Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society
   
Status & Comments
Year 2019 (records 26 through ...)

2019-26  Nelson's Sparrow

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kenny F. 27 Oct 2019 No, ID A 15 second view of a bird in a marsh for a possible state 2nd record isn't enough time for a clean view.

2nd round:  

4 Jan 2020 No, ID Still not enough detail to rule out other species.
Stephanie G. 11 Sep 2019 No, ID Another report from this observer who happens to see all the rarities while others in his birding group do not. Unfortunately it makes it difficult to accept any of his records without photographic evidence at this point.

2nd round:  

31 Dec 2019 No, ID No photos, no spectogram. Brief view and observer has a history of unsubstantiated sightings.
Mike H. 14 Nov 2019 No, ID Records of this species that were observed east of the Sierras and west of the Rockies are very few. When looking for well documented records that match this criteria there are even fewer (1-Farmington Bay 2014). Therefore, I feel this is a species that any sight record for Utah will need to be scrutinized.
  Without any concrete documentation, the only subject matter available is the description by the observer. I feel the description is that of a Nelson s Sparrow and does eliminate other more common species. So, this leaves me to evaluate the source of the description. Because of personal experiences I ve had with this observer in the field and his inclination to ID unusual species without diagnostic field marks being observed, I don t believe the record to be strong enough to accept.

2nd round:  

20 Nov 2019 No, ID I still feel there isn t enough documentation for this species.
Mike S.   2nd: 3 Jan 2020 No, ID I don't think there are enough details provided to establish the ID of this super rare species for Utah. In addition to lacking some plumage details, there was virtually no mention of structure (including short tail, etc.). I would also like to see a more thorough attempt to rule out similar species.
Dennis S. 4 Sep 2019 No, ID A few second look at a maga-rarity like this is not sufficient. Other closely related Ammodramus sparrows were not adequately eliminated.

2nd round:  

24 Nov 2019 No, ID No change from first round comments.
Bryan S. 4 Nov 2019 No, ID Taking into account how rare this species is here I am not convinced after reading the report

2nd round:  

12 Dec 2019 No, ID Still not convinced
Steve S. 15 Oct 2019 Acc Given the field marks described I don't know what else it could be.
Mark S.   2nd: 24 Nov 2019 No, ID I think that the view is too brief, and the lack of any evidence beyond a scant description is insufficient to support a record of this rarity.
Larry T. 24 Oct 2019 Acc Brief sighting but that's about all you get with this bird most of the time. Description points out important field marks to eliminate similar species.

2nd round:  

9 Jan 2020 No, ID I will change my vote after considering other comments.
David W. 8 Sep 2019 No, ID That unease alluded to by others in comments to previous records is beginning to grow in me. However, I need not act on it because the record offers up enough doubt by itself.

I do not think the record is detailed enough to eliminate conclusively other members of this notoriously subtle genus. Also, I find it puzzling as to why a prominent and significant field mark like breast color was omitted, especially under the excellent light conditions and since the breast was clearly visible

2nd round:  

18 Nov 2019 No, ID I continue to believe that this record doesn't provide enough details to adequately eliminate its Ammodramus congeners.

 

2019-27  Blackpoll Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kenny F. 27 Oct 2019 Acc Photos and description match Blackpoll Warbler.
Stephanie G. 11 Sep 2019 Acc Well documented
Mike H. 17 Sep 2019 Acc  
Dennis S. 4 Sep 2019 Acc Good written report covered all bases. Very nice substantiating photos.
Bryan S. 28 Oct 2019 Acc  
Steve S. 15 Oct 2019 Acc  
Larry T. 24 Oct 2019 Acc Nice photos.
David W. 4 Sep 2019 Acc Tail shape & pattern, leg color, eye crescents, wing bars, extent of yellow with vague streaking--what's not to love? Very nicely documented.

 

2019-28  White-eyed Vireo

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kenny F. 27 Oct 2019 Acc Description, including behavior fit fort White-eyed Vireo.
Stephanie G. 11 Sep 2019 Acc Well documented
Mike H. 4 Nov 2019 Acc I feel weird voting on my own sighting, but if I had any doubt about the species I wouldn t have submitted a record.
Dennis S. 9 Oct 2019 Acc Even with a fairly short observation time, no tell-telling song heard, and no verifying photos, the 6 described characters fit the sum of its parts for this bird. I'm not sure anything else does.
Bryan S. 28 Oct 2019 Acc  
Steve S. 15 Oct 2019 Acc  
Mark S.      
Larry T. 24 Oct 2019 Acc Good description of a distinct bird.
David W. 11 Sep 2019 Acc Field marks sound convincing. Nice record, Mike.

 

2019-29  Ruddy Ground-Dove

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F.   2nd: 11 Jan 2020 No, ID I'm skeptical due to limited description of ground-dove diagnostic features based on very brief viewing of bird in flight, behavior associating with flock of larger doves, and timing is also also suspect for vagrant Ruddy Ground-Dove (vagrant RuGD do not typically move north until late fall or early winter).
Kenny F. 27 Oct 2019 No, ID Only male Ruddy Ground-Doves show rufous in the uppertail, however the description of "gray/brown back with little contrast to head" seem to indicate a female bird. Given the contrasting field marks, I have to vote against the record.

Also doesn't the chest pattern or if the scapulars are marked or not which are two other strong field marks to rule out the two ground-doves species and are usually pretty obvious.

2nd round:  

4 Jan 2020 Acc, NAS While this may have been a ground-dove, conflicting field marks don't make a convincing case for either species.
Stephanie G. 24 Sep 2019 No, ID Something's not quite adding up for me. If it had a gray brown back with little contrast to head, it sounds like it would be a Western subspecies female. But that wouldn't have a bright rufous tail. In order to have the rufous tail as described, I'd expect the description to include a ruddy overall appearance contrasting with the head. So that doesn't seem to make sense to me. I wonder about some kind of domestic pigeon or dove...

