Records Committee Utah Ornithological Society Web Site

Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society

Status & Comments
Year 2016 (records 26 through 49)

2016-26 Tennessee Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	3 Nov 2016	Acc
Kenny F.	18 Sep 2016	Acc	White undertail coverts help separate this species from Orange-crowned Warbler.
Dennis S.	8 Oct 2016	Acc	No problems. Good substantiating photos.
Jack S..	26 Oct 2016	Acc
Steve S.	16 Oct 2016	Acc
Mark S.	7 Sep 2016	Acc	Excellent documentation..
Larry T.	29 Sep 2016	Acc
David W.	12 Sep 2016	Acc
Kevin W.	3 Oct 2016	Acc	Photos show field marks consistent with Tennessee Warbler.

2016-27 Canada Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	4 Nov 2016	Acc
Kenny F.	18 Sep 2016	Acc	Looks like one to me.
Dennis S.	8 Oct 2016	Acc	Good report and excellent photos. Multiple observers over a weeks time.
Jack S..	26 Oct 2016	Acc
Steve S.	16 Oct 2016	Acc
Mark S.	7 Sep 2016	Acc	Excellent documentation of a distinctive species.
Larry T.	29 Sep 2016	Acc	Nice bird, great pics and seen by many.
David W.	7 Sep 2016	Acc	This bird was seen by very many people, usually with considerable effort due to its skulky habits. I am impressed that Mr. Frisch was able to identify it without the advantage everyone else had -- knowing it was there.
Kevin W.	3 Oct 2016	Acc	Photos show field marks consistent with Canada Warbler.

2016-28 White-rumped Sandpiper

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	8 Nov 2016	Acc
2nd round:	19 Nov 2016	No, ID	I have abandoned my initial vote to accept based on the voice of reason from others' comments. Even though the description seems to match a WRSA, there is nothing definitive (such as a view of the white rump) which clinches the ID.
Kenny F.	18 Sep 2016	No, ID	It sounds like the observer probably had a Western Sandpiper which shares in the long dark decurved bill, white supercilium and dark legs. His note of the breast being streaked is wrong for White-rumped which show streaked flanks but not the breast whereas Westerns can appear to have a streaked chest. Additionally the observer never saw a white rump on the bird which should be visible even on a stationary bird with careful study.
2nd round:	17 Nov 2016	No, ID	No addition thoughts.
Dennis S.	11 Oct 2016	No, ID	Not convinced other similar "grayish" fall peeps and shore birds were not possible.
2nd round:	14 Nov 2016	No, ID	No addition thoughts.
Jack S..	10 Nov 2016	No, ID	Neither photographs or description convince me of the ID. There is no description of streaking on the flanks..
2nd round:	28 Dec 2016	No, ID	No additional comments!
Steve S.	16 Oct 2016	Acc	Although the photo is useless the report seems to indicate White-rumped. Though the submitter did not indicate age, by the comparison to Baird's as having a smooth gray back and lacking the dark spots of Baird's indicates that this must be an adult bird in nonbreeding plumage.
2nd round:	9 Dec2016	Acc	Although I wish the observer had seen the white rump the report does indicate this ID.
Mark S.	9 Sep 2016	No, ID	Overall, I think that this description sounds good, and I think that the similar species (Baird's in particular) are adequately eliminated by several noted features, including overall color, facial pattern (especially the supercillium), and breast streaking. The only thing that bothers me is the "smooth gray back," that doesn't seem to describe Fall White-rumped Sandpiper. Especially because the coverts, tertials and some scapulars supposedly aren't molted until the wintering grounds are reached (The Shorebirds Guide; O'Brien, Crossley, Karlson), I would expect there to be more of a scaly/spotted look to the upperparts. If it's a juvenile, one would expect some rusty edgings to be visible as well. However, I'm not sure what alternate species might better fit this description. My final point of concern, is, of course, the date. There are very few Fall records for White-rumped Sandpiper in the west, and especially in the Great Basin, with most of the migration going down the east coast in the Fall. As such, I think we need to be very careful with this record. I may be inclined to vote to accept in future rounds, but, at the very least, I think that there are enough questions to warrant an open discussion.
2nd round:	17 Jan 2017	No, ID	As per my first round comments.
Larry T.	11 Oct 2016	Acc	The pics aren't good but the description sounds good for a White-rumped.
2nd round:	15 Jan 2017	No, ID	I will change my vote based on the lack of eliminating similar species as brought up my others.
David W.	23 Oct 2016	Acc	I am curious after that surprisingly riveting peregrine anecdote whether boldness in the face of mortal danger (or myopia) is a trait of this species. The photo, which I initially mistook for one of mine, was not key in my evaluation. However, the good writeup was convincing. It is unfortunate that the bravery of this resolute bird prevented the observer from getting a look at its namesake rump. The photos provided in the eBird checklist are wonderful, and make the story of the peregrine even more vivid.
2nd round:	11 Nov 2016	No, ID	The eloquent nays have convinced me to change my vote.
Kevin W.	3 Oct 2016	No, ID	The bird described may be a White-rumped Sandpiper, but the evidence, particularly the photo, is lacking in definitive proof. The description, which sounds good, describes many subjective characters in comparison with Baird's Sandpiper.
2nd round:	30 Dec 2016	No, ID	No additional comments.

2016-29 Ruby-throated Hummingbird

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	10 Nov 2016	Acc
2nd round:	19 Nov 2016	No, ID	I will echo Kenny in stating that I am now questioning that the evidence provided is enough to support the ID of RTHU. Thanks to everyone for their enlightening comments!
Kenny F.	18 Sep 2016	Acc	Wish the pictures were clearer but this looks to be a Ruby-throated Himmingbird. Bird has a shorter straight bill than expected for a Black-chinned as well as a tail that extends well past the wingtips. It looks to show a contrasting white neck which is good for Ruby-throated as well. My only hesitation is that these pictures don't show the head very well so it's hard to see if the bird has a greener head or how much the crown and auriculars contrast with the throat but it looks like there is some contrast on the head in some of the pictures.
2nd round:	17 Nov 2016	No, ID	The comments from the other reviewers have me questioning the evidence of this record and there not being enough evidence for a RTHU.
Dennis S.	11 Oct 2016	Acc	This was a toss-up. The one character that tipped the scale for acceptance was the sharp demarcation between the white throat and collar and the cheek and facial areas. Shorter bill?, Greener Crown?, Short Primary Projection???, Dark Auricle? Maybe a narrower, curved, blacker, and more pointed wing! The photos didn't clear up much!
2nd round:	14 Nov 2016	No, ID	1st round quality comments made me re-think my vote. With these informative additional lines of thought I'm changing my initial vote.
Jack S..	10 Nov 2016	No, ID	I'm not convinced this is a Ruby-throated Hummingbird by the description or photographs. The wing shape (Sibley) seems more consistent with Black-chinned Hummingbird.
2nd round:	28 Dec 2016	No, ID	Great discussion from the committee!
Steve S.	16 Oct 2016	No, ID	No change from first round. This bird still looks like a Black-chinned.
2nd round:	9 Dec 2016	No, ID	1st round quality comments made me re-think my vote. With these informative additional lines of thought I'm changing my initial vote.
Mark S.	10 Sep 2016	No, ID	This is an intriguing record, of an extremely difficult i.d. problem, and made more challenging by the marginal quality of the photos. In addition, the written description offers evidence that is more suggestive than definitive. My initial review of the photos gave me conflicting field marks - the long tail says Ruby-throated, but the broadly rounded primary tips say Black-chinned. I measured the apparent bill length by the size of the head, and found it exactly in the overlap zone for both species - at the long extreme for RT and at the short end for BC. So I was left puzzled, and unconvinced in either direction. Even though that would have been enough to vote "no" on this record, I really wanted to know where to go with this i.d., and especially, which is more important, wing-tail length, or primary tip shape? So I got in touch with my friend and hummingbird expert Sheri Williamson, to get her opinion on this record. I sent her the most instructive of the photos. As expected, her feedback was most valuable. Here are a couple of her comments: (answering my questions, before seeing the photos) "Since angle is often a confounding issue for both bill and wing/tail proportions and P9-10 can be ambiguous in juvenile females, I've come to rely more on P1-6, which are typically "generic" rounded at the tip in BC and elongate and emarginate in RT. If it's a full-on side view, tail length will be helpful; if there's a back view, depth of the tail notch could be helpful." (after seeing the photos) "Looks like a juvenile male from the strong "mask" and apparently extensive blackish in the outer rects, which makes the apparent bill length in the second photo too long for RT. The tail does look long, but that's not enough to hang an ID of RT on." So Sheri's opinion on this bird is that this is an immature male Black-chinned. I was leaning in that same direction, though for different (and apparently less reliable) reasons.
2nd round:	18 Nov 2016	No, ID	As per my first round comments.
Larry T.	11 Oct 2016	No, ID	Blurry photos but the wing shape looks like a Black-chin to me. Certainly not enough to call it a Rt..
2nd round:	15 Jan 2017	No, ID	.
David W.	12 Sep 2016	No, ID	> Adult male is eliminated by the broad, rounded (folded) wingtips. > Adult female: -- Lack of distinct postocular white spot argues against the ID. The face pattern looks a bit different in different photos. Is this the same bird in all photos? (-) -- The gray auricular patch supports the ID. (+) -- The throat looks good (clear white) in photos (D & E) but appears to have some smudging in other photos (A, B, and C). Is this the same bird in all photos? (+/-) -- The bill length doesn't strike me as all that short, especially for an immature bird. (+/-) Immature male: -- The clear throat without streaking should eliminate an immature male. (-) -- The broad, rounded (folded) wingtips pretty much eliminate a RTHB male of any age. -- The face pattern looks correct for the immature male. (+) So, this cannot be a male Ruby-throated hummingbird, and I am not convinced that it is a female either. I am open to arguments to the contrary, but for now I am voting against.
2nd round:	11 Nov 2016	No, ID	I'll stick with my first round vote for now. Not enough here to prove a Ruby-throated hummingbird.
Kevin W.	3 Oct 2016	No, ID	Neither the description or photos are sufficient to show that this bird is a Ruby-throated Hummbingbird. The photos show characteristics that may point to it being a Broad-tailed Hummingbird.
2nd round:	30 Dec 2016	No, ID	Mark's correspondence with Sheri Williamson was helpful.

