|
2013-21 Snowy Owl
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
6 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Bob B. |
20 Feb 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Rick F. |
24 Feb 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Ryan O. |
28 Feb 2013 |
abst |
Abstain (includes a sight record submitted by me). |
|
Ron R. |
1 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
Great photos!
Unmistakable |
|
Terry S.. |
24 Feb 2013 |
Acc |
A great sighting
that was observed by many people |
|
Jack S.. |
11 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
Excellent documentation and photographs. |
|
Mark S. |
3 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Perhaps the only time this winter that I truly regretted being "stuck" in
Mexico.
Alas, I was too busy watching Tufted Jay, Red Warbler, Green-striped
Brushfinch, Red-breasted Chat, and Elegant Euphonia on those days to think
about "twitching." |
|
David W. |
18 Feb 2013 |
Acc |
Wow. |
2013-22 Winter Wren
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
6 Apr 2013 |
abst |
Abstain |
|
Bob B. |
21 Feb 2013 |
Acc |
These photos appear to me to definitely confirm this bird as a Winter
Wren. I have almost daily contact with Pacific Wrens in northern Idaho for
6 months of the year, and they are much darker and more richly rufous,
especially on the throat. I had heard about this sighting some time ago,
and am glad that it was finally reported. I have to wonder if we haven't
been missing this bird previously in Utah. |
|
Rick F. |
24 Feb 2013 |
Acc |
Nice record, photos
are diagnostic |
|
Ryan O. |
28 Feb 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Ron R. |
11 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
The bold supercilium
and speckled whitish throat and underparts are most consistent with winter
wren. Pacific wren would have much more uniformly colored and darker
underparts. |
|
Terry S.. |
24 Feb 2013 |
Acc |
Very good photos and
a great find |
|
Jack S.. |
31 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
Excellent Documentation: This was a difficult record to judge but I'm
voting a tentative 'Yes'. By plumage characters the bird most closely
matches Winter Wren. I found the following reference useful (Colorado
Birds, October 2010, Volume 44, Number 4, page 284)
LINK:
Perhaps we can get additional opinions of this record and 2013-23 from the
two authors of above article, Tony Leukering and Nathan Pieplow.
Utah needs more records like this (detailed with good photographs and
records) to better document the distribution of Pacific and Winter Wrens
in the state. |
|
Mark S. |
24 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Pale throat, eyebrow, and overall color with only slight rufous tones
support this i.d. |
|
David W. |
21 Feb 2013 |
Acc |
Nice photos. |
2013-23 Winter Wren
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
6 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Bob B. |
22 Feb 2013 |
Acc |
I believe both the photos, although leaving something to be desired, and
the recorded call notes are compatible with Winter Wren. I am very
familiar with the Pacific Wren from northern Idaho, and this not a Pacific
Wren. Great find. |
|
Rick F. |
24 Feb 2013 |
Acc |
Outstanding job
documenting this wren |
|
Ryan O. |
28 Feb 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Ron R. |
11 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
The lower pitched
call notes, relatively bold supercilium, and whitish speckled throat are
consistent with winter wren and not Pacific wren. |
|
Terry S.. |
24 Feb 2013 |
Acc |
The recording of the
song and call by the observer was very convincing. Photos especially of
the throat and breast area also help distinguish from Pacific Wren |
|
Jack S.. |
31 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
Excellent Documentation. I'm voting a tentative 'Yes'. I could not judge
the record by plumage characters as carefully compared to record 2013-22
and the call recordings were not clearly distinguishing to me. Can we have
an expert digitize the calls to allow for direct comparison with Pacific
and Winter Wren types? This data could provide additional support or not.
I found the following reference useful (Colorado Birds, October 2010,
Volume 44, Number 4, page 284)
LINK:
Perhaps we can get additional opinion on the call recordings from the two
authors of above article, Tony Leukering and Nathan Pieplow and our local
song recording expert Kevin Kolver.