2nd round:  

31 Dec 2019 No, ID Standing by my previous comments.
Mike H. 4 Nov 2019 No, ID I ve seen this species many, many times in Mexico. The field mark that I found most noticeable is the wing coloration in flight. The apparent red-ish wings are not even mentioned.

2nd round:  

20 Nov 2019 No, ID Let me start by revising my above comment. I m getting my neotropic birding mixed up. The RUGD I observed in Ecuador were the individuals with the more rufous wings and the Mexico birds were much more gray and muted. However, as I ve looked through numerous photos, In western subspecies I m having trouble finding a more muted plumage that has an upper tail that stands out from the rest of the back. The individuals that have a distinctly rufous upper tail also have a rufous back that contrasts with the head. The easternmost and least likely to occur subspecies, are the only individuals that appear to have the plumage described by the observers. I feel that they saw something rare in comparison to the more common doves it accompanied, but there isn t enough definitive documentation to say it was a RUGD.
Dennis S. 11 Oct 2019 No, ID This is a Toss-Up! Question is most likely which of the small doves - CGDO, INDO. RGDO? The "bright rufous tail makes one think Ruddy, but back color, juvenile/adult, short observation time (flight only), clouds the the issue.Will be anxious to see what others think on next round.

2nd round:  

24 Nov 2019 No, ID The confusing coloration comments still leaves considerable doubt as to which small dove it may have been.
Bryan S. 4 Nov 2019 No, ID Feel like the observer is basing the id primarily on tail color when the bird flew, but not a satisfactory description of the bird to eliminate other, more likely species.  On a bird this rare I admit I am very skeptical and the report didn't convince me

2nd round:  

12 Dec 2019 No, ID nothing has changed from my comments in round one. Not enough here to accept a mega-rarity like this
Steve S. 15 Oct 2019 Acc rufous tail should eliminate similar Common Ground-Dove.
Mark S.   2nd: 25 Nov 2019 Acc, NAS I see this i.d. situation literally hundreds of times each year, and sometimes many times in a single day. I can't usually separate with confidence Ruddy and Common Ground-Doves by the color of the tail/rump on a bird flying away, even in good light. The difference just isn't that great.

I'm willing to believe that a ground-dove was seen, but not that it was identifiable to species by the view described.
Larry T. 24 Oct 2019 No, ID I'm not able to accept this very rare bird without a more detailed description from a longer observation or pics. Not enough to eliminate a Common.

2nd round:  

9 Jan 2020 No, ID As before. After looking back at the record and reading other comments I haven't changed my thoughts.
David W. 13 Sep 2019 Acc This is a barely adequate record, lacking key field marks like color of bill and underwing coverts, but I guess I will vote to accept in this round, if only to get this to the second round for some discussion.

2nd round:  

18 Nov 2019 Acc I very much appreciate the argument about back vs tail color made by some of the other voting members. It gave me great pause and caused me to revisit my field guides and the internet. Here is what I found:

1) Without resorting to some very distant species from South America (and excluding quail-doves because of their other field marks), I am at a loss to find a species of small dove with a gray/brown back and rufous tail.

2) Many drawings/photos of females of this species do show dull tails, but some show considerable rufous coloration (though most also show varying degrees of rufous in the folded wings, especially toward the bottom).
--"Pigeons and Doves: A Guide to the Pigeons and Doves of the World" (Gibbs, et al) shows females with rufous upper tail coverts.
-- Howell & Webb's Mexico guide illustrates females with a brown back and contrastingly rufous tail
-- The IBC website shows a beautiful photo of a female with a browish/gray back and rufous tail (though one might argue against "bright rufous"): https://www.hbw.com/ibc/photo/ruddy-ground-dove-columbina-talpacoti/female-fence-llanos-de-curundu
-- There are quite a few photos out there (Google "Ruddy ground-dove female") showing females with dull gray/brown mantles but very bright rufous rumps and rufous-washed tails, which one might certainly describe as having a "bright rufous tail" if one were not intimately familiar with the difference between rumps and tails. Just one of the many examples is the oiseaux-birds website http://www.oiseaux-birds.com/card-ruddy-ground-dove.html

So, I agree this is a troubling record , but I think it is troubling because of its paucity of field marks rather than contradicting field marks. I will continue to vote in the affirmative, bolstered by my further study. I just don't see what other dove it could be,

 

2019-30  Veery

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kenny F. 27 Oct 2019 Acc Great documentation for the longest staying Veery recorded in Utah.
Stephanie G. 24 Sep 2019 Acc Well-documented Western Veery
Mike H. 17 Sep 2019 Acc  
Dennis S. 9 Oct 2019 Acc Good description and a host of good photos by several observers leaves no doubt. I must be the only one who didn't see this state lifer. So much for traveling!!
Bryan S. 28 Oct 2019 Acc  
Steve S. 15 Oct 2019 Acc  
Mark S.      
Larry T. 24 Oct 2019 Acc Nice description with photos ( 2nd set ) do not leave any questions for me on what can be a difficult Catharus I.D.
David W. 20 Sep 2019 Acc  After seeing the photos from Terry Reid and James Loveless (soon to be appended to the record), I am convinced this is a Veery. The photo provided by James showing the back color was the evidence I was missing to make my final decision.
-- The spots are on the heavy side for a Veery, but within the bell curve for the Western race. I've seen Hermit thrushes with spots at least as small as these.
-- The face is good for either a Veery or Hermit thrush (though the eyering is better for Veery), but definitely rules out Swainson's.
-- The back is too rufous for Eastern Catharus thrushes, borderline for a Faxoni Hermit thrush.
-- The tail was not contrastingly more rufous than the back, ruling out Hermit thrush.
-- If my memory serves right, the Mesoamerican Catharus thrushes do not have breast spots.
-
That leaves Veery as the only viable option in my mind. An excellent record by Kenny! I am grateful for the documentation by him and others he allowed into his yard to see and photograph this bird.

It seems like these used to be reported more commonly within Utah in the past, even singing in Heber Valley, if I recall.

 

2019-31  Tennessee Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kenny F. 27 Oct 2019 Acc Yellow undertail coverts distinguish this species from the similar Orange-crowned Warbler.