2016-30 Barnacle Goose

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	10 Nov 2016	No, Nat	Very likely this bird is an escapee.
Kenny F.	18 Sep 2016	No, Nat	Word came out after this record was submitted that an aviary in Weber County was missing 6 Barnacle Geese. This bird is undoubtedly one of them.
Dennis S.	8 Oct 2016	No, Nat	Escaped bird.
Jack S..	10 Nov 2016	No, Nat
Steve S.	16 Oct 2016	No, Nat
Mark S.	12 Sep 2016	No, Nat	There can be no doubt as to the identification of this bird, and while it would be very tempting to try to call this a wild bird, what with its lack of bands or other markings, and apparently "wild" behavior, such a conclusion is simply not reasonable. First, Barnacle Geese are very common in captivity, and a quick perusal of online ads from breeders indicates that they aren't even very expensive - cheaper than White-fronted, Snow, and Cackling Geese, and about the same price as Canada Geese. It's not hard to imagine breeders and waterfowl enthusiasts not being very careful about marking their birds, or keeping them in escape-resistant enclosures. There is a history of escaped Barnacle Geese in park ponds, including in Utah. Second, the date is completely implausible for a wild bird. Barnacle Geese at this time of year are mostly still on their Arctic breeding grounds - they don't start appearing on their wintering grounds in Europe until October. A search of e-Bird reveals that there are only 8 North American records during August and September, 4 from NE U.S. (MA, PA, ME)and 4 from NE Canada (Quebec and Newfoundland). All of the records from the Midwest and farther afield are from the winter months. And, we don't know how many of those records are of escaped birds. Of course, without having a collector come forward to claim the bird, there is no way to know with certainty the origin of this bird. But the circumstantial evidence points strongly to this bird being an escapee. To think otherwise is an extreme example of "hopeful birder syndrome."
Larry T.	11 Oct 2016	No, Nat	With the info that is out there I think we have to assume it's a escaped bird.
David W.	14 Sep 2016	No, Nat	I originally voted to accept this record. However, today new information was posted on UBIRD which casts doubt on the natural origin of this bird, so I am changing my vote to "No, Nat". The UBIRD post read, in part: "So...I saw this posted in the Utah County Birders Facebook Group and wanted to pass it along to UBirders... Ben Pierce: 'The barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis) spotted in Utah is a escapee. I have a friend that had 6 get away from his aviary in weber county last week. please let people know thanks.' He says that there's also a pair of Red-breasted Geese that escaped up in Weber County as well, so if you see them, know they're escapees as well.
Kevin W.	3 Oct 2016	No, Nat	Based on information provided afterwards, this is likely an escaped bird.

2016-31 Western Gull

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	12 Nov 2016	Acc
Kenny F.	18 Sep 2016	Acc	Bulky, all-dark gull with big dark, slightly drooping bill and shortish primary projection all look good for a 1st cycle Western Gull.
Dennis S.	12 Oct 2016	Acc
Jack S..	10 Nov 2016	Acc
Steve S.	16 Oct 2016	Acc
Mark S.	14 Sep 2016	Acc	Excellent documentation and photographs. The only similar species not addressed is juvenile Slaty-backed, but the bill and head shape would seem to eliminate that species.
Larry T.	11 Oct 2016	Acc	Look good for a Western.
David W.	23 Oct 2016	Acc	Nice bill.
Kevin W.	27 Oct 2016	Acc	The photos show marks of a Western Gull juvenile, particularly the thick, dark bill; dark head, breast, and belly; and very dark primaries.

2016-32 Ruff

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	12 Nov 2016	Acc
Kenny F.	18 Sep 2016	Acc	Buffy coloration, floppy tertials, short dark slightly decurved bill and white U-shaped uppertail coverts all look good for a juvenile Ruff.
Dennis S.	8 Oct 2016	Acc	Good comparisons with other accompanying shorebirds.
Jack S..	18 Nov 2016	Acc
Steve S.	16 Oct 2016	Acc	Great in flight photo.
Mark S.	17 Sep 2016	Acc	Excellent documentation and photographs. There seems to be a Ruff invasion in the western U.S. right now, with numerous records from several states. Maybe we'll get one in west Mexico . . .
Larry T.	11 Oct 2016	Acc	Nice photos.
David W.	23 Oct 2016	Acc	I'm surprised there aren't more photos submitted as part of this record. There were about a million people with cameras who saw this obliging bird.
Kevin W.	27 Oct 2016	Acc	Good documentation, description, and photos for Ruff.

