 Nov 2011	Acc	Great photos.
Rick F.		abst
Steve H.	21 Jan 2012	Acc	Excellent photos
Ryan O.	22 Nov 2011	Acc
Terry S..	29 Nov 2011	Acc	Excellent photo
Jack S..	20 Nov 2011	Acc	Good documentation.
Merrill W.	28 Nov 2011	Acc
David W.	4 Jan 2012	Acc	Beautiful photos. Distinctive. Great write-up.

2011-62 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	22 Nov 2011	Acc	Great diagnostic photo
Rick F.		abst
Steve H.	21 Jan 2012	Acc	good photo
Ryan O.	23 Nov 2011	Acc
Ron R.	23 Jan 2012	Acc	Good photo of head showing wide white face bands (wider than black eye band) and lack of red nape. Written description indicates diffuse white on back rather than being in two rows.
Terry S..	29 Nov 2011	Acc	Great photo
Jack S..	23 Nov 2011	Acc	Excellent documentation!
David W.	3 Jan 2012	Acc	Amazing photo.

2011-63 Scarlet Tanager

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	22 Nov 2011	Acc	Good description and diagnostic photos
Rick F.		abst
Steve H.	21 Jan 2012	Acc
Ryan O.	23 Nov 2011	Acc	Text does not explicitly address possible confusion with female Summer Tanager, but small size, relatively small bill, and dark underside of tail feathers, among other traits described and shown in photographs, eliminate this possibility as well.
Terry S..	8 Dec 2011	Acc	Very good photos. a great find
Jack S..	23 Nov 2011	Acc	Excellent documentation!
Merrill W.	28 Nov 2011	Acc
David W.	4 Jan 2012	Acc	Interesting that the observer chose to differentiate this species from the Western tanager but not the Summer tanager in the Similar Species section. However, both the photos and written description address that quite adequately.

2011-64 Black Scoter

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	6 Dec 2011	Acc
Rick F.	6 Dec 2011	Acc	nice record
Steve H.	23 Jan 2012	Acc
Ryan O.	23 Nov 2011	abst	Abstain, my sight record.
Ron R.	1 Dec 2011	Acc	Definitive description and photos. (16 Dec 2011): Very good description and photos. While the common scoter cannot be eliminated, I don't feel this species is likely given no US records to date.
Terry S..	29 Nov 2011	Acc
Jack S..	9 Dec 2011	Acc	Definitive photos.
Merrill W.	28 Nov 2011	Acc
David W.	4 Jan 2012	Acc

2011-65 Red Phalarope

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	6 Dec 2011	Acc
Rick F.	6 Dec 2011	Acc
Steve H.	23 Jan 2012	Acc
Ryan O.	23 Nov 2011	abst	Abstain, my sight record.
Ron R.	1 Dec 2011	Acc	Description and photos are adequate to eliminate other phalaropes.
Terry S..	8 Dec 2011	Acc
Jack S..	28 Nov 2011	Acc	Good documentation!
David W.	3 Jan 2012	Acc	Very good writeup and photos.

2011-66 Common Redpoll

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	6 Dec 2011	Acc
Rick F.	6 Dec 2011	Acc	nice photos by EJ
Steve H.	23 Jan 2012	Acc
Ryan O.	27 Nov 2011	Acc	Written description does not mention these two features, but thick streaking on the side of the breast (versus sparse, fine streaking) and the bold streaking visible on the undertail coverts in the second photo (versus sparse or no streaking) both eliminate Hoary Redpoll.
Ron R.	1 Dec 2011	Acc	Definitive photos
Terry S..	8 Dec 2011	Acc
Jack S..	28 Nov 2011	Acc	Good photographs!
Merrill W.	28 Nov 2011	Acc
David W.	3 Jan 2012	Acc	I commend the description of this species, especially the elimination of similar species. I also applaud the distinctive photos of such a small bird.