2nd round:  

4 Jan 2020 Acc Tennesee Warblers can show whitish undertail coverts and even a hint of yellow, however Orange-crowned Warblers will never have undertail coverts that look whitish.
Stephanie G. 14 Oct 2019 Acc Wish there was a picture, but the description seems pretty clear

2nd round:  

31 Dec 2019 Acc Still seems to match description for Tennessee Warbler
Mike H. 18 Nov 2019 Acc Description of bill would eliminate similarly patterned vireos. Undertail color eliminates Orange-crowned Warbler.

2nd round:  

8 Dec 2019 Acc I still feel the observation in question is a TEWA. The whitish undertail coverts in the description could be describing a first year bird or reflection from leaves.
Mike S.   2nd: 3 Jan 2020 Acc The description is fairly short but gets to the point and I believe adequately rules out orange-crowned. I see no issues with "whitish" undertail coverts for a hatch-year Tennessee warbler. Also helpful is that the observer has extensive prior experience with OCWA and at least some experience with TEWA. Timing also lines up with past Tennessee warblers reported in Utah.
Dennis S. 11 Oct 2019 Acc All parts fit for TEWA. Good comparison with OCWA.

2nd round:  

4 Dec 2019 Acc Based on written description still believe it was a TEWA.
Bryan S. 4 Nov 2019 Acc  

2nd round:  

13 Jan 2020 Acc  
Steve S. 15 Oct 2019 Acc  
Mark S. 25 Nov 2019 Acc Description fits and adequately eliminates similar species.

2nd round:  

4 Dec 2019 Acc I think the description is good enough to support this i.d.
Larry T. 24 Oct 2019 Acc Important field marks noted on a annual eastern Warbler.

2nd round:  

8 Jan 2010 Acc I still think the description fits.
David W. 24 Oct 2019 No, ID Again, I would like some discussion, so am bouncing this bird into the second round. There are some very convincing field marks mentioned for this bird, but two things that make me uncomfortable:
1) The undertail coverts are described as whitish rather than white
2) The comparison to an Orange-crowned warbler mentions wing bars to differentiate the two species. Neither has prominent wing bars (and both can have subtle ones), so does that mean this one did have prominent wing bars??

2nd round:  

12 Jan 2010 Acc I still think this description is a bit troubling, but I will vote to accept in the second round.

 

2019-32  Blackpoll Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kenny F. 27 Oct 2019 Acc Great shots of a Blackpoll Warbler.
Stephanie G. 14 Oct 2019 Acc Nice sighting
Mike H. 22 Oct 2019 Acc  
Dennis S. 11 Oct 2019 Acc Nice photos, written description, and comparison with other similar species.
Bryan S. 4 Nov 2019 Acc  
Steve S. 15 Oct 2019 Acc  
Mark S. 25 Nov 2019 Acc  
Larry T. 24 Oct 2019 Acc Nice photos make it easy.
David W. 26 Oct 2019 Acc Very good photos and description indicate this species. Good job on similar species portion. I think the photos clearly show pinkish legs, consistent with this species.

 

2019-33  Red Phalarope

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kenny F. 27 Oct 2019 Acc Pictures and description rule out Red-necked.
Stephanie G. 14 Oct 2019 Acc RIP
Mike H. 14 Nov 2019 Acc Good photo.
Dennis S. 8 Oct 2019 Acc Nice full frame photos!
Bryan S. 28 Oct 2019 Acc  
Steve S. 15 Oct 2019 Acc  
Mark S. 25 Nov 2019 Acc  
Larry T. 27 Oct 2019 Acc Photos look good to me.
David W. 26 Oct 2019 Acc Excellent photos and description indicate this species.

 

2019-34  Reddish Egret

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kenny F. 27 Oct 2019 Acc Nice shots of a immature Reddish Egret.
Stephanie G. 14 Oct 2019 Acc Nice find
Mike H. 22 Oct 2019 Acc  
Dennis S. 11 Oct 2019 Acc Not sure about some noted comparisons with LBHE but photos and multiple observations over time are convincing.
Bryan S. 28 Oct 2019 Acc  
Steve S. 15 Oct 2019 Acc  
Mark S. 4 Dec 2019 Acc Good description and photos.
Larry T. 12 Dec 2019 Acc  
David W. 24 Oct 2019 Acc Photos and write-up are convincing. Body proportions and bill shape also support this species.

 

2019-35  Tropical Kingbird

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kenny F. 27 Oct 2019 Acc Photos rule out the similar Couch's Kingbird as well as the description of the vocalizations.
Stephanie G. 4 Nov 2019 Acc Cool stuff!
Mike H. 18 Nov 2019 Acc This is a species I ve spent a fair amount of time studying in the past. I agree that pattern of wings and shape/size of bill favors Tropical
Dennis S. 28 Oct 2019 Acc Nice photos.
Bryan S. 12 Dec 2019 Acc  
Steve S. 30 Dec 2019 Acc  
Mark S. 4 Dec 2019 Acc Good documentation. My assessment regarding Tropical v. Couch's is in line with the quoted experts - bill size and wing formula favor Tropical, in spite of lack of vocalizations. I couldn't hear anything on the audio.
Larry T. 12 Dec 2019 Acc From the photos I don't have a problem calling this Kingbird a Tropical and not a much more unusaul Couch's.
David W. 24 Oct 2019 Acc Excellent photos. Both Mr. Holden's write-up here and Mike Schiff's write-up on eBird are very convincing.

 

2019-36  Fulvous Whistling-Duck

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F.  2nd: 11 Jan 2020 Acc Species is not in question, and with no obvious reason to suspect otherwise, I support this as a naturally occurring vagrant Fulvous Whistling-Duck
Kenny F. 27 Oct 2019 Acc This species has shown to be prone to vagrancy in the west in the fall with numerous records in Arizona and California. 3 other records of this species in more northerly areas of Utah have been accepted in the past as well so I think that it is unlikely this bird was an escapee.