2016-33 Yellow-bellied Flycatcher

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	19 Nov 2016	No, ID	My initial impression is this is not a Yellow-bellied Flycatcher because of the bird's overall shape including a large looking head with longish bill and long tail. The photo which shows a crest provides additional doubt, even though the observer dismisses this as an excited YBFL. It's hard to judge contrast and coloration due to variance in lighting conditions in the photos. I also wish there was a clear view of the throat and breast which could provide more clues to this bird's true identity.
2nd round:	17 Dec 2016	No, ID	Still not convinced this is a Yellow-bellied Flycatcher even after reviewing the cited article and the primary spacing shown in the photos.
Kenny F.	17 Nov 2016	Acc	Combination of bill color, even eye ring , short tail and the even primary spacing mentioned in the notes all look good for Yellow-bellied Flycatcher.
2nd round:	21 Nov 2016 27 Nov 2016	Acc	Still standing by my comments in the first round. I think some people are misinterpreting the primary formula which looks fine for Yellow-bellied Flycatcher. (27 Nov 2016) I was hoping to add some additional information I just worked on to flesh out my interpretation of the primary formula so that others can see what I am thinking. I am basing my observations on the primary formula off this article In two of the pictures, C and D, you can get a good look at the primaries, specifically 5, 6, 7 and 8. From what I could see, the gap between 7 and 8 was relatively small and the gaps between 5 & 6 as well as 6 & 7 appear about equal. Photo C illustrates this this best since it is a side shot that shows the primaries along an even plane. I drew some lines in to better show the edges of the primaries ans also numbered them. The gap between 7 & 8 is pretty small and the next 2 gaps look pretty equal. (Here is my edited version of picture C where I highlight and number the edges of the primaries to help show the gaps) This picture also shows the gaps well, but you have to look at it with a different perspective since the bird is facing away from us. This means that the closer the gap is to us, the larger it will relatively appear. Thus the gap between 7 & 8 appears much larger than it should since it is the closest to us and although the gaps between 5 & 6 and 6 & 7 appear about the same, the gap between 6 & 7 looks slightly larger since it is the one closer to us and will look larger as a result. (Here is my edited version of picture D where I highlight and number the edges of the primaries to help show the gaps) If it would be more helpful, I can email my pictures to add to the photos of this record to illustrate the gaps between the primaries.
Dennis S.	12 Oct 2016	No, ID	The problem with this Empid is still the separation from the "Western" Empid complex, with so many overlapping characters. Quoting from Advanced Birding by Ken Kaufman, "All points (distinguishing characters between these species) are variable, and are almost impossible to detect without direct comparison." Like YBFL, some fall "Western," because of wear, have white throats also.
2nd round:	1 Dec 2016	No, ID	1st round comments were good - both pro and con - but I still think if we error in our judgement (if there is one) it needs to be on the conservative side, especially if it's a new addition to our States list, a new First-Of-State. This isn't the first time this species has been scrutinized by our committee and the same problems come up each time. We shouldn't base a new Utah record on a fall migrant of a difficult group like this one, unless there is very little shadow of doubt.
Jack S..	18 Nov 2016	No, ID	This ID does not square with a clear pale/white throat (especially as shown in photo D;), olive/brown hints in plumage shown in photo C. The ID of this bird was largely based on subtle length differences in P4 to P7 of Cordilleran and Yellow-bellied Flycatchers, measurements that, in-hand, have considerable overlap between the two species (Table 1 in article provided by observer and Table 3 in Pyles banding guide).
2nd round:	28 Dec 2016	No, ID	Good discussion but I'm not convincingly swayed this bird is a Yellow-bellied Flycatcher; a more likely possibility is Western Flycatcher.
Steve S.	17 Nov 2016	No, ID	If the wing formula is conclusive for ID this looks like a Western Flycatcher in the photos.
2nd round:	20 Jan 2017	No, ID	Still to much doubt for this ID.
Mark S.	29 Sep 2016	Acc	I've examined this record, and offered opinions on it to the observer, since before it was submitted. The opinion I expressed to him was that this was most likely a "Western Flycatcher." The biggest reservations I had about this being a Yellow-bellied were the ragged crest in one of the photos, the bill shape from underneath (not triangular enough), and the fact that, in the copies of the photos I saw, the primary tips were not as clear, and the spaces between them not easily seen. In favor of Yellow-bellied was the eye ring, the dark wings/white wing-bars, and the whitish throat and breast. I though that the green back was a wash, and could go either way. But, after seeing higher-quality copies of the photos submitted with this record, I'm "changing my vote" to accept this as a Yellow-bellied. The primary tips, visible in one of these versions, look good for Yellow-bellied, and the crest that appears in the one photo looks more like an excited Yellow-bellied than a "Western," with the crested part more towards the back of the crown. I still have some reservations based upon the bill shape, but now consider the balance of the evidence to point towards Yellow-bellied Flycatcher.
2nd round:	17 Jan 2017	No, ID	Well, since I've "changed my vote" several times on this record, I guess one more time won't hurt. I still think the evidence points (slightly) more towards Yellow-bellied than "Western," but I'm swayed by Dennis's comment that we should err on the conservative side when there's doubt. There's certainly no shortage of doubt with this record.
Larry T.	27 Oct 2016	Acc	Good photos of a difficult species. Western is what all the experts say you must be very careful with when trying to identifying a vagrant YB. I believe the pics do that and I can't see this bird being a Western. I think the other possibility would be a Least. But the overall shape of the bird seems to eliminate a Least also. I would have to agree with the observer that this is a well documented Yellow-bellied Flycatcher. Nice Utah record.
David W.	11 Nov 2016	No, ID	This is, of course, a non-trivial ID, full of subtle rather than overt field marks. In my evaluation, I relied more on photos than the writeup, and I compared them to the article referenced by the observer (Heindel & Pyle, 1999). My conclusion is that this bird looks like a yellowish "Western" flycatcher" rather than a Yellow-bellied flycatcher for the following reasons: 1. Head shape: the head is obviously peaked and large in most photos. This fits better with a Western flycatcher. A Yellow-bellied flycatcher should have a small, round head. 2. Wing color: To my eyes, the color of the flight feathers of the bird in these photos is too washed out. A Yellow-bellied flycatcher should have darker (almost black) remiges with more contrast to the pale edgings. 3. Eyering: I think the eyering shape is indeterminate (though possibly closer to Western), but the color looks whitish to me rather than yellowish. This again supports a Western over Yellow-bellied flycatcher. 4. Breast streaking: The breast on this bird appears unstreaked. That is indeterminate, but a streaked breast would have supported a Yellow-bellied flycatcher. So that doesn't bolster the argument for Yellow-bellied flycatcher either. 5. Wing formula: Contrary to the observer, I think the wing morphology is more consistent with the Western rather than Yellow-bellied flycatcher. The gap between P5 & P6 appears significantly greater compared to the gaps around it. A Yellow-bellied flycatcher should have more consistent gaps between P5, P6, and P7.
2nd round:	11 Dec 2016	No, ID	Kenny and I are focussing on different photos. When I look at photos A & B, I clearly see a wing matching the Western flycatcher in Figure 8 of the article we are all referencing (Heindel & Pyle, 1999), and nothing like the Yellow-bellied flycatcher. I also think Kenny may be misnumbering his primaries because, as the article notes, P7 often overlaps P8 entirely. I think Kenny's P7 is actually P6, though I wouldn't stake my life on it. As such, the wing formula is at best a draw in my book (though I strongly think it supports Western) and my other concerns about this species still point to a Western, despite the fact that Mark sees many of the same field marks and comes to a different conclusion.
Kevin W.	27 Oct 2016	Acc	Challenging identification, but I believe that the submitter is correct in his identification. The eyering seems complete and not as full behind the eye as a "Western" flycatcher. The bill seems short. The wings are dark and contrast with the wing bars and feather edges. Four primaries are obvious beyond the tertials, and these seem to show two gaps similar in size, as described by Pyle (http://timaverybirding.com/~~~ARCHIVES/birding/ybfl.pdf). Many of these characteristics seem somewhat subjective, but I think when taken together it points toward this being a Yellow-bellied Flycatcher.
2nd round:	30 Dec 2016	No, ID	The discussion of other members has cast doubt on the identification of this bird. Even if it is a Yellow-bellied, it seems that there is too much evidence not to question it.

