Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society
   
Status & Comments
Year 2021 (records 31 through 60)

2021-31 Black Vulture

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 25 Jun 2021 No, ID Photos appear to show a Turkey Vulture
Stephanie G. 25 May 2021 No, ID I believe this is a Turkey Vulture. Although we don't have a lot of detail to go off, the profile of the bill seems thicker and shaped more like a Turkey Vulture. The tail and wing length seems more appropriate for Turkey Vulture as well.
Mike H. 2 Jun 2021 No, ID Tail length in the photo is suggests Turkey Vulture. Would assume light reflection led to the sight of white wing tips.
Bryant O. 26 May 2021 No, ID Photos very poor but show a classic Turkey Vulture structurally. Black have a longer neck, longer legs and more naked skin on the head with a bit of a dewlap. Must have been a trick of the light reflecting off feathers to make them look white?
Mike S. 15 Jun 2021 No, ID Turkey Vultures
Bryan S. 14 Jun 2021 No, ID Does not sufficiently rule out turkey vulture
Steve S. 17 Jun 2021 No, ID Between the poor report and unidentifiable photos I can't accept this report.
Mark S. 6 Jun 2021 No, ID Photos show a Turkey Vulture.
David W. 26 May 2021 No, ID I think the legs are too short and the profile is a better fit for a Turkey vulture.

For such a widely soaring bird, I'm surprised we don't ever see this species in Utah considering how common it is elsewhere and how relatively close its range is to our State.

 

2021-32 Hudsonian Godwit

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 25 Jun 2021 Acc Excellent record
Stephanie G. 26 May 2021 Acc Great find! Photos clearly show Hudsonian Godwit.
Mike H. 2 Jun 2021 Acc  
Bryant O. 26 May 2021 Acc Photos show all the field marks for Hudsonian, black and white tail and wings with red belly. This is my eBird review region and I requested they submit this record
Mike S. 22 Jun 2021 Acc Good documentation with diagnostic photos.
Steve S. 17 Jun 2021 Acc Nice photo's and report
Mark S. 6 Jun 2021 Acc Good photos and decent description support the i.d.
David W. 26 May 2021 Acc What a lovely bird in breeding plumage. Wish all our records were this straightforward.

 

2021-33 Chestnut-sided Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 25 Jun 2021 Acc Diagnostic photo
Stephanie G. 10 Jun 2021 Acc Nice find
Mike H. 2 Jun 2021 Acc Photo shows a CSWA.
Bryant O. 3 Jun 2021 Acc Photo show a CSWA, although I'm a bit confused with the plumage, SY Male? I had my doubts about this report originally, so I requested their photos as the eBird reviewer for the region, and also asked them to submit a record. My doubts were eliminated upon looking at the photo
Mike S. 1 Jul 2021 Acc Photo shows a Chestnut-sided Warbler. Interestingly, it is difficult to find examples of males around this date that mostly lack the 'namesake' plumage.
Bryan S. 4 Jul 2021 Acc  
Steve S. 17 Jun 2021 Acc  
Mark S. 6 Jun 2021 Acc Photos show a Chestnut-sided Warbler
David W. 10 Jun 2021 Acc Great photos show the key field marks.

 

2021-34 Orchard Oriole

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 25 Jun 2021 Acc Excellent record of a clear-cut immature male Orchard Oriole
Stephanie G. 10 Jun 2021 Acc Don't have a problem with this as an Orchard
Mike H. 18 Jun 2021 Acc  
Bryant O. 7 Jun 2021 Acc Calls are what sealed the deal for me, but structure and markings also favor Orchard over Hooded. Really nothing to imply a hybrid of any type.
Mike S. 1 Jul 2021 Acc Extent of black on face and throat, two well-defined wingbars, and bill shape all look textbook for an Orchard Oriole. Nice find!

I see Hooded Orioles at my feeders almost every day during summer and this bird would certainly catch my attention.
Steve S. 17 Jun 2021 Acc Between the photos, report and description of calls I think Orchard Oriole is the best fit.
Mark S. 6 Jun 2021 Acc Photos show a typical first-spring male Orchard Oriole. I have dozens of similar photos from birds at my feeders each spring.
David W. 4 Jun 2021 Acc The dark on the forehead would be consistent with the dark hood of the male starting to come in (though I do not know the molt sequence for this species). A great find.

 

2021-35 Painted Bunting

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 25 Jun 2021 Acc diagnostic photos
Stephanie G. 10 Jun 2021 No, Nat I'm so glad that other observers were able to verify this sighting. However, photos of this bird show a potential fungal/yeast infection of the face consistent with being caged. Photos have been posted online that aren't part of this record that have shown this to more of an extent. It's undoubtedly a Painted Bunting and a great sighting. But the natural occurrence is in question.

2nd round:  

29 Jul 2021 No, Nat The facial infection shown in James Loveless's photos is consistent with cage wear. Refer to this photo:
Mike H. 14 Jul 2021 Acc Photo clearly shows a Painted Bunting.

2nd round:  

7 Aug 2021 Acc The only question with this bird is provenance. This bird may be an escaped pet (aka prisoner), but it may also be wild. I understand raising the question, but where do we draw the line? I feel the evidence needs to lean heavily towards anthropogenic or intentional means for us to discount the possibility of a vagrant species.
Bryant O. 10 Jun 2021 Acc No doubt a male PABU in the photos. I suppose providence should be discussed due to the illegal trade in these birds in Latin American cultures, however it does fit within the expect pattern of an "over shoot" migrant in timing and without unusual wear on the feathers or a generally unhealthy disheveled look I see no reason to think an escaped cage bird.

2nd round:  

17 Jul 2021 Acc I get a distinct feeling of deju-vu from this bird. Does the bird has some slight deformities with the bill? Yes. Does that make it an escaped cage bird? No. Here is a quote from Steven Mlodinow about the Painted Bunting I found in Utah in April 2013

"To me, the ID is obvious, so I trust this is not an issue.
I will leave the bill part up to experts, though do note that anatomic abnormalities (from bill structure to tumors) occur at a much higher rate in vagrants than normal migrants banded on the Farallons; indeed, the abnormalities may be linked to the vagrancy."

So, vagrants have a higher than average likelihood of having deformities or heath issues. Its not often we actually get up close and personal looks at wild birds, often when we do we can usually find something unique about them, missing feathers, odd eye colors etc. Wild birds live difficult lives and face many challenges, including disease and malnutrition. These maladies are in no way limited to captives, we just seldom have the opportunity to see it with wild bird. So the bill issues do not in them self make this a captive. Additionally, is there actually any evidence of this illegal black market trade in Mexican song birds happening in Utah? This bird fits within the expected pattern of vagrancy of this species in Utah, why play the escaped captive card without direct evidence?
Mike S. 1 Jul 2021 Acc This ID is about as straightforward as it gets. Very nice record.