2nd round:  

4 Jan 2020 Acc This species has shown to be prone to vagrancy in the west in the fall with numerous records in Arizona and California. 3 other records of this species in more northerly areas of Utah have been accepted in the past as well so I think that it is unlikely this bird was an escapee.
Stephanie G. 4 Nov 2019 Acc Seems pretty clear

2nd round:  

4 Dec 2019 Acc Continuing to accept; unless we have evidence that it's an escapee, I agree to accept.
Mike H. 18 Nov 2019 Acc Species can t really be questioned here. The only real doubt on this bird would be provenance. As far as that goes, I ve always felt that if there isn t proof of where the bird originated, the record should stand. However, there are exceptions to this, but I don t feel this species would fall into that category.

2nd round:  

5 Dec 2019 Acc With no new information to prove provenance, I still vote to accept.
Mike S.  2nd: 5 Jan 2020 Acc As others have stated, the photos leave no doubt about the ID. The timing is consistent with other western records of this species.

In terms of the possibility of this being an escapee - Although I knew it would be a long shot, I emailed Best Friends Animal Society in Kanab (about 10 miles north of Jackson Flat Reservoir). I was informed that they are not missing any ducks, and they are not aware of anybody who is.
Dennis S. 28 Oct 2019 Acc Great find!!
Bryan S. 12 Dec 2019 Acc  

2nd round:  

13 Jan 2020 Acc  
Steve S. 30 Dec 2019 Acc  
Mark S. 4 Dec 2019 Acc The i.d. is not in question - this is a Fulvous Whistling-Duck. The only question would be of origin, and I think that this location, as well as the history of this species as a vagrant (including to Utah), do not cause me to think this to be of captive origin.

2nd round:  

19 Jan 2020 Acc No reason to suspect an escapee
Larry T. 12 Dec 2019 Acc  

2nd round:  

9 Jan 2020 Acc I understand the concern of the origin for this bird but with no reason to believe anything but a natural occurring bird in this area I will vote to accept.
David W. 24 Oct 2019 No, Nat The photos eliminate other very similar whistling ducks (esp the Lesser whistling-duck). I am bouncing this to the second round ONLY because I want to see whether anyone has checked zoos/aviaries/private collections in the area to see if any of their charges have recently fled. I have seen this species in too many collections to dismiss that idea.

I wish we had the option to pass without judgement to the second round.

2nd round:  

13 Jan 2020 Acc OK, if no one has heard any suggestion of this species having escaped in our region, I will drop my concern.

 

2019-37  Black Scoter

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kenny F. 4 Jan 2020 Acc Photos match Black Scoter.
Stephanie G. 4 Nov 2019 Acc Seems pretty clear
Mike H. 4 Nov 2019 Acc Good photo!
Dennis S. 24 Nov 2019 Acc  
Bryan S. 12 Dec 2019 Acc  
Steve S. 30 Dec 2019 Acc  
Mark S. 4 Dec 2019 Acc Photos show a female Black Scoter.
Larry T. 12 Dec 2019 Acc  
David W. 5 Nov 2019 Acc The photos tell the tale.
This is a species that definitely should be taken off our review list, in my opinion. I didn't even realize it was on the list.

 

2019-38  Black Scoter

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kenny F. 4 Jan 2020 Acc Nice photos of a Black Scoter. Above average fall for them this year.
Stephanie G. 31 Dec 2019 Acc Photo clearly shows Black Scoter. Good year for them it seems.
Mike H. 14 Nov 2019 Acc  
Dennis S. 24 Nov 2019 Acc  
Bryan S. 17 Dec 2019 Acc  
Steve S. 30 Dec 2019 Acc  
Mark S. 30 Dec 2019 Acc Good photos.
Larry T. 12 Dec 2019 Acc  
David W. 4 Nov 2019 Acc Yup. Saves me the trouble of writing this one up with my inferior photos. Again, the excellent photos with this record tell the tale.

 

2019-39  Gila Woodpecker     | resubmission comments (2021) |

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 11 Jan 2020 No, ID Description is inadequate to accept such an exceptional vagrant record.

2nd round:  

13 Feb 2020 No, ID Again, this would be an unprecedented record for a species that is almost never observed outside of it's range. While I suppose it is remotely possible that a Gila Woodpecker could make such an unprecedented movement, in such a case, one might assume a non-migratory vagrant would stay in the area for awhile. So, based on the lack of vagrancy patterns, the failure by subsequent observers to relocate or corroborate this sighting, as well as the lack of supporting photos / physical evidence, I believe the "actual evidence we have before us" suggests something other than a Gila Woodpecker was observed.
Kenny F. 4 Jan 2020 No, ID This species shows virtually no vagrancy and essentially no records north of I-40 in Arizona, over 125 miles away. Without a photograph for an exceptional state first record like this, I assume was a mistaken Ladder-backed Woodpecker which shows many similar field marks.

2nd round:  

9 Mar 2020 No, ID The lack of optics used in viewing this bird makes me think the bird was misidentified and was a different species of woodpecker due to the lack of vagrancy exhibited by this species. Even birds viewed at a close distance can be misidentified with a lack of optics for close study.
Stephanie G. 4 Jan 2020 Acc I was on the fence about this because there were no pictures or recordings, but it's a really strong description that seems to rule out other species. And with the observer's experience with woodpecker specimens in the hand, I was swayed in favor of accepting the record.

2nd round:  

15 Feb 2020 No, ID Been on the fence so much with this one. His description really does seem to fit Gila, and his extensive experience with birds in the hand tipped me in his favor in the first round. However, reading the comments of the Washco eBird reviewer, noting that he visited the area with no signs of the bird, and the lack of physical evidence, and that this species is not prone to vagrancy, and it would be quite an exceptional record, a state first, there's enough question with the record to vote no.
Mike H. 5 Jan 2020 Acc Well written report. The observer s experience with more likely, similar species helped in eliminating other options.

2nd round:  

20 Feb 2020 No, ID Every vagrant that has been observed in Utah was once a First State Record. However, I do agree that such an exceptional record would require more evidence than what was provided to be accepted.