2016-34 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	19 Nov 2016	No, ID	Due to short duration of sighting, observer's lack of familiarity with YBSA and no consideration of possible hybridization I am reluctant to accept this ID.
2nd round:	17 Dec 2016	No, ID	No additional comments.
Kenny F.	17 Nov 2016	No, ID	Doesn't fully rule out female Red-naped Sapsucker and it seems it would be hard to see if there was red on the nape without any optical equipment.
2nd round:	21 Nov 2016	No, ID	No additional comments.
Dennis S.	12 Oct 2016	No, ID	There's no question the record bird is a sapsucker, but I'm not totally convinced it isn't a Red-naped. The presence and amount of red on the nape and throat is variable, especially in females and in the fall. Back pattern, adult vs juvenile, and certainly a photo or two (which isn't always possible) would have helped to clarify.
2nd round:	1 Dec 2016	No, ID	No addition thoughts. No vote change.
Jack S..	18 Nov 2016	No, ID	I'm not sure there is enough description (documentation) here to accept as YBSA.
2nd round:	28 Dec 2016	No, ID	Same comments as first round!
Steve S.	17 Nov 2016	No, ID	With a 20 second look with no optics and no previous experience I have a hard time accepting this record.
2nd round:	20 Jan 2017	No, ID	No additional comments.
Mark S.	29 Sep 2016	Acc	Even though the observer is not experienced with this species, the description shows that she can distinguish sapsuckers from other woodpeckers, and, as described, this has to be either a Red-naped or Yellow-bellied Sapsucker. I can find no reference to a female Red-naped Sapsucker having no red in the throat, or even so little red that it could be overlooked.
2nd round:	20 Jan 2017	Acc	I still can't find a reference to female Red-naped Sapsucker with a clean white throat, though I do share and appreciate other members' concerns about length of sighting/possibility of a hybrid, etc. It looks like my vote won't matter, anyway.
Larry T.	27 Oct 2016	No, ID	Not a very good description. The lone field mark of what seemed to be a nape that was lacking red isn't enough to except this bird as a YB.
David W.	23 Oct 2016	Acc
2nd round:	25 Nov 2016	Acc	Interestingly, had I written a first-round comment, I would have said the exact same thing as Mark. I also searched the internet and my field guides for any indication that a clean white throat could mean anything but a female Yellow-bellied, but found none. I am very willing to reconsider my vote if someone shows me literature to the contrary, but for now I will stay with my first round vote.
Kevin W.	8 Nov 2016	No, ID	The description lacks enough details about field marks to be sure that it wasn't a Red-naped Sapsucker, or a hybrid. Photos would have helped.
2nd round:	30 Dec 2016	No, ID	No additional comments.

2016-35 Tennessee Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	19 Nov 2016	Acc	Description and white undertail coverts indicate TEWA.
2nd round:	17 Dec 2016	Acc	No further comments.
Kenny F.	17 Nov 2016	Acc	Description seems consistent with Tennessee Warbler.
2nd round:	21 Nov 2016	Acc	A clear view for 5 seconds is more than enough time to notice that this bird had white undertail coverts that contrasted with yellowish underparts.
Dennis S.	25 Oct 2016	No, ID	The report hits all the right characters for a TEW. But again, my only major concern is the short (5 sec) observation time. A "quick draw" Id, of a rarity can leave room for wonder, especially when there are other similar species. For now I'm wanting to see what others think.
2nd round:	1 Dec 2016	Acc	I knew I might be standing alone for a while on this record. But my point (short observation time) was made for a purpose. We need to be cautious about this. However, in this case I do think the quality of the report and the experience of observer warrants acceptance. My vote is changed to accept.
Jack S..	18 Nov 2016	Acc
2nd round:	28 Dec 2016	Acc
Steve S.	17 Nov 2016	Acc
2nd round:	20 Jan 2017	Acc	Description still seems to support this ID.
Mark S.	29 Sep 2016	Acc	Good description from an experienced observer.
2nd round:	17 Jan 2016	Acc
Larry T.	27 Oct 2016	Acc	A fairly common Eastern Warbler in Fall. Maybe shouldn't be reviewed any longer.
David W.	23 Oct 2016	Acc	Despite the upperparts not being described beyond "overall yellowish," I am voting to ACCEPT based on the other evidence.
2nd round:	3 Dec 2016	Acc	As before.
Kevin W.	8 Nov 2016	Acc	The description is adequate to identify as a Tennessee Warbler..
2nd round:	30 Dec 2016	Acc	No additional comments.

2016-36 Blue-headed Vireo

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	19 Nov 2016	Acc
2nd round:	17 Dec 2016	Acc	I am still calling this a Blue-headed Vireo. To me there is enough contrast and line of separation between the head and the back, plus a sharpness to the borders on the throat which supports BHVI.
3rd round:	4 Mar 2016	Acc	I'm still seeing a BHVI. My vote is unchanged.
Kenny F.	17 Nov 2016	No, ID	Looks like a Cassin's Vireo to me give the lack of strong contrast between the blue on the face and the white throat as well as the lack of contrast between the back and head.
2nd round:	21 Nov 2016	No, ID	Still don't think the plumage of the head contrasts enough to make this a Blue-headed Vireo.
3rd round:	29 Mar 2016	No, ID	There is still not enough evidence given to prove this is a Blue-headed Vireo.
Stephanie G. 3rd round:	7 Mar 2017	No, ID	Dangit this one is tough. It's right on the line. I usually go by the rule of ruling things out in order to accept a record. I don't think we can effectively rule out a bright Cassin's.
Dennis S.	11 Oct 2016	Acc	Good report and photos. Cassin's similarities adequately addressed.
2nd round:	1 Dec 2016	Acc	Again the basic ID question for this record is whether there is enough color contrast between the "Blue" head and the greenish/gray back and white throat. To me there is an abrupt line between the blue/gray head and white throat and, from what we read in the report and can see in the photos, enough contrast between head and back to warrant an accept vote.
3rd round:	9 Feb 2016	Acc	It's still a close call, but I still think some photos show enough color contrast to qualify as a BHVI.
Jack S..	18 Nov 2016	No, ID	The weak contrast between the head and back (photo A) and cheek and throat (E, F, and G) are more consistent with a bright Cassin's rather than a Blue-headed Vireo.
2nd round:	28 Dec 2016	No, ID	David Wheeler's comments are right on.
Steve S.	17 Nov 2016	No, ID	With no strong color contrast between head and back, and lores noticeably darker than head I think this is a bright Cassin's Vireo.
2nd round:	20 Jan 2017	No, ID	Still not convinced this is not a Cassin's Vireo.
3rd round:	14 Mar 2016	No, ID	Still don't see a clear cut Blue-headed rather than Cassin's. I'll leave this one in the middle with no Id.
Mark S.	3 Oct 2016	Acc	Excellent documentation and photographs. A bright Cassin's can be eliminated by the well-defined borders of the throat, and the completely gray head, with a sharp demarcation between the green back and gray head - no green bleeding into the gray o the nape as is the case with Cassin's.
2nd round:	17 Jan 2016	Acc	Well, lots of excellent comments, and clearly a divergence of opinion,even in considering the same field marks. I don't see much ambiguity in the head/back contrast (in photo D you can see the sharp demarcation between green and gray), and the throat contrast seems too sharp for a bright Cassin's. I think that we need to exercise extreme caution when judging the "shadows lightened" photos, since they distort the contrast - increasing it in some places while reducing it in others. In the white-gray boundary on the throat in photo G, the lightened photo shows less contrast than the original, while the lore looks darker in the lightened over the original. Regarding the dark-lore field mark, I consider that a "proposed" field mark that needs more vetting. Regardless, in the original, unlightened photos, I don't see a terribly obvious darker lore. I still think that the balance of the evidence points more to Blue-headed (and perhaps not even a female) than an extra-bright Cassin's.
3rd round:	23 Feb 2017	Acc	I still see a Blue-headed Vireo. One item of note - I've been checking photos for the veracity of the "dark-lore" field mark for Cassin's, and I've seen numerous photos of clearly Blue-headed Vireos with dark lores, so I don't think that field mark is reliable.
Larry T.	27 Oct 2016	Acc	I don't have a problem calling this bird a BH Vireo.
3rd round:	29 Jan 2017	Acc	Very interested the difference of opinions and how adamant we are about what were seeing in the pics. Which as Mark says may be a little misleading with the lightening and darkening. But I can see how this bird could go either way in how birders want to interpret a female BH or a male Cassin's. For me with the all the great comments from both sides I still think it looks fine for a BH.
David W.	11 Nov 2016	No, ID	This is one of my least favorite IDs. The phenotypical differences between a Cassin's and Blue-headed fall on a spectrum without distinct cutoffs. The other end of the spectrum, between Cassin's and Plumbeous, is only marginally better. Color & contrast both fade into the other species along the spectrum. Some Cassin's have the faintest hint of yellow, while others are crazy bright. Where one species ends and the other begins strikes me as a very subjective call. And this bird is somewhere near that boundary. That being said, I think this is a bright Cassin's rather than a female Blue-headed. But I sure wouldn't bet my life on it. The boundary between the gray on the face and the white of the throat seems just this side of crisp enough for Blue-headed. Also, the lores are strikingly darker than the head color (according to some, this is a good sign for Cassin's). I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but for now I will vote NO.
2nd round:	1 Dec 2016	No, ID	I've had some of my votes not go through, so I will reconstruct my thoughts as best I can and hope they don't somehow duplicate: I was bemused, and reaffirmed in my initial vote, at just how contradictory the first-round votes were on this record. The most common field marks mentioned for this record were seized upon by proponents of both the nays and yeas to prove their respective points -- contrast between face & throat, contrast between head & back (mantle). It's both discouraging and significant that this was the case. I think, therefore, that there is a good case to be made for doubt on this record.
3rd round:	16 Feb 2017	No, ID	I'll stick with my previous comments & vote.
Kevin W.	8 Nov 2016	No, ID	In my opinion, the description and photos fall short of showing that this bird is not a bright Cassin's Vireo. Unfortunately, the photos seem to show fading between the head and throat (which,in my understanding, can be variable between the two species). The photos also seem to show darker lores than the head color, leaning toward Cassin's (http://creagrus.home.montereybay.com/sovi-id-comm.html).
2nd round:	9 Jan 2017	No, ID	I still think this seems more Cassin's than Blue-headed.
3rd round:	10 Feb 2017	No, ID	Although the traits (in my opinion) lean more toward being a Cassin's Vireo than a Blue-headed, this bird obviously falls in the middle of the spectrum that David W. describes.