2nd round:  

21 Jul 2021 Acc I think the possibility of an escapee is a concern worth raising. However, the timing is within the expected date range for a vagrant Painted Bunting. Overall, I believe the evidence is in favor of this being a wild bird.
Bryan S. 4 Jul 2021 Acc  

2nd round:  

9 Aug 2021 Acc  
Steve S. 17 Jun 2021 Acc  
Mark S. 12 Jun 2021 To 2nd The i.d. of the bird in the photo is not in doubt. But the issue, as always with this species, is whether this is a natural occurrence. Unfortunately the written description here is so incomplete, especially with regards to the location, that it's hard to evaluate if this could be a natural vagrant, or an escapee. "Torrey" is not very specific, and "orchard/garden spot" doesn't say much about the sort of place where it was seen.

I'm inclined to accept this record, but not just yet, and am hoping that someone can provide more detailed information about where it was found.

2nd round:  

28 Jul 2021 Acc While the facial condition noted by Stephanie perhaps is more common in caged birds, it can also occur in wild ones, so by itself doesn't necessarily indicate prior captivity.

The date fits the previous pattern for vagrants in our region.
David W. 10 Jun 2021 Acc I see nothing about Terry's beautiful photo to suggest a life spent in captivity.

2nd round:  

19 Jul 2021 Acc I see no compelling evidence to suggest this bird was an escapee. It's my understanding this bird was visiting someone's feeder in town, as both escapees and wild birds are inclined to do.

 

2021-36 Chestnut-sided Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 25 Jun 2021 Acc diagnostic photo
Stephanie G. 12 Jul 2021 Acc Pretty straightforward record
Mike H. 14 Jul 2021 Acc Identifiable photos make for easy work!
Bryant O. 15 Jun 2021 Acc Photos leave no doubt.
Mike S. 8 Jul 2021 Acc Unmistakable photos.
Bryan S. 14 Jun 2021 Acc  
Steve S. 17 Jun 2021 Acc  
Mark S. 18 Jun 2021 Acc Photo shows a male Chestnut-sided Warbler.
David W. 15 Jun 2021 Acc Very distinctive bird. Nice photos.

  

2021-37 Blue-winged Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 25 Jun 2021 Acc Excellent record
Stephanie G. 12 Jul 2021 Acc Clear photos and documentation
Mike H. 14 Jul 2021 Acc Good documentation.
Bryant O. 17 Jun 2021 Acc I would have liked a mention of eliminating a hybrid with a GWWA, but this birds shows no yellow in the wing bars or hint of a mask on the auriculars so no sign of hybridization here. Curios that 2 of the 3 other records have also been caught in mist nets? Are these thing just migrating through undetected?
Mike S. 8 Jul 2021 Acc Good photos of a bird in hand leave no doubt.
I find it interesting that 3 of the 4 records of this species in Utah have been individuals captured in a net.
Bryan S. 4 Jul 2021 Acc  
Steve S. 17 Jun 2021 Acc  
Mark S. 18 Jun 2021 Acc Can't have better documentation than this.
David W. 18 Jun 2021 Acc Hard to argue with such a beautifully photographed, in-hand specimen. Very good writeup. Despite it having a hint of yellow in the wing bars, this is clearly a Blue-winged Warbler.

 

2021-38 Gray Hawk

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 25 Jun 2021 No, ID Description is good. Would love to see photos of this mega vagrant. . .
Odd timing, I would expect a late fall or winter sighting of this potential vagrant. Also odd that a spring vagrant would not have stuck around as it was not observed by any of the subsequent birders that afternoon or following days.
Stephanie G. 12 Jul 2021 No, ID I'd like to approve but I don't think male Harrier has been ruled out. Or a Zone-tailed Hawk or Common Black-hawk molting, juvenile, or appearing gray in lighting.

2nd round:  

29 Jul 2021 Acc continuing to accept
Mike H. 19 Jul 2021 To 2nd  

2nd round:  

28 Jul 2021 Acc ID?- Knowing the experience of the observers, I don t know of any other N American raptor this could ve been confused with. Location? Lytle Ranch would be my #1 guess if asked where I thought a GRHA might be observed. Timing? With the report that Mike S added with his original comments, I feel this should eliminate most concerns with timing. It wouldn t be the first time a bird accidentally headed N instead of S for migration.
Max M.   2nd: 20 Aug 2021 Acc Coming in late on this one - but after reviewing comments, description is solid, location seems like a prime place to encounter this bird.
Bryant O. 18 Jun 2021 Acc Well written record, and right where one would expect to see one in Utah.

2nd round:  

28 Jul 2021 Acc I agree with David, NOHA, COBH and ZTHA ruled out by description. This species has been expanding and becoming more wide spread and common in AZ so it was only a matter of time that one would show up here. Lets also remember birds can fly and its a short 5 minute flight for this hawk onto private property down stream that birders can't tread(legally), so just because it wasn't re-found doesn't mean it wasn't there. They are also quite good at hiding in the canopy and easily over looked. I guess without photos it will go on the dreaded Auxilary list?
Mike S. 19 Jul 2021 To 2nd I'm tempted to Accept, but have decided to vote "to 2nd" because I believe any rarity of such magnitude without photos warrants some discussion.

The description is not perfect, but I do believe it adequately establishes the ID as an adult Gray Hawk. I simply cannot come up with a better match. An adult bird should be fairly distinctive, especially for anyone with previous experience with this species. The length of time observed and the fact that this bird was seen both perched and in flight by two competent birders strengthens the record, in my opinion.

While this would be quite a remarkable movement for this species, one would suspect Lytle Ranch to be the most likely location where one may occur in Utah. Interestingly, there was an adult Gray Hawk photographed in April at Tassi Ranch on the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument. That location is approximately 60 miles south of Lytle.
See that eBird checklist here:
https://ebird.org/checklist/S85684811

The fact that a Gray Hawk strayed that far north just earlier this year gives me additional confidence in this record. If one can make it that far north, I think that the chance of one showing up at Lytle would be every bit as reasonable.

For what it's worth, I spent about 3 hours at Lytle later that day searching for this bird with no luck. The Sommerfelds also searched for it before me, and they also weren't able to track it down.

2nd round:  

29 Jul 2021 Acc No changes of opinion. I wish we had photos, but the description is solid.

If accepted, since there is an existing provisional record, I believe this species should be added to the official state checklist in accordance with our bylaws.
Bryan S.  2nd: 18 Aug 2021 Acc Very good description by experienced birders. Description rules out other similar hawks.
Steve S. 26 Jun 2021 Acc Good description of a fairly distinct bird.
Mark S. 18 Jun 2021 Acc Good description eliminates similar species.