Mike S.  2nd :  

13 Jan 2020 No, ID As the Washington County eBird reviewer, I emailed the observer immediately after seeing this report. I suggested other (more likely) possibilities and explained to him the unlikelihood of a Gila woodpecker occurring in Utah. In his reply, he communicated a high level of confidence that a Gila woodpecker is what he observed. That confidence also appears to be reflected in this sight record, which seems to rule out other, more likely species that may appear vaguely similar.

Despite this, I maintain my doubts for the following reasons, most of which were already stated by other voting members in the first round:
1. No optical equipment was used. To me this is a red flag even if the bird was seen at close range.
2. This species is not prone to vagrancy. I can only find one record (from the San Francisco area) that is any significant distance outside of its usual range.
3. The observer was not with anyone else to back up the ID. Others (myself included) visited this location in the days following the initial report and were unable to locate anything that resembled a Gila woodpecker.
4. There is no photo, audio recording, etc.

I think that any one or two of those concerns would not necessarily be a dealbreaker here. But when combined, I cannot bring myself to accept such an exceptional vagrant and first state record. My interpretation of this committee's bylaws is that potential first state records should be held to a very high standard for acceptance. When I take all factors into consideration, I think this record falls just a notch below that standard.
Bryan S. 12 Jan 2020 No, ID I can't accept a first of state record when the observer didn't have binos, even if it was only seven feet away.

2nd round:  

13 Jan 2020 No, ID Brief view with no binos of a sedentary species way out or range
Steve S. 30 Dec 2019 No, ID Can't accept on this report, not without other witnesses or photos for someone not familiar with this bird.
Mark S. 30 Dec 2019 Acc The description is very thorough, and establishes the i.d. of this very distinctive woodpecker. No other bird fits the description given.

2nd round:  

19 Jan 2020 Acc The description more than adequately eliminates similar species. There is literally no other woodpecker with an entirely plain gray head.

So if it's not a Gila Woodpecker, then either the observer didn't see it well (and at 7 feet distance, binoculars would have been useless), or he's lying.

Both of those possibilities are why there's a "hypothetical" category for exactly cases like this. But voting to reject involves making judgements for which we have no evidence regarding the observer, and ignoring the actual evidence we have before us.
Larry T. 9 Jan 2020 No, ID  

2nd round:  

8 Mar 2020 No, ID I still don't feel good about accepting this record with what we got to work with. A photo or binns would have helped me.
David W. 16 Nov 2019 Acc I don't see what else could have the combination of field marks reported. It is unfortunate no photos were taken. I would therefore vote to add this species to the hypothetical list.

2nd round:  

13 Jan 2020 Acc The very detailed description of the face, head, neck, extent of red on crown, and breast eliminates a Ladder-backed. I really cannot see what other species could fit this set of field marks.

As for this being a first-state record, we've had a lot of those lately. I am sympathetic to the argument about it being a pity the observer did not take a photo, but that is a separate argument. I encourage all who are making that argument to read bylaw #11 under the section entitled "C. Voting and Acceptance Criteria." That discusses how to handle state firsts.

I personally think that this record qualifies under subparts (1) and (2) of that bylaw, and vote to put it on our hypothetical list as "accepted but not verified with physical evidence."

 

2019-39r Gila Woodpecker
            Resubmission comments, (23 Feb 2021)  with "on its merits" bylaws change (IV.C.11)  | original comments |

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 10 Apr 2021 No, ID I support the UBRC's previous decision on this record.

2nd round:  

24 May 2021 No, ID As I stated before I will stand by the UBRC's original decision on this record. I still believe this process of re-reviewing a few handpicked records (and let's be clear they were not "re-submitted") is completely arbitrary, lacks in process, and ultimately undermines the UBRC's credibility. I understand there were some slight changes in the committee's bylaws, but if we are going to apply these changes retrospectively, than we should use a systematic process. Re-reviewing a few records hand selected by the secretary appears desultory at best.

Specifically regarding the Gila Woodpecker sighting this would be an unprecedented record for a species that is almost never observed outside of it's range. While I suppose it is marginally possible that a Gila Woodpecker could make such an unprecedented movement, in such a case, one would assume a non-migratory vagrant would stay in the area for awhile. So, based on the lack of vagrancy patterns, the failure by subsequent observers to relocate or corroborate this sighting, this coming from an unknown observer with no previous or subsequent track record observing or reporting birds, as well as the lack of supporting photos / physical evidence, I believe that "on it's merits" the "actual evidence we have before us" suggests something other than a Gila Woodpecker was observed.
Stephanie G. 28 Mar 2021 Acc Observer seemed to have extensive experience with the species in the hand. Even though there's no photo, the experience plus detailed description have me convinced.

2nd round:  

24 May 2021 Acc As unlikely of a sighting as it is, I'm still convinced of this record. Observer had hands-on experience with other species, a very clear view of the bird, and a detailed description ruling out other species.

3rd round:  

12 Jul 2021 Acc I like David's comments in the second round -- I'm not happy about it but there aren't any other species that would match the description.
Mike H. 11 Apr 2021 Acc I feel this record does a better job of eliminating other species than describing why it is a GIWO. As a first state record I still feel photos or audio should be required.

2nd round:  

20 Jun 2021 Acc I still fell there is enough to accept according to the bylaw language.

3rd round:  

7 Aug 2021 No, ID I've softened quite a bit on my previous accept vote on this record. I've probably been given too much time to think about it and now I m just indecisive.
Max M.   3rd: 20 Aug 2020 No, ID Without optics? I'm very skeptical of such a rare sighting for a species not known to wander.
Bryant O. 23 Feb 2021 No, ID I'm not convinced they didn't just see a Ladder-backed, which often have a brownish buff breast. Gila are not known to wander out of habitat and we are well north of their range.

2nd round:  

26 May 2021 No, ID With only a naked eye view of the bird, I'm still hesitant to believe they saw what they describe and this would be a very far out of range for a species not known to wander

3rd round:  

2 Jul 2021 No, ID Its all to easy to get false impression and colors off birds naked eye with a 30 second look, without confirming with better optics I have a hard time accepting this unlikely species. The lack of field experience of the observer is also troubling, examining specimens in the hand and looking at wild living birds in the field are entirely different things.
Mike S. 4 Apr 2021 Acc I am just as skeptical about this record now as I was when we first voted on it, and I stand by my previous comments.