2011-67 Cackling Goose

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	20 Dec 2011	Acc
Rick F.	2 Jan 2012	Acc	Clearly another Cackling Goose record
Steve H.	23 Jan 2012	Acc
Ryan O.	19 Dec 2011	abst	[Abstain: record submitted by me.]
Ron R.	16 Feb 2012	Acc	Good description to eliminate Canada goose. Photo provided shows triangular bill, short neck, angular head, and much smaller size as compared to adjacent Canada geese.
Terry S..	8 Jan 2012	Acc
Jack S..	6 Jan 2012	Acc	Good Documentation!
David W.	3 Jan 2012	Acc	The blocky foreheads support the assignment of the photographed birds to the hutchinsii subspecies. Cackling geese are seen and photographed in large numbers in many parts of northern Utah every winter. Currently, they are being seen at several locations in the Salt Lake Valley and Cache Co. I propose we consider removing this species from the review list. However, to counter my own suggestion, it may be helpful to review records which take the ID down to the subspecies level, especially if accompanied by photos, as the taxonomy of the Canada/Cackler complex is still somewhat fluid.

2011-68 Whip-poor-will

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	31 Dec 2011	No, ID	My understanding is that this species has been split and this report is not definitive in separating these two species. If the reporter is familiar with the Eastern Whip-poor-will call and feels this song is similar it is possible that this could represent a new species for Utah, but I cannot vote for it on the basis of this report
2nd round:	2 Mar 2012	No, ID	I still feel that it is necessary to vote on a specific species, and I don't feel we have definitive information to rule out Mexican Whip-poor-will. The observer admittedly is not familiar with the call of the Mexican Whip-poor-will, and even though the calls of the two species are different, I believe it would be difficult for the observer to know for certain which species was calling if he was only familiar with one. I am still most surprised to learn that any Whip-poor-will would be calling in October.
Rick F.	13 Jan 2012	Acc	This is an intriguing record. I believe this is an odd date for a calling Whip-poor-will of either species; so I'm not sure which the observer may have heard...but I would accept this as a Caprimulgus sp. rather than vociferus.
2nd round:	27 Feb 2012	Acc	Again vote to accept as Caprimulgus sp.
Steve H.	23 Jan 2012	Acc
2nd round:	8 Mar 2012	Acc	Accept as Eastern whip-poor-will
Ryan O.	4 Jan 2012	Acc	I struggled with this one and could be easily convinced to vote against it. There is little to go on here, and the written description of the bird's call could apply to other nightjars (for example, the song of Chuck-will's-widow could be made into a three-note "whip-poor-will" by an inexperienced observer, and this report mentions comparing the song only to "other nightjars that may be found in the area," which would not include comparing to that species). A recording, even of very poor quality, would be very helpful, and I would encourage observers of this species in the future to get any kind of recording they can, for example with a cell phone, mp3 player, or digital camera. In voting to accept, I'm relying heavily on the observer's statement that he is very familiar with this species from Wisconsin, as the record itself does not really contain details.
2nd round:	2 Mar 2012	No, ID	I take our bylaws to mean that we do not vote on records that are not identified to species, and I take the vote option "Reject, specific identification not established" literally, that is, identification has not been established to the species level. The observer specifically mentioned (in a follow up email) not being familiar with Mexican Whip-poor-will, and so I do not think that species can be excluded on the basis of this documentation. Regardless, this is an intriguing record of a very probable Whip-poor-will species. In the future, I think the committee should consider modifying our bylaws to allow for voting on records that are not identified to species. [5 Mar 2012] (Note: apparently my second-round vote on this last week was lost, so I am resubmitting.) I take the vote "Reject, specific identification not established" literally, i.e., that observations must be identified to species to be voted on. Our bylaws seem to me to be consistent with this interpretation, repeatedly addressing species but never mentioning the review of records not identified to species. Since the observer stated by email to the committee that they had never heard the vocalizations of a Mexican Whip-poor-will, I don't think they can exclude that species from consideration, and I must vote to not accept because the species has not been identified.
Ron R. 2nd rnd.	29 Feb 2012	No, ID	Undoubtedly a whip-poor-will sp., but description not sufficient to determine whether this was an Eastern or Mexican.
Terry S..	8 Jan 2012	No, ID	we need at least a recording of the call to evaluate especially with the split into Mexican and Eastern Whip-poor-will
2nd round:	9 Mar 2012	No, ID	As per my first round comments
Jack S..	21 Jan 2012	No, ID	The song description is consistent with a whip-poor-will species. I'm not certain how to vote on this given the recent split. The report makes no distinction between Eastern and Mexican song. I'd like to hear comments from the other committee members
2nd round:	7 Mar 2012	No, ID
Mark S.	24 Jan 2012	No, ID	I'd like to have some discussion of this record. Several things trouble me. If the bird was so well heard, and the observer used a recorded reference, I would expect that the bird could have been identified to species - the calls of the two Whip-poor-wills are quite distinctive. I'm troubled by the description of the reaction. What does he mean by "it didn't like" the call of poor-will, especially when he noted that there was no reaction to the whip-poor-will call? If there was any reaction at all to the poor-will, and none to the whip-poor-will, that would suggest to me that it was a poor-will. I would like an audible-only record for such a rare species to have a recording submitted, at least.
2nd round:	11 Mar 2012	No, ID	I am still not convinced that, in spite of the observer's certainty about the call from his memory, that we have enough here to accept this record as a definitive Eastern Whip-poor-will. For a first state record, as an audible-only record, I think we should at least have a recording. I have strong doubts that the observer himself can be so certain, and therefore we can't be certain, either, since we lack any direct evidence.
David W.	3 Jan 2012	No, ID	Though I believe the record is likely correct, especially considering the reported experience of Mr. Healy, I am voting NO because there is really no description of anything, including the sound in the record to vote on. No actual field marks were described other than saying it sounded like a Whip-poor-will and not other species. This is comparable to a record that consisted of "I looked in the field guide and the bird looked like this one rather than the others." I also wish the observer (hearer?) stated which type of Whip-poor-will is involved, Eastern or Mexican, as their songs are quite distinctive in quality.
2nd round:	12 Mar 2012	No, ID	I am actually less assured now after the response from Mr. Healey than I was before. The fact that he didn't check the call of the Mexican whip-poor-will until four months after he heard the call is troubling to me on several levels. Memory is a funny thing, and four months is a long time to differentiate between a difference in sound one was not even familiar with to begin with. I might be convinced to vote to accept Whip-poor-will sp., but I'll just vote NO for now.