2016-37 Red-breasted Sapsucker

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	19 Nov 2016	Acc
2nd round:	17 Dec 2016	Acc	This looks like a Red-breasted Sapsucker with no evidence of this being a hybrid.
Kenny F.	17 Nov 2016	Acc	Looks good for a Red-breasted Sapsucker.
2nd round:	20 Jan 2017	Acc	No additional comments.
Dennis S.	8 Oct 2016	Acc	Nice photos.
2nd round:	1 Dec 2016	Acc	I don't have enough hybrid concern in this individual to not accept.
Jack S..	23 Nov 2016	Acc
2nd round:	28 Dec 2016	Acc	Photo F (and especially F1) show the expected extent of dark marking on the flank for a daggetti subspecies.
Steve S.	17 Nov 2016	Acc
2nd round:	20 Jan 2017	Acc	I see no evidence of this bird being a hybrid.
Mark S.	3 Oct 2016	No, ID	I'm mostly satisfied with this record, but would like to have some discussion on this record. As usual, it's the dreaded hybrid question that needs to be resolved. For the most part, there is little evidence of a hybrid in this individual, but we lack a clear view of the breast, and the partial views we get in photos B & C both show what may be a fairly extensive black patch. Is anyone else seeing this, or have a concern with it?
2nd round:	17 Jan 2017	Acc	Looks like no one shared my minor concerns; since they were minor, I have no problem passing this record.
Larry T.	27 Oct 2016	Acc	Looks good for a RB Sapsucker.
2nd round:	29 Jan 2017	Acc
David W.	23 Oct 2016	Acc
2nd round:	3 Dec 2016	Acc	I think the darkness on the chest noted by Mark could be due to either remnant juvenile plumage, or, more likely, just darkness seen when looking under feathers. It seems that quite a few photos I've seen on the internet of this species show this dark blotching due to the latter phenom.
Kevin W.	8 Nov 2016	Acc	The description and photos show definitive marks of a Red-breasted Sapsucker.
2nd round:	9 Jan 2017	Acc	No new comments.

2016-38 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	19 Nov 2016	Acc
2nd round:	27 Dec 2016	Acc	I have considered the possibility of a hybrid, but I'm still calling this a Yellow-bellied Sapsucker.
Kenny F.	17 Nov 2016	No, ID	I think this is actually a YB x RN hybrid. The back pattern with the two lines of white barring are a RN trait, whereas YB will have extensive barring across the back. Additionally it looks like there may be some bleeding of the red on the throat into the black stripe bordering it.
2nd round:	20 Jan 2017	No, ID	The back markings are still wrong for a pure Yellow-bellied Sapsucker. They never show 2 lines of barring like this one. It looks like a classic hybrid.
Dennis S.	15 Oct 2016	Acc	Good evidentiary photos.
2nd round:	26 Dec 2016	Acc	The hybrid question is always a problem with these, but I think this bird fits a YBSA.
Jack S..	10 Dec 2016	Acc
2nd round:	30 Dec 2016	Acc	Most of the field marks strongly favor YBSA: lack of red nape, wide white stripes on head and face, and solid black malar stripe separating red throat and white face stripe. I don't see the bleeding of red into black as suggested by Kenny. Regarding the back, the amount of black between the two swaths of white is wider than classical YBSA and intermediate according to Shunks article on sapsucker hybridization. I'm still accepting given most of the field marks are classical YBSA.
Steve S.	17 Nov 2016	Acc
2nd round:	20 Jan 2017	Acc	We can always question a bird as a hybrid, but this one if it has any hybridization seems to be in the distant past.
Mark S.	18 Nov 2016	No, ID	I'd like to see this go to a second round, as I'm not convinced that this may not be a hybrid individual. I've solicited an opinion from sapsucker expert Steven Shrunk on this bird, but haven't gotten a response yet. The back pattern is what troubles me most. This bird is clearly closer to Yellow-bellied than Red-naped, but I scored it as a "3" on the Royal Albert Museum's sapsucker score sheet - borderline between "Yellow-bellied" and "hybrid." I'd like to see what the rest of you think.
2nd round:	17 Jan 2017	No, ID	Still bothered by the back markings for a pure YB Sapsucker.
Larry T.	27 Oct 2016	Acc	The pics and the description are good enough for me.
2nd round:	29 Jan 2017	Acc	I'll stay with my original vote. Hybrids are always a issue with these birds. Not sure if 3/4 of them are hybrids or they just look like they are. I think they all belong in the basket a deplorables. YB should probably be taken off the review list in my opinion. We see to many every year to be reviewing them in Utah.
David W.	23 Oct 2016	Acc
2nd round:	2 Feb 2017	Acc	Though Kenny makes good points, and I certainly can see why people would vote to reject, I agree with Larry & Jack's comments. I don't know where to go with the hybrid issue in the sapsucker complex, especially for autumn individuals which may not be fully adult. What percentage of one-taxon parentage do we require before we call something "pure"? Half? Quarter? Eighth? Sixteenth? Thirty-secondth? How many back-crosses do we require before we let one into the country club? I genuinely don't know. But in most respects, to me this looks to be phenotypically a Yellow-bellied. If people want to bump this into the third round, I don't mind. (comments: 7 Mar 2017)
Kevin W.	8 Nov 2016	Acc	The description and photos show traits of a Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, particularly the red throat with complete black border.
2nd round:	9 Feb 2017	Acc	No new comments.