However, given the Bylaws changes, here is my rationale for accepting this time around:
If we are only paying attention to the description itself, Gila Woodpecker is definitely the best match. I cannot use vagrancy timing as a criteria since there is virtually no precedent for Gila Woodpecker vagrancy. However, the timing is consistent with vagrancy patterns exhibited by many other species. If a vagrant Gila Woodpecker were to show up in Utah (however unlikely that may be), this date may well fall within the range one might expect.

This feels like an uncomfortable "accept" vote, but I'll live with that decision for now.

2nd round:  

4 Jun 2021 No, ID I'm reverting back to my original vote on this record, which I believe is the correct call after further reflection.

The observer is clearly sincere in his belief that he saw a Gila Woodpecker. If we are only basing this record off of the written description and nothing else, then I have to admit that Gila Woodpecker appears to be the best match.

However, in his 30-second binocular-less view, I cannot rule out the possibility that the observer may have seen a Ladder-backed Woodpecker, which is common at this location, and much of the description seems to fit (back pattern, crown color, breast color seems inconclusive). The tan/gray head with no other markings seems to be the most compelling feature for a Gila Woodpecker. However, the circumstances of the observation are concerning to me (particularly no optical equipment and the fact that this species virtually never wanders out of range). There are even very few eBird records of this species from the far southern tip of Nevada, which is not far out of range.

When considering everything, I believe this is an intriguing observation, and the observer MAY have seen a Gila Woodpecker. However, given that this would be a truly exceptional record, I am simply not confident enough to accept based on the information we have.

3rd round:  

1 Jul 2021 No, ID No changes from my second round comment.
Bryan S. 11 Apr 2021 No, ID I am skeptical that the observer was able to observe everything he describes in the report. It is very detailed for not having binoculars even if the bird was only 7 feet away. He mentions comparing specimens and I wonder how much actual birding experience he has because things appear different in the field than in hand

2nd round:  

19 May 2021 No, ID I just can't make myself believe that this observer really saw what they think they did

3rd round:  

4 Jul 2021 No, ID  
Steve S.  2nd: 26 Jan 2020 No, ID No experience, no optics, no way.
Mark S. 14 Mar 2021 Acc The description rules out any other woodpecker species.

2nd round:  

6 Jun 2021 Acc The description of the head rules out any other US woodpecker, and even any Mexican ones.

3rd round:  

28 Jul 2021 Acc The only possibilities for rejecting this record is to doubt what the observer saw, or his honesty. I have no information to support either of those conclusions.
David W. 23 Feb 2021 Acc I cannot think of another North American woodpecker this might have been. The limited extent of the red on the crown, the description of the breast down to the tail area. It all matches.

2nd round:  

19 May 2021 Acc I'm not happy about it, but I still can't find a better substitute for this species based on that description.

3rd round:  

27 Jul 2021 Acc I did not check my field guide to the birds of the Caribbean to bolster Mark's comment, but I still cannot turn this bird into anything more local other than a Gila.
Kevin W. 3rd: 27 Aug  2021 No, ID There are far too many questions to accept this record without photo or corroboration of some other sort. Inexperience with the species, lack of optics, lack of other witnesses, unlikelihood of vagrancy of the species - all lead me to question the sighting. It may have been a Gila Woodpecker, but the observer fails to prove it.

 

2019-40  McCown's Longspur

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kenny F. 4 Jan 2020 Acc Photos show the diagnostic plain face and tail pattern.
Stephanie G. 4 Jan 2020 Acc Nice sighting
Mike H. 8 Dec 2019 Acc Other than the tail pattern, photo A shows everything you could ask for to ID this bird to species.
Mike S. 5 Jan 2020 Acc Excellent write-up by Mike H and nice photos by Taylor leave no doubt about the ID.
Dennis S. 4 Dec 2019 Acc Good written description and supporting photos leave no question. If only all records were this easy!
Bryan S. 17 Dec 2019 Acc  
Mark S. 30 Dec 2019 Acc Excellent photos and description.
Larry T. 9 Jan 2020 Acc  
David W. 15 Dec 2019 Acc Excellent photos.

 

2019-41  Boreal Owl

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kenny F. 4 Jan 2020 Acc This area has been known for Boreal Owl sightings in the past and the timing corresponds with the description and recording of the diagnostic call.
Stephanie G. 10 Jan 2020 Acc Seems right for the juv call
Mike H. 4 Jan 2020 Acc I ve spent quite a bit of time searching audio of both Boreal Owl and the more likely Saw-whet. The first audio recording from the observers (https://ebird.org/checklist/S60355073 ) has a chip call ~6 seconds in to the recording, and Xeno-canto has a Boreal Owl recording from 10-02-2019 ( https://www.xeno-canto.org/500412 ) containing a chip call  just after the 9 second mark that is nearly identical when compared on a spectrogram. I could not find anything from a NSWO that matched or was anywhere close.
Mike S. 8 Jan 2020 Acc I located a Boreal owl call recording on xeno-canto that matches up very well with part of Kenny's audio recording. See:
https://www.xeno-canto.org/110185
I will note that I don't think this is the juvenile call, as the recordings I found that were labeled as juvenile calls sounded quite different.