Utah needs more records like this (detailed with good photographs and
records) to better document the distribution of Pacific and Winter Wrens
in the state. |
|
Mark S. |
24 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Nice having an audio tape. Photos and description, while supporting the
i.d., are not as convincing as the call, that clearly sounds like Winter
Wren. |
|
David W. |
21 Feb 2013 |
Acc |
Nice write-up & multimedia documentation. |
2013-24 Common Redpoll
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
3 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Bob B. |
22 Feb 2013 |
Acc |
At some point we may have to reasses this bird as a review bird. With the
numerous reports, including large flocks, we are probably now in the
hundreds this year. |
|
Rick F. |
24 Feb 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Ryan O. |
28 Feb 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Ron R. |
1 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
Good description and
adequate photo clearly identify this species. |
|
Terry S.. |
24 Feb 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Jack S.. |
11 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
24 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
David W. |
21 Feb 2013 |
Acc |
|
2013-25 Common Redpoll
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
3 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
25 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
I still vote to
accept even though the description is not perfect. |
|
Bob B. |
11 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
I am a bit disturbed by the lack of a description of a red cap, but I
still feel this is likely the correct call. |
|
2nd round: |
26 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Rick F. |
20 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
even with somewhat
marginal descriptions, this is a fairly convincing record for this redpoll
remarkable winter. |
|
2nd round: |
25 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Description is
marginal, but I feel it's convincing. |
|
Ryan O. |
28 Feb 2013 |
No, ID |
Probably actually were Common Redpolls but the description doesn't
completely fit that species, given that the bill was described as "dark"
(should be yellow) and the distinctive namesake red cap was not mentioned.
Also, Pine Siskin was only eliminated by the lack of yellow (but young and
female Pine Siskins can have very little to no yellow), and by the bill of
these birds being "finch like rather than slender," but both Pine Siskin
and Common Redpoll have slender finch-like bills. I can't think of much
else besides Common Redpoll that is likely to have a rosy breast and a
black chin on a small finch-like bird, (maybe House Finch or Cassin's
Finch with mud around the bill?) but there is too much in this description
that is at odds with Common Redpoll for me to vote to accept. |
|
2nd round: |
24 Apr 2013 |
No, ID |
Concerns from first
round remain. Written description is also consistent with House Finch or
Cassin's Finch that had been foraging in the mud, and does not eliminate
Pine Siskin except for the reddish breast seen on 1/3 of the birds. I do
think these were probably Common Redpolls, but the given description does
not adequately eliminate similar species in my opinion. |
|
Ron R. |
1 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
Description not
fully accurate, but sufficient to rule out other species. Dark bill and no
mention of red caps are problematic. |
|
2nd round: |
3 Jun 2013 |
Acc |
Comments from first
round still apply. Black chin and pinkish breast eliminates other species
except hoary redpoll, but description of bird too dark. |
|
Terry S.. |
13 Mar 2013 |
No, ID |
The red cap of common redpolls was not mentioned and this is one of the
most distinguishing field marks. The rest of the description sounds good
but for the first round I vote not to accept. |
|
2nd round: |
4 May 2013 |
No, ID |
I think Ryan has
raised valid concerns. |
|
Jack S.. |
11 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
Description is marginal but sufficient, missed red crown. |
|
2nd round: |
3 May 2013 |
Acc |
same comments as
previous |
|
Mark S. |
24 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
29 Apr 2013 |
No, ID |
I'm going to change my vote, based upon inadequate description given. Even
in a year with so many reports of redpolls, we should require that the
description adequately eliminate other possibilities, and this description
doesn't "adequately" eliminate Pine Siskin. Another detail that I missed
in my first review was "beak was finch like and dark" - redpolls shouldn't
have dark bills, at least not most individuals in a flock. It seems to me
that this record is too sloppy, with too many field marks either missing
or not supporting the i.d. to accept, even if the probability of the birds
having actually been Common Redpolls is high. |
|
David W. |
4 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
Odd that the record doesn't mention a red cap, and a bit distressing that
the bill is described as dark rather than dark-tipped, but I cannot think
of anything else this could be. |
|
2nd round: |
24 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
I don't know what else this could be. The record is not perfect, but does
seem adequate to eliminate other species. |
2013-26 Common Redpoll
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
3 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
25 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Same as 2013-25, I
still vote to accept even though the description is not perfect. |
|
Bob B. |
11 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
To me this seems an unlikely location for Redpolls. In addition there is
no mention of the red caps. But the rest of the description I feel rules
out other potentially confusing birds, and the behavior certainly sounds
like redpolls. |
|
2nd round: |
26 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Rick F. |
20 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
25 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
I don't have any
issues accepting this record as a Common Redpoll either. |
|
Ryan O. |
28 Feb 2013 |
No, ID |
Probably actually were Common Redpolls but the description doesn't
completely fit that species, given that the bill was described as "dark"
(should be yellow) and the distinctive namesake red cap was not mentioned.