2nd round:  

1 Aug 2021 Acc This is not a difficult i.d., especially for experienced observers and such a thorough examination of the bird. There is nothing else that even comes close to fitting the description, unless one goes even farther afield into far less likely species.
David W. 18 Jun 2021 Acc A very thorough written description. It is unfortunate that no photo was secured. Hard to imagine what other North American raptor this could be.

2nd round:  

27 Jul 2021 Acc 1. Harrier ruled out by strong banding on tail and by wing shape.

2. Zone-tailed hawk ruled out by shape of wings, description of paler portions of gray on body contrasting with darker portions (which eliminates possibility of overall paleness caused by lighting), and underwing pattern.

3. Common black hawk also ruled out by gray contrasting with darker portions on body and underwing pattern. An adult would not have white under the wings, while a juvie is strikingly patterned. Also, in flight the tail does not appear long because of the very long wings.

Outside of the far southern Gray-lined hawk, hard to pin this description on anything else than a Gray hawk.

Thanks to Mike for finding that record from nearby Arizona.
Kevin W.  2nd: 3 Sep 2021 Acc I'd like to see photos, but description is good, and Lytle seems to be a good place to see one, especially considering the proximity of the earlier Tassi Ranch record.

 

2021-39 White-rumped Sandpiper

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 25 Jun 2021 Acc Great record
Stephanie G. 12 Jul 2021 Acc Field marks and coloration seem to add up and rule out Baird's.

2nd round:  

28 Aug 2021 Acc continuing to accept
Mike H. 19 Jul 2021 To 2nd  

2nd round:  

22 Aug 2021 Acc  
Max M.   2nd: 20 Aug 2021 Acc  
Bryant O. 18 Jun 2021 Acc Overall color and shape look good for WRSA, as do the steaking on the flanks and tiny orange spot at base of lower mandible. I asked her to submit the record after she sent me the photos to consult with ID.

2nd round:  

29 Jul 2021 Acc Has all the expected field marks, which can be seen in the photos, for this species. Seems pretty straight forward record to me.
Mike S. 12 Jul 2021 Acc Photos show diagnostic field marks, including reddish base of lower mandible. Nice record, good photos for a cell phone camera!.

2nd round:  

29 Jul 2021 Acc  
Bryan S.  2nd: 18 Aug 2021 Acc  
Steve S. 26 Jun 2021 Acc Description and photos are a White-rumped Sandpiper
Mark S. 18 Jun 2021 Acc Good description and photos. This is more likely in June than the presumably more common Baird's.

2nd round:  

1 Aug 2021 Acc As per my first-round comments. This is a solid record.
David W. 18 Jun 2021 Acc A bit of a funky crown pattern, but everything else fits and the amount of white on the crown is within the range for this species.

2nd round:  

27 Jul 2021 Acc See nothing in the comments of others to make me reconsider my first-round vote.
Kevin W.  2nd: 3 Sep 2021 Acc Seems like a good identification with photos showing definitive field marks.

 

2021-40 Least Tern

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 25 Jun 2021 Acc Nice record
Stephanie G. 12 Jul 2021 Acc Pretty straightforward record
Mike H. 14 Jul 2021 Acc Good photo.
Bryant O. 23 Jun 2021 Acc Well documented
Mike S. 8 Jul 2021 Acc Photos clearly show a Least Tern.
This was only my second time observing this species, and both have been at golf course ponds in St. George.
Steve S. 26 Jun 2021 Acc  
Mark S. 1 Aug 2021 Acc Excellent photos and good documentation.
David W. 25 Jun 2021 Acc Clearly this species unless one were to consider Little tern of the Old World (which has a white tail and rump, unlike this bird's gray). The brightness of the bill and the clearly defined black patterns on the forewings and forehead eliminate juvenile Sterna species.

 

2021-41 Zone-tailed Hawk

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 25 Jun 2021 Acc  
Stephanie G. 12 Jul 2021 Acc Hope it gets better, great record

2nd round:  

28 Aug 2021 Acc  
Mike H. 7 Aug 2021 Acc  

2nd round:  

11 Sep 2021 Acc  
Max M.  2nd: 20 Aug 2021 Acc  
Bryant O. 18 Jun 2021 Acc Eliminating other dark morph buteos is a problem for perched ZTHA, and although I would like flight shots to see the underside of the wings and tail, the banding on the tail upperside is consistent with ZTHA even though somewhat blurry. I wonder if the birds is still in rehab if better photos could be arranged for documentation of the record?

2nd round:  

11 Aug 2021 Acc ID is clear cut, providence is established by the observer account which seems feasible to me. There are a number of reports of ZTHA in and around Hurricane, so not unheard of to be in that neighborhood. What caused the injury is a good question though?
Mike S. 8 Jul 2021 Acc Rick and I were present for this bird's release on June 30th. It flew off quickly and appeared to be fully recovered.
Also noteworthy, there has been a second adult ZTHA present this summer at this same location.

2nd round:  

10 Aug 2021 Acc I thought there was a chance that concerns about the coincidental nature of this observation might be raised, with this bird showing up in a raptor rehabilitator's yard...

Justin has pigeons that often attract birds of prey onto his property. He has a huge backyard that sits just beneath the Hurricane Cliffs and he has told me in the past that he has seen Zone-tailed Hawks soaring (usually with Turkey Vultures) along the cliffline. There has been a second adult ZTHA also seen at this location this summer and Justin has reported seeing both of these birds simultaneously. The second individual was also observed in the area by Rick Fridell, just a day or two before this bird was released.

If anyone is still skeptical, here is an eBird checklist with a photo of a soaring ZTHA, taken just a few blocks from this location on May 24th of this year:
https://ebird.org/checklist/S88921627

I sent some additional photos to Milt to be included with this record, which I snapped with my phone just before this bird was released on June 30th. I don't have any spread wing shots, but the photos do show the underside of the tail and should leave no doubt about the ID.

David - maybe it's just my dark sense of humor, but my first thought when seeing your comment is that I'm glad this bird didn't succumb to the fate of "murrelet-grade photos."
Bryan S. 9 Aug 2021 No, Nat Sounds suspiciously like it may have been a captive bird that may have escaped

2nd round:  

18 Aug 2021 Acc I am still skeptical about an injured bird showing up at a rehabers, but since there is no obvious signs of captivity and also since I agree with David that this is a regularly occurring species and "marginally reviewable" I will vote to accept and move on
Steve S. 26 Jun 2021 Acc  
Mark S. 1 Aug 2021 Acc Photos show the distinctive features of ZTHA, especially the facial coloration, but also tail pattern. Excellent description.

2nd round:  

11 Aug 2021 Acc I don't believe that Zone-tailed Hawk is a species that is kept by falconers, so I can't agree that it's likely to have been a captive bird. I also don't find the serendipity of an injured bird showing up at the only licensed rehaber in the county to be anything more than just that - an extraordinary bit of luck. Even if it's a "returning patient," (and there's no indication that it was), it was obviously free and on it's own long enough to return to normal behavior patterns.