In any case, there is evidence for at least one bird, and a good description of a separate male advertisement call (two separate birds). If Kenny is confident that there were three different individuals then I am comfortable accepting this record.
Bryan S. 4 Feb 2020 Acc Not sure about the juvenile call (my own lack of study) but accepting since they also heard adult winnowing vocalizations
Mark S. 30 Dec 2019 Acc Recorded call matches Boreal Owl call, as does the description of the male call.
Larry T. 9 Jan 2020 Acc  
David W. 7 Dec 2019 Acc Known location

 

2019-42  McCown's Longspur

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kenny F. 4 Jan 2020 Acc Photos show the diagnostic tail pattern.
Stephanie G. 4 Jan 2020 Acc Wow! All the way down in Enterprise!
Mike H. 8 Dec 2019 Acc Good photos. The longspur is shown well in photo I , tail patterned black inverted T is shown in photo K , and the diagnostic rusty median coverts are most evident in photo A & D .
Mike S. 5 Jan 2020 Acc  
Dennis S. 21 Dec 2019 Acc  
Bryan S. 13 Jan 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 30 Dec 2019 Acc Excellent description and photographs.
Larry T. 9 Jan 2020 Acc  
David W. 7 Dec 2019 Acc Photos of tail diagnostic.

 

2019-43  Eastern Bluebird

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F.. 11 Jan 2020 Acc Eastern Bluebird flock still present through 1/11/2020
Kenny F. 4 Jan 2020 Acc Great photos of Eastern Bluebirds. Looks to be of the eastern subspecies.
Stephanie G. 4 Jan 2020 Acc Nice find and pictures!
Mike H. 15 Dec 2019 Acc Good photos showing diagnostic field marks.
Dennis S. 21 Dec 2019 Acc  
Bryan S. 17 Dec 2019 Acc  
Mark S. 30 Dec 2019 Acc Excellent documentation.
Larry T. 9 Jan 2020 Acc  
David W. 16 Dec 2019 Acc Good photos and writeup leave little doubt.

 

2019-44  Black Scoter

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F.    2nd: 13 Feb 2020 No, ID Agree with David and Mike's first round comments: Description does not match adult male Black Scoter. The description is better, but still limited for immature/ female type Black Scoters.
Kenny F. 4 Jan 2020 Acc Description matches Black Scoter. Irruption fall for this species.

2nd round:  

9 Mar 2020 Acc I believe that the observer had 4 Black Scoters but just got the age/sex wrong on some of them.
Stephanie G. 10 Jan 2020 Acc  

2nd round:  

15 Feb 2020 Acc I believe Mr. Webb's description and experience are pretty straightforward.
Mike H. 12 Jan 2020 Acc Description of rounded head would eliminate a similarly patterned sub-adult Surf Scoter.

2nd round:  

29 Feb 2020 Acc I still feel the description is still adequate for this species during a banner Winter for them.
Mike S. 13 Jan 2020 No, ID I believe this is an experienced observer who likely saw 4 black scoters, but I would to see some discussion on this record.

The description of nondescript ducks with a light gray neck and cheek doesn t sound like adult male black scoters to me. Although the description could fit adult females or (more likely) juveniles, I am not sure we are left with enough to definitively establish the ID, and rule out other possibilities.

I am curious to see if anyone else has any similar concerns.

2nd round:  

10 Mar 2020 No, ID Since I'm not the only one who expressed some concerns with this description, I will stick with my "No" vote in the second round. I would feel better about this record if ruddy duck was mentioned in the similar species section, especially since the description is not a match for adult male black scoters.
Dennis S. 21 Dec 2019 Acc Big year for Black Scoters it seems
Bryan S. 4 Feb 2020 Acc  

2nd round:  

12 Mar 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 30 Dec 2019 Acc Adequate description eliminates similar species; experienced observer.

2nd round:  

12 Mar 2020 Acc I guess I'll rely mostly on the observer's experience, in spite of the shortcomings/inconsistencies of the write-up. With at rarer species or more unusual date, greater caution might be warranted, but this sighting is consistent with past occurrences of Black Scoter.
Larry T. 9 Jan 2020 Acc  

2nd round:  

24 Mar 2020 No, ID I shouldn't accept the record just because of the observers experience or the regularity of this species. So because of the lacking write up I'll change my vote.
David W. 29 Dec 2019 Acc It seems a bit presumptuous for me to critique a record submitted by a man with a lifetime of such experience (Google article entitled "G. Merrill Webb Bird Specialist Extraordinaire"), but such is the task before us.

I have little doubt that Merrill saw four black scoters, but I am accepting this record with some hesitation because it focuses on expert minutia while being very vague about some of the more obvious field marks. I especially wish that the extent of the light gray on the neck and cheek was recorded. Does he mean like on a female or an immature male? It is the omission made by a man who quickly dispenses with the obvious and moves on to nuance, but it leaves the reviewer having to make assumptions. Also, a less confident birder might have taken a moment to assuage the niggling concerns of this reviewer by dispensing with Ruddy ducks or something more exotic like Red-crested pochards as a possibility in the Similar Species section.

Perhaps most importantly, I am confused by the choice of adult male as the age & sex. With light gray on the neck and cheek? Maybe I need to take one of Merrill's classes, but I was not aware that adult males of this species in any plumage had this combination of field marks. The All About Birds website has an excellent photo of an immature male with pale blotches on cheek and neck, which one could cram into this description with a bit of effort, and the National Geographic guide shows a 1st winter male illustration that is a good fit, so I will take that as the intended plumage.

I am curious what others think. Again, I wish I could have the option of choosing "Bump to second round" rather than "Accept" or "No".

2nd round:  

18 Feb 2020 Acc I stand by my reservations and comments from first round. Unlikely an adult male, unless I am missing something.

 

2019-45  Bronzed Cowbird

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 11 Jan 2020 Acc This is a very sparse record of an old observation; however if there are no standards for records without supporting media, than I suppose "a black bird with red eyes" is diagnostic for a Bronzed Cowbird.

2nd round:  

13 Feb 2020 Acc  
Kenny F. 4 Jan 2020 Acc Description include humpbacked look and red eye seemingly rule out all other species of blackbird.

2nd round:  

9 Mar 2020 Acc Adequate enough details for this species to rule out other blackbird species.
Stephanie G. 10 Jan 2020 No, ID Ugh I'm so on the fence with this one. His description seems to match Bronzed Cowbird perfectly with that red eye. Trying to think of what else it could be. But without pictures, it's hard to accept such a rarity in the first round. Voting no to push through for further discussion.