Also, Pine Siskin was only eliminated by the lack of yellow (but young and
female Pine Siskins can have very little to no yellow), and by the bill of
these birds being "finch like rather than slender," but both Pine Siskin
and Common Redpoll have slender finch-like bills. I can't think of much
else besides Common Redpoll that is likely to have a rosy breast and a
black chin on a small finch-like bird, (maybe House Finch or Cassin's
Finch with mud around the bill?) but there is too much in this description
that is at odds with Common Redpoll for me to vote to accept. |
|
2nd round: |
24 Apr 2013 |
No, ID |
Similar record to
2013-25, with the same issues. Concerns from first round remain. Written
description is also consistent with House Finch or Cassin's Finch that had
been foraging in the mud (House Finch eliminated by size and "lacking the
markings of House Finch," but size is notoriously difficult to judge in
the field and direct comparison to adjacent Mountain Chickadees is not
given), and does not eliminate Pine Siskin except for the reddish breast
seen on 1/3 of the birds. I do think these were probably Common Redpolls,
but the given description does not adequately eliminate similar species in
my opinion. |
|
Ron R. |
1 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
Description not
complete, but sufficient to rule out other species. No mention of red cap
or yellow bill is problematic. |
|
2nd round: |
3 Jun 2013 |
Acc |
Comments from first round still apply. Black chin eliminates and pinkish
breast other species except hoary redpoll, but description of bird too
dark. |
|
Terry S.. |
13 Mar 2013 |
No, ID |
As with record
2013-25 there is no mention of a red cap. It is difficult for me to accept
this record when a very noticeable field mark is not mentioned. |
|
2nd round: |
4 May 2013 |
No, ID |
Again, I think Ryan voices my concerns |
|
Jack S.. |
11 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
Description is marginal but sufficient, missed red crown. |
|
2nd round: |
3 May 2013 |
Acc |
same comments as previous |
|
Mark S. |
24 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
29 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Even though this record has many of the same issues as 2013-25, I'll vote
to accept this one based upon two things - the mention of prominent black
chin, and the behavior notes, both of which strongly suggest redpoll. But
this is another shaky description. |
|
David W. |
4 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
24 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
I don't know what else this could be. The record is not perfect, but does
seem adequate to eliminate other species. |
2013-27 Ovenbird
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
6 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
25 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Since this species
has such a distinctive song, I think it can be adequately identified by
someone who is familiar with it. The lack of visual confirmation is not a
concern to me. |
|
Bob B. |
11 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
I have no trouble with lack of visible confirmation of a bird for
definitive identification.
The song of the Ovnbird is distinctive enough that it should allow
identification by someone familiar with it's song, as this observer is.
The fact that this bird could not be seen in brush is even more evidence
of the correct identification as the bird is so difficult to get into the
open. |
|
2nd round: |
26 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Rick F. |
20 Apr 2013 |
No, ID |
hmm, this is a
difficult record based on only hearing the song. The rising notes are
indicative of an Ovenbird, but there are other vagrant possibilities with
somewhat similiar songs not discussed in the similiar species description
(e.g. Kentucky Warbler, Carolina Wren, etc.). |
|
2nd round: |
25 Apr 2013 |
No, ID |
I simply don't think
there is enough here to accept a record based on a report of a song that
sounded like "Teacher, teacher, teacher" without an accompany recording or
sight decription. It's similiar, but not the quite same as reviewing a
written discription of a sight record without a photo. At least in a
written discription of a sight record, one can convey subtle
distinguishing characters, however, with a phonetic song description there
is no way to convey pitch, tempo, tonality, pacing, quality, etc. etc.