The date and location are not outside of the pattern of occurrence for this species in Utah.
David W. 27 Jul 2021 To 2nd I admit the fact that this injured bird just happened to show up at the only raptor rehab place in the area strikes me as highly coincidental. Word of mouth?? A returned client? Did someone drop the bird off at his yard? I'd like to see what others say.

Also, Mike, do you think you could get Mr. Neighbor to take some murrelet-grade photos of this bird, especially the tail and underwing? Those would be nice to have with the record

2nd round:  

17 Aug 2021 Acc I am a bit heartened by Mike's explanation for why a Zone-tailed hawk was likely in this particular yard. Sounds like a really nice place to visit. I suppose what really troubles me is why an INJURED bird should show up at the (only local) rehab clinic on its own. That, and its tameness, still strike me as extremely suspicious.

But, really, this is such a marginally reviewable species in the first place, seeing as it occurs fairly regularly in several locations in SW Utah, that it's not worth the Committee's time (in my opinion) to send it to the 3rd round.

On a bemused note to Mike, I want to clarify that there were some lovely photos of the murrelet while yet it breathed, and it was such pre-mortem photos for which I was hoping. Lest I be misconstrued as being more ghoulish than I am, I want to reassure you that it is my profound hope that we may yet get to enjoy this hawk's soaring presence in the wild once more. But I also hope we never vote on it again based on it checking in as a patient at this rehab location.
Kevin W.  2nd: 3 Sep 2021 Acc It looks like a Zone-tailed Hawk. Pam Wheeler also found and photographed a Zone-tailed Hawk over Hurricane on May 24, possibly the same one: https://ebird.org/checklist/S88921627 (noted before I saw that Mike linked the same checklist in his comments).

 

2021-42 Laughing Gull

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 29 Jul 2021 Acc Downward sloping bill + no white spots on primaries = good for a Laughing!
Mike H. 22 Aug 2021 Acc I keep revisiting this record to see if my opinion would change. The field mark boxes are mostly checked, but something with the structure of this bird keeps giving me pause.
Max M. 20 Aug 2021 Acc Unless I am missing something, seems like a pretty straight forward ID, and an exceptional record!
Bryant O. 12 Jul 2021 Acc Photos and field marks do seem to favor Laughing Gull over Franklin's. The lack of bold tertial crescents as well as lack of prominent white primary panels, plus the long slightly dropped bill all look better for a Laughing Gull to me.
Mike S. 15 Jul 2021 Acc The photos show diagnostic features of an adult Laughing Gull, including extensively dark wingtips with no obvious white, and a fairly small white demarcation between the wingtips and mantle. This combination rules out Franklin's Gull.

Although the photos are a bit blurry, I also get the impression of a fairly long bill with a slight droop at the tip (especially Photo D), further pointing to LAGU.

Great record!
Bryan S. 18  Aug 2021 Acc bill appears large a droopy and lack of primary windows looks good for laughing
Mark S. 1 Aug 2021 Acc Decent photos and good description from a very experienced observer. The lack of white on the wing tips, along with the bill shape and size, separate this from Franklin's. The eye-arcs are well within the range for breeding plumage LAGU
David W. 27 Jul 2021 Acc I'm a little troubled by the wide eye crescents, but overall, this looks like a Laughing gull to me, down to the sloping forehead.
Kevin W.. 3 Sep 2021 Acc I'll tentatively vote yes on this, as the photos show what seems to be a long-billed gull; longer than a Franklin's, and it doesn't look as delicate. I'm curious what others think.

 

2021-43 Vaux's Swift

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 29 Jul 2021 No, ID Odd timing for a migrant. Possible recently fledged Black Swift could easily be mis-IDed. Size can be difficult to judge in flight without contextual cues.

2nd round:  

4 Sep 2021 No, ID Odd timing for species, lack of evidence, too many species it could have been confused with.
Mike H. 22 Aug 2021 No, ID Not enough to differentiate from other Swift sp.

2nd round:  

11 Sep 2021 No, ID Nothing to change my initial opinion.
Max M. 20 Aug 2021 No, ID Timing for this species is questionable, and the description of the field marks/identifying characteristics are lacking.

2nd round:  

4 Sep 2021 No, ID Still sticking with my vote on this one - timing is questionable, description fails to eliminate Chimney Swift.
Bryant O. 17 Jul 2021 No, ID Late June is a very odd time of year for a Vaux's Swift in Utah. Also the lighting in this canyon is horrible in the evening and its all too easy to turn Swallows into swifts and White-throated Swifts into Black Swifts. He took it to the next level. I'm also concerned with the observers skill at bird ID.

2nd round:  

5 Sep 2021 No, ID I continue to have concerns about the timing of this sighting as well as the sketchy nature of the circumstances of the ID
Mike S. 15 Aug 2021 No, ID The description doesn't contradict the ID of a Chaetura swift. However, the view was quite brief, the lighting conditions don't sound ideal, and this description isn't very detailed. Based on the information we have, I can't be certain he didn't see a Northern Rough-winged Swallow, let along less likely possibilities (such as Chimney Swift).

2nd round:  

6 Sep 2021 No, ID My concerns remain.
Bryan S. 18  Aug 2021 Acc  

2nd round:  

15 Sep 2021 No, ID Not sure why I voted yes on this in the first place since I didn't put any comments! I agree with the comments from all the "No" votes. Timing, location, and questions about the observer being the main issues.
Mark S. 1 Aug 2021 No, ID I'm happy calling this "Chaetura sp.," but there's nothing here to separate this from Chimney Swift other than a vague reference to a pale throat. It was almost certainly a Vaux's Swift, but the evidence presented simply doesn't meet the standard required for an officially accepted record.

2nd round:  

7 Sep 2021 No, ID As per my first round comments.
David W. 20 Jul 2021 No, ID The date of this record is unusual, as is the high elevation habitat. In the north-central portion of the state, this species is nearly always (with a couple of exceptions) reported during migration in the lowlands. Notable exceptions are Kenny Frisch's Silver Lake record of 16 Aug 2018 and Eric Huish's record in Provo on 13 Jul 2000. So, though unexpected, the record is possible in Little Cottonwood Canyon during the breeding season.

However, I do not believe the record adequately rules out a Chimney swift. It is unfortunate that the observer did not have a camera to bolster the description of his 10 second encounter.

2nd round:  

8 Sep 2021 No, ID I will stick to my First Round comments.
Kevin W. 3 Sep 2021 Acc Description seems good for Vaux's Swift.

2nd round:  

16 Sep 2021 No, ID I changed my mind, and agree with others that timing and circumstances are odd, and that the report lacks enough detail to be certain.