2nd round:  

15 Feb 2020 Acc I suppose the description doesn't fit anything else. Wish there were pictures, but what else is new.
Mike H. 5 Feb 2020 Acc Soft accept, but would be happy to see other s comments. One thing that stood out to me when I ve observed BRCO is the grosbeak-ish bill. I like that the observer made note of this.

2nd round:  

20 Feb 2020 Acc After reading everyone s comments in the first round, I don't feel there is any reason to change from my first round acceptance.
Mike S. 8 Jan 2020 Acc The combination of field marks described, including bill and body structure, red eye, and iridescent blue-green wings all point to a male bronzed cowbird.

2nd round:  

7 Feb 2020 Acc I stand by my first round comments.

I would be more hesitant to accept if the description was based on memory 2+ years later. However, I believe that the reporting of field notes strengthens the documentation.
Bryan S. 4 Feb 2020 Acc  

2nd round:  

12 Mar 2020 Acc Hard to accept since I am so skeptical about everything, but the description fits perfect
Mark S. 30 Dec 2019 Acc Although I have some reservations given the age of the sighting, the description is good enough to eliminate other species. The date and location are logical for a sighting like this.

2nd round:  

12 Mar 2020 Acc As per my first round comment.
Larry T. 25 Jan 2019 Acc Description eliminates other species.

2nd round:  

24 Mar 2020 Acc As before.
David W. 26 Dec 2019 Acc Hunchbacked, thick-billed, iridescent of wing, and red of eye. Nailed it.

2nd round:  

18 Feb 2020 Acc Still think this is a clear record -- bit sparse but diagnostic.

 

2019-46  Pomarine Jaeger

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 11 Jan 2020 Acc Another marginal record with a very sparse description and no photos, but I suppose the 'twisted tail' is sufficient to separate from other jaeger spp.
Kenny F. 4 Jan 2020 Acc Field marks reference several diagnostic field marks for this species including the tail shape that an adult would show in May.
Stephanie G. 10 Jan 2020 Acc  
Mike H. 8 Jan 2020 Acc The description of the tail would eliminate other Jaeger sp.
Mike S. 12 Jan 2020 Acc The description of the twisted tail projections matches an adult pomarine jaeger and rules out the similar parasitic jaeger. Since this field mark was seen well, I have no problem accepting this older record.
Bryan S. 4 Feb 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 30 Dec 2019 Acc In spite of the age of this sighting, the description is adequate to establish identity.
Larry T. 25 Jan 2019 Acc Pretty distinct plumage.
David W. 29 Dec 2019 Acc Seems a bit immodest to vote to accept my own record from so long ago, but I did see the twist in the tail clearly.

 

2019-47  Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 11 Jan 2020 Acc Clearly a juvenile Yellow-bellied Sapsucker. (This bird was first reported by Steve and Cindy Sommerfeld on 12/03/2019; still present as of 1/11/2020).

2nd round:  

13 Feb 2020 Acc I don't see anything about this bird that would suggest hybridization. I'm very comfortable supporting this as a first-winter Yellow-bellied Sapsucker.
Kenny F. 4 Jan 2020 Acc Only Yellow-bellied Sapsuckers will still be in juvenile plumage at this time of year and photos match Yellow-bellied.

2nd round:  

9 Mar 2020 Acc There is no indication of hybridization in this particular bird and a potential hybrid most likely wouldn't be in juvenile plumage at this date.
Stephanie G. 4 Jan 2020 No, ID Although many traits do lead us to Yellow-bellied, a hybrid cannot effectively be ruled out. It's likely that it's a "pure" YBSA but hybrid can't be ruled out by the photos. From Stephen Shunk:

"From these images, it's not possible to completely rule out a YB x RB hybrid, but they are rare, so the likelihood is a pure YBSA."

The *likelihood* is that it's pure YBSA but we can't rule out hybrids, so I have to vote no.

2nd round:  

15 Feb 2020 Acc Fiiiine, I'll accept it as a YBSA. I do think that *from what we can see* in the photos, most traits fit for YBSA. I do think the photos are lacking and there still is some doubt, but if it IS a hybrid, it's likely a cross-back hybrid, due to the extensive back marking and the timing of the moult. So, close enough genetically to be close enough to accept.
Mike H. 5 Feb 2020 Acc Plumage for time of year combined with other noted field marks are enough to rule out a hybrid or other species.

2nd round:  

8 Mar 2020 Acc My opinion hasn't changed
Mike S. 12 Jan 2020 Acc Photos show a sapsucker with extensive buffy plumage. Back pattern appears rather "messy" (not aligned in two neat rows). I can't tell if there is a tinge of red on the nape in one of the photos, but it may just be an artifact of the photograph.

Nevertheless, most of what I see matches a juvenile yellow-bellied sapsucker, which is the only sapsucker still in juvenile plumage during late December. I see no red flags that may indicate hybridization.

[On a side note, I found the commentary in the notes interesting regarding RNSA not occurring during winter in Utah. This is certainly not the case in Washington County, as they are relatively common here during winter.]

2nd round:  

7 Feb 2020 Acc Without any specific features that indicate hybridization, I am still comfortable accepting this as a yellow-bellied sapsucker.
Bryan S. 4 Feb 2020 Acc  

2nd round:  

12 Mar 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 30 Dec 2019 Acc Juvenile plumage at this time of year should be good for Yellow-bellied; markings on the back and head support Yellow-bellied as well, and don't present any obvious signs of a hybrid

2nd round:  

12 Mar 2020 Acc With due respect to the caution of my friend Stephen Shunk, it's probably true that a hybrid could never be "ruled out," but this individual shows no obvious signs of being a hybrid. I don't think we should be ruling according to hypothetical possibilities.
Larry T. 25 Jan 2020 Acc Looks like a juv. YB.

2nd round:  

24 Mar 2020 Acc I see no reason to not accept the record.
David W. 13 Jan 2020 Acc I think the date is late enough on this juvenile bird to support the ID. I also appreciate the discussion under the Similar Species section. I'll let others address the crown molt.

2nd round:  

18 Feb 2020 Acc  I still think the date is late enough to be diagnostic for a juvenile.