2016-39 Iceland Gull

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	19 Nov 2016	No, ID	I think this is most likely a Thayer's Gull based on the bill size/shape and the iris color.
2nd round:	4 Mar 2017	No, ID	Judging from the comments of others, the consensus seems to be there is not a consensus as to this bird's actual ID. There are too many things inconsistent with an Iceland Gull for me to accept this record. Therefore my vote is unchanged.
Kenny F.	17 Nov 2016	Acc	The white primaries and size suggest a Kumlien's Iceland Gull, albeit one with dark eyes.
2nd round:	20 Jan 2017	Acc	Glaucous-winged Gulls will show wingtips that are about the same color as the mantle which this bird doesn't show. Plus the head and bill would be bulkier. The shape of the head and bill are within range of a Kumlien gull and those structures seem to show that this is a male bird.
Stephanie G. 2nd round:	8 Feb 2017	No, ID	This is a tough one. I'm unfortunately going to have to vote a NO on this one for a few reasons. First, the pictures don't accurately show the primaries. It always seems like the angle doesn't show a good straight-on view. It also appears that in photos B and C that there is some black in the primaries. Photo D is weird, there appear to be some missing feathers or the positioning of the wingtips is strange. So, without the primaries we have to look at a few other things. The mantle color isn't a slam-dunk for Iceland. A bit too dark in my perception. The color of the eye also appears to be dark, which is better for Thayer's. I'd also expect an Iceland to be a bit smaller, more around the size of a California. This seems on the bulkier side. For these reasons, Thayer's Gull (with perhaps some bleaching or leucism) cannot be effectively ruled out.
Dennis S.	15 Oct 2016	No, ID	A questionable Gull! Some characters fit a ICGU. But doubt creeps in when you examine eye color, presence and prominence of red/pink orbital ring, shape of head, bill size and shape, and overall body size. Timing also raises a red flag, but this would apply to whatever it is. In "Gulls of the Americas," by Howell and Dunn, there is mention of "dwarf" glacous-winged and glaucous gulls - or maybe its a hybrid of one of these combinations.
2nd round:	21 Jan 2017	No, ID	Nothing has changed my mind since the first round. I still think other "whitish" adult gulls are not a possibility.
Jack S..	23 Dec 2016	No, ID	The mantle is too dark and the iris color is wrong for Iceland Gull; I'm seeing dark primary tips on Photo C (cropped and enlarged). Thayer's Gull may be better fit. A more detailed description of the primaries would have been useful.
Steve S.	17 Nov 2016	No, ID	This bird looks more like a Glaucous-winged Gull as it was originally reported.
2nd round:	20 Jan 2017	No, ID	No additional comments.
Mark S.	18 Nov 2016	No, ID	I'm not convinced by this record. The bird seems large and bulky next to the CAGU for an Iceland, and the bill looks too heavy, with a too pronounced gonydeal angle. The head shape doesn't seem right, either - not round enough. I think Glaucous-winged Gull is a better fit for this bird.
2nd round:	17 Jan 2017	No, ID	I still think this is closer to a small Glaucous-winged than Iceland.
Larry T.	14 Jan 2017	No, ID	I think this bird looks good for a Iceland but I'd like to hear other opinion as to why this isn't a Thayer's. There is no doubt that Iceland gulls show up in Utah but I'm not comfortable calling one anything more than a probable Iceland. Looking forward to what everyone has to say about this bird.
2nd round:	29 Jan 2017	No, ID	Very interesting comments as to what this bird is. It doesn't seem to be a great fit for anything. Maybe a Hybrid? I still think it fits a Kumlien's/Thayer's better than anything else but there are issues with that ( like the bill )as others have pointed out. Best fit is a sp.
David W.	11 Nov 2016	No, ID	Like the observer, I am left without a good answer for what this gull is. The shade of mantle gray is consistent with a Glaucous, Kumlien's, or Glaucous-winged. Pale wing tips eliminate most other possibilities. The large bill size and strong gonydeal angle seem to eliminate a Kumlien's. The relatively "massive" shape of the bird also gives me pause--a Kumlien's is more "delicate". Head shape is fairly round but not definitively so. I think this bird is more than just 1" longer than the California gulls next to it, yet not as large as a Glaucous ought to be. Dark iris is good... This bird just seems intermediate, as so many gulls seem to be. Hybrid? I'll vote NO for now, without prejudice or a good alternative. Perhaps the smarter members on this Committee will provide better insight for the second round.
2nd round:	18 Jan 2017	No, ID	I am puzzled as to my first round comment regarding the iris color (a passing madness?), but that field mark also reinforces my doubt that this bird is an Iceland because Kumlien's gulls USUALLY have pale irises. However, there is an interesting website which discusses the variation within the Iceland gull complex, including iris color: http://birdingnewfoundland.blogspot.com/p/gull-id-articles.html (I don't know how peer reviewed this site is, but it is interesting -- Gull sp.)
Kevin W.	30 Dec 2016	Acc	Good documentation and photos show field marks that indicate this to be an adult Iceland Gull, and I think the identification of Kumlieni is correct, as well.
2nd round:	9 Feb 2017	No, ID	Gulls are challenging! I'll change my vote. The discussion about various field marks, including the dark iris, bill shape, and general shape and size have convinced me that I have no idea what this gull is, but there just doesn't seem to be enough evidence to call it an Iceland.

2016-40 Red-necked Grebe

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	12 Nov 2016	Acc
Kenny F.	17 Nov 2016	Acc	Good shots of a Red-necked Grebe.
Dennis S.	4 Nov 2016	Acc	Nice photos.
Jack S..	23 Dec 2016	Acc
Steve S.	17 Nov 2016	Acc
Mark S.	18 Nov 2016	Acc	Good documentation.
Larry T.	14 Jan 2017	Acc
David W.	5 Nov 2016	Acc	Good photo.
Kevin W.	30 Dec 2016	Acc	Photos show a Red-necked Grebe.

2016-41 Broad-billed Hummingbird

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	19 Nov 2016	Acc
Kenny F.	21 Nov 2016	Acc	The accept is for the male hummingbird which is clearly a Broad-billed. However the female hummingbird looks like a female Anna's so that record should be rejected.
Dennis S.	19 Nov 2016	Acc	Great record. Too bad no one was told about it!
Jack S..	23 Dec 2016	Acc
Steve S.	9 Dec 2016	Acc
Mark S.	18 Nov 2016	Acc	Adult male. Not much room for doubt on this one.
Larry T.	14 Jan 2017	Acc
David W.	18 Nov 2016	Acc	Wow. Great photos and habitat description. Interesting how different the bird looks between photos A & B as regards individual feather details. I'll chalk that up to shifting levels of dishevelment.
Kevin W.	30 Dec 2016	Acc	Good documentation; photos show a Broad-billed Hummingbird.

2016-42 Red-necked Grebe

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	27 Dec 2016	Acc
Kenny F.	21 Nov 2016	Acc	Looks good for a RN grebe.
Dennis S.	21 Nov 2016	Acc	Patagonia Effect on Hyrum Reservoir.
Jack S..	23 Dec 2016	Acc
Steve S.	9 Dec 2016	Acc
Mark S.	14 Jan 2017	Acc	Even the poor quality photos show Red-necked Grebe.
Larry T.	14 Jan 2017	Acc	How many of these do we average a year? Maybe we think about taking them off the review list.
David W.	21 Nov 2016	Acc	Seen by very many people over several days. Assaulted by a Western grebe one time I was looking at it.
Kevin W.	9 Jan 2017	Acc	Photos show a Red-necked Grebe.

2016-43 Red-throated Loon

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	28 Dec 2016	Acc
Kenny F.	21 Nov 2016	Acc	Looks great for a RT loon.
Dennis S.	21 Nov 2016	Acc
Jack S..	27 Dec 2016	Acc
Steve S.	9 Dec 2016	Acc
Mark S.	17 Jan 2017	Acc	Photos show Red-throated Loon.
Larry T.	14 Jan 2017	Acc
David W.	21 Nov 2016	Acc
Kevin W.	30 Dec 2016	Acc	Photos show a Red-throated Loon.

2016-44 Red-throated Loon

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	28 Dec 2016	Acc
Kenny F.	21 Nov 2016	Acc	Amazing that there are 2 RT loons in the area on the same day and 3 total for the fall!
Dennis S.	21 Nov 2016	Acc	Patagonia Effect on Hyrum Reservoir.
Jack S..	27 Dec 2016	Acc
Steve S.	20 Jan 2017	Acc
Mark S.	17 Jan 2017	Acc
Larry T.	15 Jan 2017	Acc
David W.	21 Nov 2016	Acc	Seen by many people over several days.
Kevin W.	30 Dec 2016	Acc	Photos show a Red-throated Loon.