  

2021-44 Palm Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 28 Aug 2021 No, ID Out of habitat for Palm Warbler. Could have been a yellow warbler, wilson's warbler, or orange-crowned warbler, perhaps juvenile. Lighting conditions from wildfires make things look oranger than they are.

2nd round:  

17 Sep 2021 No, ID Too strange timing and habitat wise to accept without a photo. Other species this could have easily been...
Mike H. 22 Aug 2021 No, ID Location and timing seem off and no mention of tail pumping.

2nd round:  

16 Sep 2021 No, ID Seems as though we all have the same concerns with this observation record..
Max M. 20 Aug 2021 No, ID Palm Warblers are late migrants, and the habitat along with foraging technique are uncharacteristic of this species.

2nd round:  

23 Sep 2021 No, ID As noted by others, too many concerns with this submission. Applaud DW for his comments in the 2nd round, and agree - maybe the submitter should invest in a camera.
Bryant O. 11 Aug 2021 No, ID Observer failed to consider Nashville and Orange-crowned Warbler which also can show rufous in the crown and have yellow undertail coverts. Description of behavior doesn't fit Palm. No confidence in observers ability to accurately ID birds

2nd round:  

17 Sep 2021 No, ID Continue to have many doubts
Mike S. 6 Sep 2021 No, ID The described field marks (although not very detailed) seem like a decent match for a Palm Warbler. However, I am concerned about the early timing of this record, as the overwhelming majority of western fall PAWA records are from September and later. I m also concerned about the tail held level behavior since this species is notorious for its tail pumping.

2nd round:  

20 Sep 2021 No, ID My first round concerns remain, and I agree with the additional concerns raised by others.
Bryan S. 15 Sep 2021 No, ID Timing is the biggest issue. Can't find any records in the intermountain area this early

2nd round:  

21 Oct 2021 No, ID same as round one
Mark S. 11 Aug 2021 No, ID I don't want to speculate on what the observer saw, or what might be confused for a Palm Warbler, but this record has some problems that cause me to doubt its validity.

The description of its appearance fits, but the behavior of foraging in the trees with other warblers seems odd, as well as the lack of the distinctive tail bobbing, that is not noted.

Beyond that, the habitat is unusual, as every other fall record in Utah is from valley riparian areas, with none from the high country. The date is quite surprising. On eBird, there are only 10 records all-time for August in the entire western U.S. (none for Utah). And this would not only be an unusual August record, but the earliest ever - no Palm Warblers have been recorded as early as August 8 in the western U.S.

So this record is remarkable, and well beyond the normal pattern.

Given that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, I don't think that this description, from a 15 second look, is sufficient to support this record.

2nd round:  

7 Oct 2021 No, ID As per my first round comments.
David W. 17 Aug 2021 Acc Another rare find for a birder with an uncommon skill at finding birds unseen by anyone else.

Well, I would have wondered about Orange-crowned warbler had it not been eliminated by the white belly, perhaps a siskin were the observer not explicit about it being a gleaning warbler with a brown body, but really I am left without a plausible alternative given the combination of field marks. A textbook description.

2nd round:  

20 Sep 2021 No, ID OK, I'll stop pretending I can't see the elephant in the room.

Ahem, in light of the extraordinarily creative timing and habitat for this warbler, and the [oddly consistent] lack of obvious identifying field marks (such as tail pumping), I think I will agree with the rest of the Committee that, well, more evidence would be desirable. I will, therefore, change my vote to NO.

But, let me say, to dispense with some fig leaves in my role as devil's advocate, Palm warblers do indeed forage in trees (I've seen them do so), there are records in eBird for Palm warblers at very high altitudes in similar habitat (heck, even the Richardson Flat bird in Utah was not exactly at low altitude), and birds do wind up in the darnedest places at odd times now and again (or we wouldn't need this Committee) (one could argue that frigatebirds and murrelets are strictly ocean-obligates, yet they are on our list hundreds of miles from California).

I think the timing argument is the strongest and does carry weight. It's the one that made me do a double-take when I first read the record. So, since I recently used that very argument to vote against a record of a very credible birder who I greatly admire, I will invoke precedent and vote NAY today.

I really feel obliged to offer sincere advice to the submitter of the record, in hopes that he might some day improve his percentage of records approved by the Committee, that he should start carrying around a camera. That way, if his almost unique penchant for finding very rare one-off birds continues, he should be able at least now and again to get a diagnostic photo that would dispel any doubts.
Kevin W. 7 Sep 2021 No, ID The description sounds ok for a breeding Palm Warbler, but I think that Palm Warblers by this time should be in fall plumage (i.e. not a rufous cap). Also, I'm not sure of vagrant Palm Warblers occurring at high elevations as this one (8700 ft)or as early as this one (early August), most observations being mid-September into late November, and lowland areas. The description seems odd in other ways (brown body, no comment on tail-bobbing).

2nd round:  

16 Sep 2021 No, ID My concerns are echoed by other reviewers. I remain unconvinced.

 

2021-45 Pacific-slope Flycatcher

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 14 Sep 2021 Acc Even hearing the audio you can tell the difference between Cordilleran.

2nd round:  

28 Sep 2021 No, ID Other reviewers concerns have cast enough doubt
Mike H. 16 Sep 2021 To 2nd  

2nd round:  

13 Oct 2021 No, ID With the info available to me, I can t say say this is a no doubt PSFL. I also can t say it s not. I do believe this is most likely a Pac-slope, but the audio is not enough to support an observation.
Max M. 20 Aug 2021 To 2nd Even after reviewing the spectrogram, this is an incredibly difficult "species" ID and I feel like it warrants further discussion.

2nd round:  

22 Sep 2021 No, ID After seeing reviewer comments in the first round and a few in the second, I feel my push to 2nd round is validated by others with similar concerns. The recording, unlike Kenny's first record for PSFL, is too ambiguous and doesn't do enough to separate these two "species".
Bryant O. 13 Aug 2021 No, ID I don't think these poor quality recordings conclusively prove anything, and to my eye they more closely resemble the COFL graph than PSFL. This is not a good species, there is a huge area of overlap and intergradation in the eastern Cascades and Northern Rockies where they are essentially unidentifiable. We should not expect every individual encountered to fit nicely into one group or another. Because of that sub-species seems a much better way to view these taxon. Regardless, nothing can really be ascertained from these recordings.

2nd round:  

22 Sep 2021 No, ID Have not heard a compelling argument in favor of this one being a clear cut PSFL. I continue to feel the poor recordings do not fit neatly into one taxa or the other.
Mike S. 20 Sep 2021 No, ID I have little doubt that Pacific-slope Flycatchers migrate annually through lowland areas in western/southwestern Utah. Given the number of observations from southern Nevada, I can't help but wonder if this species is even truly "rare" in our state, and if many of these individuals may be going unidentified or getting 'dismissed' as Cordillerans or 'Western' Flycatchers.