that are necessary to confirm an Ovenbird's song. I agree Ovenbirds sing a
song that sounds phonetically like "Teacher, Teacher....", but I just
don't think there's enough in this description to accept this as a
definitive Ovenbird occurrence. |
|
Ryan O. |
28 Feb 2013 |
abst |
|
|
2nd round: |
24 Apr 2013 |
abst |
Abstain, my sight
record. |
|
Ron R. |
11 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Observer clearly
familiar with this unmistakable song. Timing also appropriate. |
|
2nd round: |
3 Jun 2013 |
Acc |
Sufficient
description of song, especially including the rising volume toward the
end. |
|
Terry S.. |
13 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
4 May 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Jack S.. |
31 Mar 2013 |
No, ID |
This could very well have been an Ovenbird but I feel the record is
without sufficient data to accept. |
|
2nd round: |
3 May 2013 |
No, ID |
I still feel this
record is insufficient in detail and description (data) to support. |
|
Mark S. |
24 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
While this record is a bit unusual, the song of Ovenbird is quite
distinctive, and fits the description given. The skulking behavior and
habitat also fit. |
|
2nd round: |
29 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
This is one of the
most distinctive songs of any NA bird, and hard to mistake for an observer
familiar with it. |
|
David W. |
2 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
I'm a little concerned by the submitter's own doubts, but the description
sounds good. |
|
2nd round: |
30 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Although not ideal, I think the description of the song is adequate,
especially for someone familiar with the species (which is very vocal back
East). Thought it is not a safe line of evidence, the other possibilities
of similar-sounding birds seem less likely than an ovenbird to occur in
Utah. |
2013-28 Lesser Black-backed Gull
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
6 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Bob B. |
1 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Rick F. |
20 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Great record. |
|
Ryan O. |
28 Feb 2013 |
abst |
|
|
Ron R. |
1 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
Excellent
description and sufficient photos. |
|
Terry S.. |
13 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Jack S.. |
11 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
Nice photographs and description. |
|
Mark S. |
24 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Convincing photos. |
|
David W. |
2 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
I especially liked the similar species section. |
2013-29 Neotropic Cormorant
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
6 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Bob B. |
3 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Rick F. |
20 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Ryan O. |
18 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Ron R. |
29 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Nice photos clearly
show this species. |
|
Terry S.. |
13 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Jack S.. |
11 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
Excellent photographs and documentation. |
|
Mark S. |
24 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
David W. |
2 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
Nice photos. |
2013-30 Common Redpoll
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
6 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Bob B. |
4 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
With so many Redpolls being reported, I have to wonder how many are
repeats of birds that have already been counted. I have to wonder also how
long we should keep this bird on the review list? |
|
Rick F. |
25 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Ryan O. |
18 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Ron R. |
4 May 2013 |
abst |
|
|
Terry S.. |
13 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Jack S.. |
11 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
Excellent photographs and documentation.
|
|
Mark S. |
24 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
David W. |
4 Mar 2013 |
Acc |
|
2013-31 Snowy Owl
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
6 Apr 2013 |
No, ID |
Not enough information given to evaluate sighting. |
|
Bob B. |
19 Mar 2013 |
No, ID |
It is possible that the observer saw a Snowy Owl, but there is no way I
can vote yes with no description of the bird. |
|
Rick F. |
25 Apr 2013 |
No, ID |
No description
provided to evaluate. |
|
Ryan O. |
18 Mar 2013 |
No, ID |
No description whatsoever presented to support the observation. |
|
Ron R. |
11 Apr 2013 |
No, ID |
Likely snowy owl
seen by reporter. But without any field mark details of the bird I cannot
accept this record. |
|
Terry S.. |
4 Apr 2013 |
No, ID |
Without some written
description it is not possible to evaluate the record. |
|
Jack S.. |
29 Mar 2013 |
No, ID |
I'm certain this
observer saw a Snowy Owl. The bird was observed at a distance of 30 feet,
at midday, by an experienced observer. The reason I'm voting 'No' however
is for the lack of supporting information. |
|
Mark S. |
24 Apr 2013 |
No, ID |
It's likely that he saw a Snowy Owl. But there is no description, so
there's nothing to review. I feel like we need another voting category -
No,IN, for inadequate description. |
|
David W. |
18 Mar 2013 |
No, ID |
There is nothing to vote on in this record. There is no description, nor
any photos. I would be happy to reevaluate my vote should more information
be submitted in the future. |
2013-32 Neotropic Cormorant
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
6 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Bob B. |