2011-69 Western Gull

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	31 Dec 2011	Acc	If this bird is the same bird voted on last spring, as evidenced by the reported limping, we should not be voting on it again I suppose, but for the moment I am voting yes, as it certainly appears to be a Western Gull.
2nd round:	8 Mar 2012	Acc
Rick F.	2 Jan 2012	Acc
2nd round:	14 Mar 2012	Acc	I don't see enough characters to indicate a hybrid WeGu X GWGu. If this is the same bird as the "limping 2nd cycle dark-mantled gull", and the injured leg suggests so, I studied this gull rather closely last winter and felt comfortable labeling it as a Western Gull.
Steve H.	23 Jan 2012	Acc
2nd round:	6 Mar 2012	Acc
Ryan O.	4 Jan 2012	No, ID	A close one, but I think the signs of Glaucous-winged parentage are too present in this bird to count it as a pure Western. I believe this is a Western x Glaucous-winged hybrid, although closer to Western than Glaucous-winged. Third-cycle Westerns can have some smudging on the head earlier in the fall, but not usually to the extent shown by this bird, and not so late in the year. The smudging on the head is the strongest indicator of Glaucous-winged ancestry in this bird, but the primary tips also look a bit on the pale side of black in some shots.
2nd round:	18 Mar 2012	Acc	Okay, I could call this "close enough" to pure Western. I suppose if we required records of this species pair (with Glaucous-winged) to be 100% pure, we'd never have any records of either species accepted.
Ron R.	29 Feb 2012	Acc	Photos sufficient for ID. Pink legs. nearly all white head, and size eliminates lesser black-backed. Possibility exists for hybrid with glaucous-winged, but no obvious traits support this (particularly lack of extensive head markings). Perhaps same bird that was second year last winter?
2nd round:	14 Mar 2012	Acc	I feel this bird is more like a pure western than a first cross hybrid western x glaucous. Winter third cycle and adult of northern western gulls have moderate streaking of the head. It is difficult from the photos to tell if the dark is smudged or fine streaking. Perhaps there is a little glaucous-winged in this bird, but certainly a few generations back as may be the case with nearly all northern western gulls.
Terry S..	14 Jan 2012	Acc	I believe this is a fairly typical Third winter Western Gull. I believe the streaking on the neck can be found on 3W WEGU and does not necessarily indicate hybridization with GWGU. I see no other field marks indicating this is an Olympic gull or shows any obvious hybridization.
2nd round:	9 Mar 2012	Acc
Jack S..	6 Jan 2012	Acc	Structure and plumage is consistent with third year basic Western Gull. Some streaking on head, neck, and breast is expected for this age class. Mostly white head and neck with some streaking, dark gray mantle, white underparts with some streaking on throat and breast, white tail with smudged dark tip, black primaries (the narrow white tips are hard to see - B'), and dark gray secondaries and tertials with broad white tips.
2nd round:	7 Mar 2012	Acc
Mark S. 2nd rnd:	11 Mar 2012	Acc	Though I didn't vote in the first round, I'll submit a second round vote to accept. I am somewhat concerned that the head markings might suggest a GWGU hybrid, but if there is GWGU in this bird, it's not very much. Everything else is pretty straightforward Western Gull.
David W.	3 Jan 2012	Acc	Although the writeup itself is fairly sparse, especially regarding the leg color, the photos supplement the record sufficiently to accept. I will not venture to guess as to the purity of the lineage of this, or any other, gull. Species fidelity does not seem to be a great preoccupation for this genus. But I will say the mantle color appears fairly dark compared to the Glaucous-winged integrades I've seen on the Pacific NW coast.
2nd round:	12 Mar 2012	Acc