Having said that, after reviewing the documentation provided here and comparing the spectrogram to other examples of Pacific-slope and Cordilleran, I am not convinced that a COFL can be ruled out.

Very curious to see everyone's opinions on this record.

2nd round:  

20 Sep 2021 No, ID Since my first round vote was several days past the deadline, I'll attempt to make up for it with an early second round vote...

I believe the concerns/doubts raised in the first round make the case that we cannot rule out a Cordilleran, or at least something in the middle of the Western flycatcher spectrum. Given that individuals from overlap zones (mentioned by Bryant) are likely migrating through Utah, I think we should be cautious when reviewing audio examples that are not particularly clear-cut, and I believe this record falls under that category.
Bryan S. 15 Sep 2021 Acc My only question is that the spectogram does not seem to show the "kink" as strongly as the examples of PS flycatcher and I wonder if this is one of the birds that is somewhere in between the 2 species? Kenny definitely did his homework on this bird and has much more expertise with this ID than I do, so I will go his ID.

2nd round:  

21 Oct 2021 No, ID Changing to a no because of the questions raised by everyone
Mark S. 7 Sep 2021 To 2nd It looks like no one wants to vote on this record, and with good reason. I have to say, that if I heard this call in the field, I would probably call it Pacific-slope, with the huge caveat that Cordilleran can give a call just like this, that I have heard during breeding season in Utah.

I think this record is resting on two i.d. concepts for this species "pair" (it's really just Western Flycatcher, after all) that are based upon assumptions and a limited data set - the inflection in the position note, and the idea that lowland migrants are PSFL. Neither of these inspire great confidence.

Therefore, I'll punt it to the second round. If the consensus of the rest of the committee is in favor, I can hold my nose and vote to accept. But it doesn't make me happy.

2nd round:  

7 Oct 2021 No, ID Nothing in anyone's comments added any confidence to the proposed identification of this record.
David W. 8 Sep 2021 To 2nd So many sonograms, so little time...

I'm going to punt this to the second round. There's just too much literature saying there is sonic overlap between these two (so-called) species and that the calls are not a hard and fast rule (not surprising in nature). In my opinion, the two forms are better thought of as two ends of a spectrum anyway. Maybe if I stall long enough, the two taxons will be lumped back into the less stressful Western flycatcher I grew up with. If not, then I will consider this with all the brain power I can bring to this difficult ID.

2nd round:  

21 Sep 2021 No, ID Sort of scary how similar my thoughts and phrasing are to Mark's. It's almost like we spent some time together in my formative years.

I agree with Bryant and Mike S. that the spectrograms are not entirely convincing. I applaud Kenny for his studious documentation and efforts. It may well be that advances in science (taxonomy and bio-acoustics) will continue to advance and that future generations will "look" back on this record with newly-informed ears, but to me this sounds like an intermediate bird. It may be a "Pacific-slope" individual, but I've heard a lot of variation in Cordilleran calls/songs over the years.
Kevin W. 7 Sep 2021 Acc I think that the description and analysis of the call note fit Pacific-slope Flycatcher, and that Pacific Slopes are probably more likely to be observed in lowland areas in Western Utah than Cordillerans.

2nd round:  

6 Oct 2021 Acc I still think that Pacific-slope Flycatcher is the most likely bet, and stick with my previous vote.

 

2021-46 Heermann's Gull

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 4 Sep 2021 No, ID Plenty of dark juvenile gulls around, even Jaegers that could be confused. Sparse description, not much to go off. It's a no for me.
Mike H. 11 Sep 2021 No, ID Description is very vague. No mention of bill color, but yet ages the bird as a 3rd year? The dark head doesn t line up with date of observation either.
Max M. 21 Aug 2021 No, ID Description does not rule out common species.
Bryant O. 21 Aug 2021 No, ID With no comments in 'Field Marks and Identifying Characteristics' and no attempt made to eliminate any similar species I find this one hard to believe. Specifically no attempt made to eliminate recently fledged California Gulls is a big problem as they can be very dark. Of note, I saw my 1st fledged California Gull juveniles 3 days before on July 14th(I made specific checklist notes to record that date) so this report is exactly when the dark juveniles California Gulls were 1st leaving their nesting colonies.
Mike S. 20 Sep 2021 No, ID Documentation is inadequate to establish the ID of this rarity.
Bryan S. 15 Sep 2021 No, ID Not a adequate description of the bird and does not eliminate other more likely species
Mark S. 7 Sep 2021 No, ID Immature California Gull is not eliminated by this description, nor does it fit very well with other than juvenile Heermann's.
David W. 22 Aug 2021 No, ID This might have been a Heermann's gull, but there is far too little information in this report to be certain of the ID. I would have liked to see a description of bill and leg color to be sure.
Kevin W. 7 Sep 2021 No, ID What little description is given (black head and wings, gray neck and front) doesn't really fit a Heermann's Gull (at any stage) any more than it does a dark juvenile gull of any expected species.

 

2021-47 Upland Sandpiper

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 4 Sep 2021 Acc I think the distinctive call would make this a plausible record.
Mike H. 6 Oct 2021 Acc Observer's familiarity with the flight call and overall description.
Max M. 4 Sep 2021 Acc Great record, good documentation of a distinctive "grasspiper" both in appearance and call.
Bryant O. 5 Sep 2021 Acc  
Mike S. 28 Sep 2021 Acc Accepting based on the flyover description and especially the unique call. Good documentation considering the circumstances of the observation.
Bryan S. 15 Sep 2021 Acc  
Mark S. 7 Sep 2021 Acc The call is distinct.
David W. 24 Sep 2021 Acc Good job eliminating other similar species.
Kevin W. 7 Sep 2021 Acc The description, of the sighting (although limited to a quick flyover), seems good; including the distinctive call. The record of another (or same) one a few miles south on the following day may give this support.

   

2021-48 Parasitic Jaeger

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 14 Sep 2021 Acc  
Mike H. 16 Sep 2021 Acc Thanks to this bird hanging around for awhile, every photographer in the area now knows what a Jaeger is.
Max M. 5 Sep 2021 Acc Great find by Bryant. Somewhat difficult individual showing some mixed traits with LTJA. After studying this bird myself in the field and great documentation photos by many, and after sticking around for a few days (maybe longer? We will see), I think there is no doubt that this is a PAJA. Good description eliminates the only other option, LTJA. Lots of experts have weighed in on this bird as well. Slam dunk.
Bryant O. 5 Sep 2021 Acc In the field my initial impression was Long-tailed, but after observing the bird for over 2 hours I began to favor Parasitic. I waited to submit the record until I got a consensus of the ID from multiple sources more experienced with Jaeger/Skua ID than I
Mike S. 28 Sep 2021 Acc Excellent documentation
Bryan S. 15 Sep 2021 Acc  
Mark S. 7 Sep 2021 Acc A well documented record, seen and photographed by many. General structure, wing markings, upper tail coverts, bill structure, tone of color, and more all support Parasitic Jaeger.
David W. 21 Sep 2021 Acc As I wrote in my eBird entry for this bird:

Based on the wonderful photos of Matt, etc, which show the bill size/shape, sharp tail projectlings, the distribution of white shafts in the top side of the wing, and the pattern under the wing, I believe this has to be a Parasitic jaeger.
Kevin W. 16 Sep 2021 Acc Very detailed report and good photos show identifying characteristics.