2016-45 Arctic Loon

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	13 Mar 2017	Acc
2nd round:	18 May 2017	Acc	I am voting to accept based on my own observation of the bird in question because I am certain there was an Arctic Loon present on Hyrum Reservoir on November 20, 2016. The photo documentation from Dickson Smith noted as the "best photo to date" in Kenny Frisch's submission seems to show the same bird I observed and identified as an Arctic Loon in direct comparison to a Pacific Loon. Additionally, during my own sighting, I was able to see a white vent with no dark vent strap.
Kenny F.	20 Jan 2017	Acc	Blocky body and head shape, pale back flank patch, steep forehead and facial pattern all look better for an Arctic Loon vs a Pacific Loon.
2nd round:	19 May 2017	Acc	I think we should base our decisions on whether or not the given species was seen in our state and not on the quality of the submitted records. In this case, I think the best photos show that there was in fact an Arctic Loon in Utah last fall.
Stephanie G.	8 Feb 2017	Acc	[2016-45 - No, ID]: I even hesitate to vote on this because the record is so confusing. I think that each sighting needs its own record--it is too confusing to even vote on--some pictures don't appear to even be the same bird. I think each person should submit their record and photos separately to reduce confusion. Record_No_2: 2016-45a - Accept: Clearer record appears to have eliminated other species.
2nd round:	17 Apr 2017	No, ID	This record is too convoluted. I think that individuals should resubmit record and clear out the photos that clearly do not show an Arctic Loon. As others have stated, if this is to be a FOS, we have to be conservative and this is just a poor record as a whole.
Dennis S.	21 Jan 2017	No, ID	I was glad to see this report finally come forward. I've had several people ask about it's status. I had several records to catch up on today, but left this one till last. I've studied this subject and complex off and on since it appeared in early Nov. 2016. I made three trips to Hyrum to see and study the bird in question and am not convinced its an ARLO. I've recently had the opportunity to conduct bird surveys out on the Western Aleutians (Shemya Island) for five field seasons. It happens to be one of the few places where all five of the worlds loon species can be seen (I actually saw all five on one day - May 10, 2015). Here I was able to closely study Arctic and Pacific loons in both breeding and especially non-breeding plumage. I recorded 52 ARLO observations. They were relatively easy to separate from other loons (especially PALO in non-breeding plumage). By far the best ARLO field mark is the conspicuous, flaring, white flank patch, that is above the water level on a floating individual, and extends up to the rump. This is not just a slim water level line of white underside feathers which can appear on preening, "high floating" or agitated birds or when wave action temporarily exposes some of these feathers. In ARLO this flaring flank patch is easy to see and makes it easy to make the call. I never saw this character on any bird nor have any photos shown it. Not that I couldn't have missed the suspect bird, but I made three trips to Hyrum and spent several hours observing the loons present. I believe I did see the suspect bird on Nov 18 and 25th and along with a dozen or so other birders couldn't convince ourselves that it was an ARLO. There were three PALO/ARLO(?) present, one of which often stayed off by itself. It did appear slightly larger and had a more blockish head shape and slightly stouter bill, all of which are ARLO separation characters from PALO. However, as noted in the literature, each of these characters overlap. The absence of a chin-strap, which many have put a lot of weight on for PALO can also be either very obscure or non-found in PALO juveniles. I'm pretty sure this was the bird in question. However there was much confusion over which bird was the "right" one, and even PALO and RTLO photos were incorrectly identified. Most hotline reports had either 3 PALO or 2 PALO and 1 ARLO, back and forth. To further the confusion, there is a question of an intergrade. Hybrids have been identified between PALO and the western ARLO subspecies. Remember the species were split not too long ago (1985). There have been three ARLO records I know of in California and one in Colorado. Since it would be a FOS we need to be cautious and as far as possible be certain in our decision. I would direct our efforts to any literature which helps to make our decision easier. The paper that Mark suggested reading is very good - ARCTIC AND PACIFIC LOONS, FIELD IDENTIFICATION and Advanced Birding by Kaufman has some good points also. I'm anxious to see what others think and future dialog. .
2nd round:	15 Apr 2017	No, ID	It's once again time to tackle this record. I really do wish we could accept this record, it would be a great addition to our State list. But I really in good conscience can't vote for acceptance. My concerns haven't changed, even with the additional photos by Tim and others.None show the defining character of the "tell-tale" ARLO character of the flaring white "headlight" flank patch. It should be the most obvious character observed, even at a long distance. Once again I would direct the committee to study the excellent comparison articles mentioned previously.
Steve S.	14 Feb 2017	No, ID	After reading the reports, reviewing the photos and watching this bird myself for over an hour I don't feel comfortable calling this an Arctic Loon. Probably just a slightly large Pacific Loon in my opinion.
2nd round:	5 May 2017	No, ID	I still don't see anything to convince me that this is an Arctic Loon.
Mark S.	20 Jan 2017	No, ID	I am dismayed that some of the better, more definitive photos that I saw of the purported Arctic Loon were never attached to this record. None of the photos here show the clear evidence of an Arctic Loon. I don't think any of the evidence presented in these records as submitted is conclusive to the degree required by a state-first record of such a difficult i.d. problem. From the outside evidence I've seen, I do believe that an Arctic Loon was present on Hyrum Reservoir. I expect to eventually vote to approve this record, based on the additional evidence I've seen and opinions of other committee members. However, being as this is the first round, I must consider only the evidence as presented, and I find it inconclusive.
2nd round:	31 May 2017	No, ID	There's not enough here, in the evidence presented, to clearly eliminate Pacific Loon. I find Dennis's comments to be particularly valuable.
Larry T.	17 Mar 2017	No, ID	I'm not convinced on this bird not being a Pacific. I'm not seeing white flanks in the pics. The description sounds good but but the only pic that may lean towards Arctic is the comparison photo with a Pacific. I wish I would have saw the bird but maybe those that did can change my vote.
2nd round:	9 May 2017	No, ID	Certainly a muddled record. But as pointed out by others the white on the flanks should be very obvious with good looks at a Arctic.
David W.	27 Feb 2017	No, ID	I think Photos A through I show a Pacific loon, based on dark flanks, non-blocky head shape, face color, and bill shape. In fact the ONLY photos which I believe might show an Arctic loon are the photos from Weston Smith's checklist. I would like that pair of photos separated out from the other photos because I think they clearly show a different loon. Weston should be encouraged to submit a separate record for evaluation. I vote yes on those two photos but NO on all the other photos. Since both submissions correspond to photos I believe are NOT Arctic loons, therefore I do not believe the submitters saw that species, I will vote NO on this record.
2nd round:	20 Apr 2017	No, ID	I hate to sound stubborn, but I will vote NO because of the reason stated in my earlier e-mail to the Committee. I cannot in good conscience vote on a record(s) that obviously refers to a multitude of individuals (species, and thus mis-identifications), and which, in my opinion, relies on photos taken by someone else for its strongest case. I do not believe the photos taken by the people submitting the records are the most convincing, and I again urge that the record be split into its component photographic events. Again, sorry for my stubbornness on this issue, but this is a difficult ID and a FOS.
Kevin W.	10 Feb 2017	Acc	Characteristics shown in the photos - blocky head, thicker bill, slightly larger size than the Pacific, uniform nape and neck color, and a more distinct change of color at the eye-line all point to this being an Arctic Loon. I wish the photos would show the white sides and flanks, but both record submitters describe this in sufficient detail to convince me that the loon showed this feature.
2nd round:	18 Apr 2017	No, ID	As others have stated, there's too much confusion involved in this loon's identification to accept as a first state record.