7 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Rick F. |
25 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Nice Record |
|
Ryan O. |
5 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Ron R. |
11 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Nice photos clearly
show this species. |
|
Terry S.. |
30 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Jack S.. |
6 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Good Documentation! |
|
Mark S. |
24 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Nice photos. |
|
David W. |
5 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Photos leave no doubt. |
2013-33 Mountain Plover
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
24 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Bob B. |
18 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Great Photos. |
|
Rick F. |
25 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Great photos. |
|
Ryan O. |
24 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Similar species section is incomplete, but photos are convincing. |
|
Ron R. |
11 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Unmistakable from
excellent photos. |
|
Terry S.. |
30 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Wonderful photos |
|
Jack S.. |
16 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
24 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Excellent photos. Adequate descriptions. |
|
David W. |
11 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Lovely photos make the case. |
2013-34 Red-throated Loon
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
29 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Bob B. |
26 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Great find and photos. |
|
Rick F. |
1 May 2013 |
Acc |
Nice record; odd
timing for this loon. |
|
Ryan O. |
26 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Ron R. |
29 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Nice photos clearly
show this species. |
|
Terry S.. |
30 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Jack S.. |
3 May 2014 |
Acc |
Nice record! |
|
Mark S. |
29 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Nice photos. |
|
David W. |
30 Apr 2013 |
Acc |
Instructive how different the bill length looks in the different photos. |
2013-35 Painted Bunting
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
8 Jun 2013 |
No, Nat |
The possibility that this is and escaped bird is too great for me to
accept this record. |
|
2nd round: |
10 Jul 2013 |
No, Nat |
No change to my
concern that this is an escaped or released caged bird. |
|
3rd round: |
14 Sep 2013 |
No, Nat |
Although the
identity of this bird is not in question, I'm still unable to accept the
record with our current voting choices. |
|
Bob B. |
8 May 2013 |
No, Nat |
Trying to establish provenance in a situation like this is always
difficult. There is no question as to the correct identification. To
accept a bird as naturally occurring, in my opinion, means that we must
believe a bird has arrived on its own beyond any reasonable doubt. There
are enough questions raised with this bird that I don't believe it meets
that criteria. However just because I don't believe we should accept this
bird as naturally occurring as a committee, I do believe that we should
encourage any individual to count this bird on their own lists if they so
desire because we cannot be certain as to the provenance. It is situations
like this that potentially can cause considerable ill will in the minds of
some who might well disagree with the committee's vote. |
|
2nd round: |
10 Jul 2013 |
No, Nat |
|
|
3rd round: |
11 Sep 2013 |
No, Nat |
I still feel there
are way too many questions regarding this bird to vote for it as naturally
occurring. |
|
Rick F. |
11 Jun 2013 |
Acc |
Clearly a Painted
Bunting. We should consider a category that is "Accept, natural occurrence
questionable" . It seems unnecessarily capricious to 'reject' any record
based on probability or suspicion. |
|
2nd round: |
15 Aug 2013 |
Acc |
I still think
we should have a category:
"Accept, natural occurrence questionable". |
|
3rd round: |
18 Sep 2013 |
Acc |
clearly a Painted
Bunting.... |
|
Ryan O. |
3 May 2013 |
No, Nat |
No doubt to me about the identification, but the deformed bill (consistent
with known captive birds), along with the frequency of this species being
kept in captivity, together cast too much doubt on natural origins of this
bird for me to accept, at least in the first round. The relatively fresh
plumage and healthy feet argue against captive origins, but the plumage at
least could be explained by a molt after escape/release. (See Utah
Birdtalk discussions
about effects of captivity on this species.) |
|
2nd round: |
13 Aug 2013 |
No, Nat |
Previous concerns
remain, plus concerns voiced by others about migration timing. My
interpretation is that the burden of proof by default lies with the
submitter, and that if natural occurrence is questionable, we must vote to
not accept. Given bill deformities and timing of arrival, natural
occurrence of this bird is more than questionable: there is evidence
against its natural origin. |
|
3rd round: |
19 Nov 2013 |
Acc |
Accept. I'm changing
my vote following the opinions of experts, including Steve Mlodinow who is
a published expert on vagrancy in Painted Buntings, and Dr. Cornelia
"Connie" Ketz-Riley, a veterinarian (pasted below) who works on pet birds
and who concluded that the bill abnormality was not necessarily an
indication of captivity. My assumptions in my earlier votes to not accept
were that: 1) the timing was suspicious and 2) the bill deformity was an
indication of life in captivity, but experts have confirmed that neither
of these is true, and Mlodinow indicated that the bill deformity could
actually provide weak evidence in support of a natural vagrant.