2021-49 Upland Sandpiper

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 14 Sep 2021 Acc Audio would be distinctive, along with shape
Mike H. 6 Oct 2021 Acc Photo along with description of call and other field marks seem to point to an UPSA.
Max M. 5 Sep 2021 Acc Wierd to vote for the first time on my own record. Unfortunately we didn't get very good documentation photos, but one of them (if not more) is diagnostic in my mind, and I have zero doubt about this bird. I need someone to help me come up with a proper mnemonic for this distinctive call. My only question is, could it possibly be the same bird Bryant saw the day before? Or are they just moving through? We will never know...
Bryant O. 5 Sep 2021 Acc I guess the question is, is this the same bird I saw the day before, or did we have a migration event of them through Utah? We may never know?
Mike S. 4 Oct 2021 Acc Description combined with the photos establish the ID as an Upland Sandpiper. Nice documentation.
Bryan S. 15 Sep 2021 Acc  
Mark S. 7 Oct 2021 Acc Good description; photos, while poor, show enough to support the observation.
David W. 24 Sep 2021 Acc Convincing field marks, photos, and call description.
Kevin W. 16 Sep 2021 Acc I'm not sure that the photos are definitive, although I can't think of what else this might be. The description in the report seems good for Upland Sandpiper.

 

2021-50 White-rumped Sandpiper

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 14 Sep 2021 Acc  
Mike H. 16 Sep 2021 Acc Good documentation.
Max M. 9 Sep 2021 Acc Pretty straight forward. Good documentation and photos. Unless someone can point out a concern, this is a shoo-in.
Bryant O. 7 Sep 2021 Acc Photos leave no doubt
Mike S. 20 Sep 2021 Acc  
Bryan S. 15 Sep 2021 Acc Awesome photos. Interesting that it is 1 day prior to the WR Sand that was in Utah County last year.
Mark S. 7 Oct 2021 Acc Good description and excellent photos.
David W. 8 Sep 2021 Acc Amazing photos.
Kevin W. 16 Sep 2021 Acc Good description and photos, showing white rump, white eyebrow, and color at base of lower mandible.

 

2021-51 Long-tailed Jaeger

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 14 Sep 2021 Acc  

2nd round:  

24 Oct 2021 Acc Continuing to accept
Mike H. 6 Oct 2021 Acc  

2nd round:  

3 Nov 2021 Acc The description fits LTJA and as Mark stated, the photos do not show anything to dispute the field notes.
Max M. 13 Sep 2021 To 2nd Photos are difficult to discern definitive field marks of Jaeger species. Description of bill "long and thin" doesn't match LTJA bill compared to other Jaeger sp. I'm not saying this isn't a LTJA, just want to open this to discussion.

2nd round:  

13 Oct 2021 Acc I learned a good lesson with this one, don't review birds on a cell phone. I talked to Bryant shortly after my first round vote and admitted I screwed up. Some of the lightened photos do support LTJA as many have noted. Along with the description, I vote to accept.
Bryant O. 13 Sep 2021 Acc When I 1st spotted this Jaeger at top speed in flight, I knew ID hinged upon getting photos unless it landed, which it did not. My lack of experience with Jaegers at that time left me confused and uncertain, even with photos, so I sought help with ID which all pointed to Long-tailed, which seemed to go against my size impression in the field so I left it un-identified. My recent sighting of the Parasitic reminded me I needed to revisit this one. In the past year I have gained considerable more experience IDing jaegers in the field and can now see the ID points others suggested.

2nd round:  

13 Oct 2021 Acc I fully expected this one to go to 2nd round. However photo A and F do show the white smudge at the base of P9 and P10 on upper side consistent with LTJA, and the barred tail coverts visible in photo E and C, and the long tail with blunt R1 tips visible in photo A and E. Under bill shape I said "long and thin" as compared to all birds as a relative term, not referring to just Jaegers. Photos don't show the bill well, but the head and bill do look fairly small and petite, consistent with LTJA.
Mike S. 8 Oct 2021 Acc Photos and description match a juvenile Long-tailed Jaeger. Lightened photos C1 and D1 are helpful to assess plumage details and rule out similar species.

2nd round:  

21 Oct 2021 Acc  
Bryan S. 15 Sep 2021 Acc  

2nd round:  

21 Oct 2021 Acc  
Mark S. 12 Oct 2021 Acc Good description, and the photos at least don't argue against the i.d. The structure and coursely-barred undertail coverts support Long-tailed Jaeger.

2nd round:  

14 Oct 2021 Acc I think there's enough here to establish the i.d.
David W. 5 Oct 2021 Acc Good job differentiating from similar species on this tough ID.

2nd round:  

19 Oct 2021 Acc With young Mr. Malmquist's objection withdrawn, I see no reason to change my vote from the 1st round.
Kevin W. 6 Oct 2021 Acc Good description write-up and documentation for a difficult bird.

2nd round:  

25 Oct 2021 Acc Continuing to accept.

  

2021-52 Ruff

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 17 Sep 2021 Acc  
Mike H. 13 Oct 2021 Acc Photo supports description.
Max M. 23 Sep 2021 Acc Poor (but seemingly diagnostic) photo along with good description seems for a pretty straight forward record. What species could this be confused with? REKN? I think there is enough here to accept.
Bryant O. 18 Sep 2021 Acc Description hits all the main field marks, photos, although poor, do support the ID as a Ruff. I'm not sure if its a juvy or female as the warm low smoky sun makes everything look golden like a juvy Ruff would be. Age/sex uncertain, but a Ruff no doubt.
Mike S. 21 Oct 2021 Acc Photos are poor, but I believe the combination of described field marks establishes the ID.
Bryan S. 21 Oct 2021 Acc  
Mark S. 12 Oct 2021 Acc Another record that needs to rest on the written description, since the photos are to poor for positive identification. But the description is solid, and the photos don't contradict the description. Similar species are adequately eliminated.
David W. 24 Sep 2021 Acc The description of the rump is especially convincing, eliminating most other shorebird species.
Kevin W. 6 Oct 2021 Acc Description fits, timing is right, and the photos (although distant and not the best) seem to all match a Ruff. It looks more like a juvenile to me than adult, but that might be an effect of the photos.