2016-46 Black Scoter

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	28 Dec 2016	Acc
Kenny F.	20 Jan 2017	Acc	This bird looks good for a Black Scoter.
Dennis S.	30 Nov 2016	Acc	Even with blurred, far distance photos and a skimpy report, I believe there's still enough for acceptance.
Jack S..	27 Dec 2016	Acc	Description is good for Black Scoter.
Steve S.	20 Jan 2017	Acc	Photos show a Black Scoter
Mark S.	20 Jan 2017	Acc	What would normally be a straightforward i.d. becomes complicated by the distance involved. But I do believe that even the marginal photos adequately show body size/structure inconsistent with Ruddy Duck, the only other species with this head pattern.
Larry T.	15 Jan 2017	Acc	Photos are bad at best but I guess they are good enough to show what the observer is describing.
David W.	3 Dec 2016	Acc	Distant.
Kevin W.	9 Feb 2017	Acc	Photos are poor, but the duck in question seems to match the description of a Black Scoter, particularly with the observers comments.

2016-47 Iceland Gull

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	28 Dec 2016	Acc
2nd round:	31 Mar 2017	Acc	Still sticking with my first vote, although we may not have to distinguish between Iceland and Thayer's for much longer.
Kenny F.	20 Jan 2017	Acc	The overall paleness of this gull (especially the wingtips) along with the smallish bill and rounded head look good for a Kumlien's Iceland Gull.
2nd round:	9 Mar 2017	Acc	No additional comments except that I am from back east and it looks well within range with what people back there would call a Kumlien's.
Stephanie G. 2nd round:	7 Mar 2017	Acc	Overall lightness seems consistent with Kumlien's.
Dennis S.	30 Nov 2016	Acc	The Thayer's/Iceland/Kumlien's Gull complex is kind of a can-of-worms, but this record looks good for a Kumlien's.
2nd round:	11 Feb 2017	Acc	I agree with the comments both pro and con, but still think there's enough to tip scales toward ICGU.
Jack S..	27 Dec 2016	Acc	Kumlien's
Steve S.	20 Jan 2017	Acc
2nd round:	11 Feb 2017	Acc	Still think this one looks good for Iceland Gull.
Mark S.	20 Jan 2017	No, ID	Oh how I love reviewing records of dubious species. Can we have a Pacific-slope Flycatcher now? That being said, I'm not dead-set against accepting this record - it certainly is on the pale end of Thayer's, at least. But I'm not sure that there isn't just a bit too much dark in the primaries (and overall) on this bird to say that it's "definitively" a Kumlein's Iceland Gull. An open-wing photo would help. The bill also looks to be at the dark/Thayer's end of the spectrum, even though this feature shows much variation. I'm afraid that this looks to me like one of those "tweener" birds that might have been reported as a Thayer's back east. What to do (lump 'em!)? Punt to the next round to see what the rest of y'all think.
2nd round:	23 Feb 2017	Acc	I'm still not happy about this record, but was on the fence to begin with, so I'll go with the consensus of the committee.
Larry T.	29 Jan 2017	Acc	This bird does look good for a Iceland but could be a Thayer's also. Would be nice to have better photos the spread wing in particular. I will accept it though unless someone can change my mind.
2nd round:	22 Feb 2017	Acc	I will stay with my first round vote. But I do agree a lot of people would be calling this bird a Thayer's back east.
David W.	11 Dec 2016	Acc	I think this bird has the consistent combination of features that make it a Kumlien's: Size, petit bill which is straight and with small gonydeal gnob, pale wingtips, and body shape. I think we have a winner. It is noteworthy that the bird appears much paler in some photos than others (including photos in eBird). Light conditions really make a difference in how pale it looks.
2nd round:	10 Feb 2017	Acc	I'm sticking with my comments from the first round.
Kevin W.	9 Feb 2017	Acc	Photos and description seem good for an Iceland Gull; although I've got a lot to learn about gull id.
2nd round:	13 Mar 2017	Acc

2016-48 Rusty Blackbird

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	28 Dec 2016	Acc
Kenny F.	20 Jan 2017	Acc	Bird looks good for a female Rusty Blackbird.
Dennis S.	20 Dec 2016	Acc	No questions. Seen by everybody in State but me!!
Jack S..	27 Dec 2016	Acc
Steve S.	14 Feb 2017	Acc
Mark S.	20 Jan 2017	Acc	It's a female Great-tailed Grackle! (just kidding)
Larry T.	22 Feb 2017	Acc
David W.	23 Dec 2016	Acc	Lovely & cooperative bird seen by many.
Kevin W.	9 Feb 2017	Acc	The photos clearly show the light eye and rusty back; I think that eliminates other possibilities.

2016-49 Red-breasted Sapsucker

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	25 Feb 2017	No, ID	Although I'm not an expert on hybrids, I see some black feathering on the face and the back of the head which seems to indicate this is a hybrid. I'm interested in seeing this move to the second round for further discussion.
2nd round:	31 Mar 2017	No, ID	No further comments.
Kenny F.	20 Jan 2017	Acc	With just seeing the views we have, this bird looks good for a Red-breasted Sapsucker and not a hybrid.
2nd round:	9 Mar 2017	No, ID	The new photos show that there are some Red-naped genes in this bird and it isn't a pure Red-breasted.
Stephanie G. 2nd round:	26 Feb 2017	No, ID	This bird obviously has Red-breasted Sapsucker genetics, however, it shows a bit too much hybridization for my tastes. The black spot on the nape and some black feathers on the breast shield show RNSA heritage. I spoke to sapsucker hybrid expert Stephen Shunk on the topic and this is what he said about it: This bird has 2 traits that likely rule out a pure Red-breasted: black patch at the rear crown (a break in the solid red between red crown and nape); and a little black showing through on the breast (photo is a little sketchy, but it looks like there are some solid black feathers). The facial pattern is also ambiguous, but it's not as problematic as the other two traits. .
Dennis S.	21 Jan 2017	No, ID	The subject certainly has some RBSA characters around the head, but I'm not sure it also doesn't have some intergrade evidence of RNSA. From the photos, there appears to be too much black in face and neck areas, and the back barring matches closer to RNSA.
2nd round:	26 Feb 2017	No, ID	Again the question is whether the black in the face and head area is normal for a RBSA. If it is then it's a legit bird. If not then it's a hybrid. I can't find anything that mentions these black variations for RBSA. Note: It would sure simplify our job if we could just throw all the sapsuckers, Empids and Gulls into one basket.
Jack S..	28 Dec 2016	Acc
Steve S.	14 Feb 2017	Acc
2nd round:	14 Mar 2017	No, ID	I'll change my vote and go with other comments. There seems to be too much black on the face and back of head for pure Red-breasted Sapsucker.
Mark S.	20 Jan 2017	No, ID	I'm going to punt this record to the second round. There really isn't enough evidence presented to rule out a hybrid. We've rejected records with more extensive evidence than this. Lack of evidence one way or the other shouldn't be considered as positive evidence by default.
2nd round:	6 Mar 2017	No, ID	Too much black in the wrong places suggests a hybrid.
Larry T.	22 Feb 2017	Acc
2nd round:	17 Mar 2017	No, ID	I'll change my vote also with the pics. I still think the majority out there all show traits of other Sapsuckers. I don't feel safe calling any of them with certainty that they aren't with mixed genes. Where do you draw the line, DNA tests? As I've said before I would vote to have YB and RB taken off the list with the average number of records that are submitted each year.
David W.	18 Jan 2017	Acc	I could go either way on this record. The write-up is convincing, but the photos make me a bit doubtful as to the amount of non-red on the face.
2nd round:	14 Mar 2017	No, ID	I'm with Kenny on this one. The lovely new photos show too much black & white on the face. I am changing my vote based on the new evidence.
Kevin W.	10 Feb 2017	No, ID	Although most traits of this bird trend toward Red-breasted Sapsucker (specifically the southern daggetti subspecies), I am concerned that the amount of black showing through on the crown and breast (obvious in photo H) may be indicative of a hybrid with Red-naped. I understand some black may show in these areas on pure daggetti Red-breasted sapsuckers (especially in late summer or fall when feathers are worn), but I'm not sure that it would be so obvious in mid-winter.
2nd round:	13 Mar 2017	No, ID	This sapsucker looks like a hybrid Red-breasted x Red-naped to me.