2011-70 Lesser Black-backed Gull

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	31 Dec 2011	Acc
Rick F.	2 Jan 2012	Acc
Steve H.	4 Feb 2012	Acc
Ryan O.	4 Jan 2012	Acc
Ron R.	29 Feb 2012	Acc	Photos sufficient to document coloration and size. While leg color was not seen, the relatively small size, heavily streaked head, very dark mantel and bright yellow bill should eliminate other species.
Terry S..	14 Jan 2011	Acc
Jack S..	6 Jan 2012	Acc	Good Photographs!
David W.	3 Jan 2012	Acc	Convincing photos & field marks, including mantle color, size, and eye color. Alas no leg color description.

2011-71 Red-throated Loon

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	2 Jan 2012	Acc
Rick F.		abst
Steve H.	4 Feb 2012	Acc
Ryan O.	4 Jan 2012	Acc
Ron R.	29 Feb 2012	Acc	Photos and description sufficient to rule out other loons.
Terry S..	8 Jan 2012	Acc
Jack S..	6 Jan 2012	Acc	Good Documentation.
Mark S.	24 Jan 2012	Acc	Excellent description, photos adequate to support the record.
David W.	3 Jan 2012	Acc	I wish the observer had spent more time on the similar species section, especially as regards the Pacific loon. I was convinced by the head shape and upward-gazing posture.

2011-72 Lesser Black-backed Gull

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	2 Jan 2012	Acc
2nd round:	2 Mar 2012	Acc
Rick F.		abst
Steve H.	4 Feb 2012	Acc
2nd round:	6 Mar 2012	Acc
Ryan O.	4 Jan 2012	Acc
2nd round:	18 Mar 2012	Acc
Ron R.	29 Feb 2012	No, ID	The photos suggest a kelp gull, not lesser black-backed. The large bill and black mantle are more consistent with kelp gull than lesser black-backed (except subspp. intermedius). Lighting, however, might make the mantle much darker. I'd like this to go another round of discussion.
2nd round:	14 Mar 2012	Acc	I am accepting this record based on the written description. The photo does not show the "smudgy brown streaking on face around eye and and extending to nape" as written. The dark area on the head appears to be shadow. While looking much like a Kelp gull in the photo, bright yellow legs are generally not found in kelp gulls.
Terry S..	8 Jan 2012	Acc
2nd round:	12 Mar 2012	Acc
Jack S..	6 Jan 2012	Acc	Good Documentation!
2nd round:	6 Mar 2012	Acc
Mark S. 2nd rnd:	11 Mar 2012	Acc
David W.	3 Jan 2012	Acc	Kudos to the webmeister for enhancing the photos to bring out the pale eye to help make the case.
2nd round:	19 Mar 2012	Acc

2011-73 White-tailed Kite

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	2 Jan 2012	Acc
Rick F.		abst
Steve H.	4 Feb 2012	Acc
Ryan O.	4 Jan 2012	Acc
Ron R.	29 Feb 2012	Acc	Excellent photos and description clearly establish this species.
Terry S..	8 Jan 2012	Acc	Very good photos and documentation
Jack S..	6 Jan 2012	Acc	Great Documentation.
Mark S.	24 Jan 2012	Acc	Perhaps excessively well-documented ;-).
David W.	3 Jan 2012	Acc	Many, many people have seen this bird, including me.