[expert opinions]
It will be hard to identify the cause of the bill deformity without any
further testing.
This kind of beak lesions could have been caused by dietary deficiency (
mineral and proteins), viral infections (paramyxovirus – New Castle
Disease, and others, Avian pox virus), and also trauma induced.
Dietary deficiency may be less likely in a wild bird, rather a problem in
captivity.
But viral infections and trauma induced lesions could also be acquired in
the wild.
Unfortunately, with these smaller birds, we usually do not get enough
blood in one collection to get it tested. But local scrapings from the
beak and the skin around it and oral swabs could help to rule in or out
some of the potential causes. Further investigation usually requires
necropsy of the specimen to access internal organs for diagnostics. If
this is a population conservation project, this might be warranted.
Connie
Cornelia J. Ketz-Riley, Dr.med.vet., DVM, DACZM
Head
Avian, Exotic, and Zoo Medicine Service
Dept. of Veterinary Clinical Sciences
Center of Veterinary Health Sciences
Oklahoma State University
213 W Farm Road
Stillwater, OK., 74078-2041
Phone: (405) 744-7000
Fax: (405) 744-6265
email: cornelia.ketz-riley@okstate.edu |
|
Ron R. |
|
|
|
|
Terry S.. |
23 May 2013 |
No, Nat |
While there is no
question that this is a first year male Painted Bunting or a female there
are concerns if this might be an escaped or released caged bird. Most all
accepted records in surrounding states are fall records and the few spring
records are later in the spring. Most concern centers around the deformed
bill that is common in caged birds. While there is no way sure to say
whether this is a naturally occurring bird or a once caged bird that was
released I believe most likely it is the latter. |
|
2nd round: |
10 Jul 2013 |
Acc |
I am changing my
vote on this record after reviewing comments from other committee members.
While this may be a commonly caged bird in Mexico and may have been a
captive bird at some time I think we need to accept the record. There are
other accepted records for the species in Utah and it is not a species
similar to a game bird or exotic species normally found in an aviary or
kept as a pet locally. |
|
3rd round: |
29 Sep 2013 |
Acc |
I still believe this
is most likely a vagrant wild birds |
|
Jack S.. |
13 Jun 2013 |
Acc |
Nice Photographs! |
|
2nd round: |
6 Sep 2013 |
Acc |
I still accept this
record. This bird was observed at a migrant trap and within the expected
range of dates. For the date range I refer to a compilation of vagrant
Painted Bunting records in North American that show the months of May and
June are the most common period for observing this species Mid-continent
(including Utah). [see Figure 4 in Mlodinow, S. G., and R. A. Hamilton.
2005. Vagrancy of Painted Bunting (Passerina ciris) in the United States,
Canada, and Bermuda. North American Birds 59: 172-183.] You can download a
pdf of this article by searching for the words - Mlodinow Vagrancy of
Painted Bunting - using google.
I agree with others that the bill does look deformed but as pointed out by
David this alone does not rule out a wild bird.
The author of the article above (Mlodinow) has clearly studied this topic
at great length and perhaps we should consider asking his opinion of the
record, especially if the committee remains divided. |
|
3rd round: |
23 Sep 2013 |
Acc |
I feel the evidence
aligns most closely with a vagrant, and wild, Painted Bunting. |
|
Mark S. |
11 Jun 2013 |
No, Nat |
I'd like to see some discussion on this record. I'm not convinced that
this is a wild bird. There are two things that give me pause - one is the
bill deformity, that, while possible in wild and cage birds, probably is
more common in cage birds. The other is the timing of this occurrence,
that is early for this species, especially for a female. Males reach
Oklahoma, for example, in mid-late May, with females 8-10 days later.
While neither of these points are definitive, I think that there's enough
question here to warrant a round of discussion. |
|
2nd round: |
28 Aug 2013 |
No, Nat |
I still think that
the timing and bill deformations create too much doubt to accept this as a
naturally occurring individual. |
|
3rd round: |
19 Nov 2013 |
No, Nat |
I can support
something similar to Rick's idea especially if it's worded "I.D. accepted,
natural occurrence questioned."
Given our available choices, I think that a female bunting at this early
date raises too many questions to accept. |
|
David W. |
8 May 2013 |
Acc |
ID is not in question here, I think. The question, as always with this
species in Utah, is whether this is a wild individual or escapee. And I
don't think we can be certain. However, this individual is almost
certainly migrating (showing up at a migrant trap during early spring
migration) and doesn't show obvious signs of captivity. A bill defect does
not rule out a wild bird. On the other hand, it did show up on the early
side of the bell curve for this species (most seem to show up late April
in the South, with few individuals showing up as early as March and
females/1st-year males arriving about 1 week later than males, per
Cornell's site).
So I will vote to accept the record in the first round because there is
nothing about the record that outright disqualifies it in my mind,
although this may well be an individual that at one point in its life was
an escapee--we'll never know for certain. |
|
2nd round: |
28 Aug 2013 |
Acc |
I agree with Rick's suggestion on voting options. |
|
3rd round: |
22 Oct 2013 |
Acc |
|
2013-36 Least Tern
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
8 Jun 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Bob B. |
8 May 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Rick F. |
11 Jun 2013 |
Acc |
Nice record |
|
Ryan O. |
21 May 2013 |
Acc |
Like 2013-41, also does not attempt to eliminate Saunder's Tern or Little
Tern, which of course are much less likely. Some details of the
descriptions are inconsistent, for example, one observer describes the
bill and legs as "orange" while the other specifies that the bill and legs
were "yellow rather than orange." No calls observed, which can be
diagnostic. Rump color is not mentioned in the written descriptions, but
photos A and B seem to show a grayish rump not contrasting with the back,
which eliminate Little Tern. Size cannot be quantified from written
description or photos. Fortunately, written description by Jeff Cooper and
photos show clearly that outer two primaries are black (not three or
four), eliminating Saunder's Tern. Together, gray rump and two black outer
primaries eliminate Saunder's and Little Terns, indicating Least Tern. |
|
Ron R. |
3 Jun 2013 |
Acc |
Photos clearly show
this species. |
|
Terry S.. |
23 May 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Jack S.. |
13 Jun 2013 |
Acc |
Nice photograph and
good description. |
|
Mark S. |
11 Jun 2013 |
Acc |
Photos show a Least Tern. |
|
David W. |
8 May 2013 |
Acc |
Although I am 'scandalized' by the lack of effort to differentiate this
from the Little tern or the Saunders's tern in the Similar Species
section, I will vote to accept. |
2013-37 Palm Warbler
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
8 Jun 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Bob B. |
8 May 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Rick F. |
11 Jun 2013 |
Acc |
Great spring record. |
|
Ryan O. |
21 May 2013 |
Acc |
Written description is sparse, especially elimination of similar species,
but photos are indisputable. Genus should be changed from "Dendroica" to "Setophaga". |
|
Terry S.. |
23 May 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Jack S.. |
13 Jun 2013 |
Acc |
Great documentation! |
|
Mark S. |
11 Jun 2013 |
Acc |
Photos show a Palm Warbler, and description of the behavior fits. |
|
David W. |
8 May 2013 |
Acc |
Although not included with this report at the time I write this, there are
many very good photos taken by others of this warbler, and they leave no
doubt. Combined with the, albeit sparse, description of this bird, I am
voting yes. |
2013-38 Glossy Ibis
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
8 Jun 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Bob B. |
10 May 2013 |
Acc |
Excellent documentation by description and photos. |
|
Rick F. |
11 Jun 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Ryan O. |
10 May 2013 |
abst |
|
|
Terry S.. |
23 May 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Jack S.. |
13 Jun 2013 |
Acc |
Excellent
Documentation! |
|
Mark S. |
11 Jun 2013 |
Acc |
Good documentation, no evidence of a hybrid. |
|
David W. |
26 May 2013 |
Acc |
|
2013-39 Lesser Black-backed Gull
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
8 Jun 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Bob B. |
10 May 2013 |
Acc |
This bird I believe is well documented with photos and description. I too
believe it is time to remove this bird from the review list. |
|
Rick F. |
11 Jun 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Ryan O. |
10 May 2013 |
abst |
|
|
Terry S.. |
23 May 2013 |
Acc |
|
|
Jack S.. |
13 Jun 2013 |
Acc |
Good Documentation! |
|
Mark S. |
12 Jun 2013 |
Acc |
Excellent documentation. |
|
David W. |
4 Jun 2013 |
Acc |
The ID is also supported by the dark greater coverts. |
|