 

2021-53 Long-tailed Jaeger

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 28 Sep 2021 Acc  
Mike H. 13 Oct 2021 Acc Good photos.
Max M. 27 Sep 2021 Acc  
Bryant O. 24 Sep 2021 Acc

My immediate impress was a Long-tailed for this Jaeger, due mainly to the, well, long tail. The boldly barred black and white tail coverts and, especially, white shafts seen only on P10 and P9 on upper side all sealed the deal for me. I believe it is a juvenile.
Mike S. 22 Oct 2021 Acc Great photos show a Long-tailed Jaeger.
Bryan S. 21 Oct 2021 Acc  
Mark S. 12 Oct 2021 Acc The photos are diagnostic in this record.
David W. 5 Oct 2021 Acc Great photos and description.
Kevin W. 6 Oct 2021 Acc The photos show good traits for juvenile Long-tailed Jaeger, especially the barred undertail and coloring.

 

2021-54 Parasitic Jaeger

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 28 Sep 2021 Acc  

2nd round:  

17 Nov 2021 No, ID I see the concerns others have with distance; I suppose if I'm going to vote on other records saying we couldn't effectively rule other other jaeger sp, I should be fair and also vote that way on this record.
Mike H. 3 Nov 2021 Acc The photos clearly show ? All joking aside, this has been a banner jaeger year so, the fact of the black spots being jaegers doesn t seem too far off. The description does a good job of eliminating other species of jaeger.

2nd round:  

13 Dec 2021 Acc I understand the concerns with distance, but with the birds observed at a much closer distance initially, I don t feel it s a dealbreaker.
Max M. 27 Sep 2021 Acc  

2nd round:  

4 Nov 2021 Acc I understand the concerns that Mike and David have with the distance, I don't know if it helps but when I initially spotted the jaegers they were almost straight north of us probably closer to 300 yards. I have zero doubts about the ID of these birds, my only regret was wasting my time trying to help beginning birders get on the birds before going to the camera. Probably had a chance to actually get a documentation photo when they were closer. Regardless of whether or not there is enough for this record to pass the committee, this was one of my most memorable bird sightings in Utah. Too bad they weren't Pomarine Jaegers, it would have been nice to get the jaeger trifecta. There was another individual who two weeks later reported a PAJA in the same general area: https://ebird.org/checklist/S96091868 - just like with the LTJA discussion on Utah Lake, 2 weeks is a long time and it easily could have been a different bird - but interesting nonetheless.
Bryant O. 29 Sep 2021 Acc Great spot by Max, I submitted the record because I got a longer better look at them in my Kowa as he tried for photos. Seeing any Jaeger in Utah is a rare treat, seeing an adult especially so, but seeing 3 adults together is unprecedented, truly an exceptional sighting. I officially declare this the Year of the Jaegers!

2nd round:  

8 Nov 2021 Acc I completely understand the concerns about the ID of Jaegers at 500m, but let me try and articulate how I made the ID. In birding I try to learn and grow with every encounter of a species. Even common birds have something new to teach. Over time as I become more and more familiar with a species it becomes a merging of my subconscious and conscious mind that work together to make the ID. We can become so familiar with a bird that the mind can ID the bird without even thinking about it. A House Finch flying over makes a distinctive flight call that I can ID without even looking up at the bird. This is the main reason why I love to travel to new places, where a new set of "common" birds give me the chance to become intimately familiar with their gestalt, so in the event I encounter that species again I will be prepared to recognize it. Many birds only give fleeting glimpses in the field, filtering out the common from the uncommon and knowing where to focus your energy is a huge part of birding, and with time and experience we learn what to look for as well as when and where to look. 2 years ago if I encountered those Jaegers I would not have been comfortable making the ID and would have probably reached for my camera to get photos in the hope that the photos would show something that I couldn't see, or that others with more experience could use to make the ID. But in the past 2 years I have had considerably more experience with Jaegers, both at sea and in the arctic, as well as here, and now have the ability to ID them based on their gestalt. So instead of going for the camera, I took as long a look at them in the field as I could to study their flight style, field marks and behavior, and felt completely confident they were Parasitic. In reality, IDing adult jaegers is actually pretty straight forward, there are significant differences in their plumage, in addition to their flight style and behavior. I've already listed the field marks I used to ID them, but really that's only half the story. Perhaps this is subjective and not scientific enough to "prove" that's what they were, but yet I'm certain they were PAJA. Here is an example of what experience with Jaegers can do, ebird.org/checklist/S96829780 . Note the LTJA IDed at 3/4 of a mile(1.2KM)
I in know way claim to have that level of experience with Jaegers, but I'm getting there. In evaluating records without conclusive photos, of course we need the observer to verify the field marks and list their process of elimination and how they IDed the bird, but they also need to demonstrate that they have had enough experience with the species to know what to look for. We all know how sometimes you just can't get a photo that shows what you saw in the field. This was such a significant record, 3 adults together, even without conclusive photos I wanted it to be documented.
Mike S. 22 Oct 2021 To 2nd I see some field marks in this description that suggest Parasitic Jaegers over similar species. But I do wonder about the reliability of fairly subtle details when viewed at 500 meters. I believe that the actual likelihood that these were Parasitic Jaegers is quite high, which is helped by the experience of the observers. However, I'm not sure if the circumstances of this observation allow for a definitive ID.

2nd round:  

8 Nov 2021 No, ID I agree with David.
I'm not convinced that a definitive ID is possible at this distance. The observers do well to describe what they were able to discern, and I agree that Parasitic is most likely. However, assessing subtle field marks from 500 meters would be a tall order for anyone.
Simply not comfortable accepting under these circumstances.
Bryan S. 21 Oct 2021 Acc Well written report but not sure about those photos - thought I had dust on my computer screen!

2nd round:  

15 Nov 2021 Acc Even with the distance, they did a good job of describing the birds and flight style to eliminate other species
Mark S. 12 Oct 2021 Acc Description fits, even if the photos are useless for identification.

2nd round:  

15 Nov 2021 Acc I understand the concerns about the conditions of the sighting, and the difficulty of jaeger i.d., but a scope was used, so 500 m isn't that far away, and adult light-morph jaegers aren't that difficult to i.d. The description fits Parasitic Jaeger, and can't be easily reconciled with either of the other two species.
David W. 6 Oct 2021 No, ID Although I think it likely that the ID is correct, I feel uncomfortable with an ID made of fast-flying jaegers at half kilometer distance. This is a subtle ID.

2nd round:  

4 Nov 2021 No, ID I'm sorry. I have the absolute highest regards for the observers, but that distance just seems past the upper end of my comfort range. I strongly believe they saw parasitic jaegers, but will have to vote no.
Kevin W. 6 Oct 2021 Acc Although it seems unlikely to me that three Jaegers fly by a birding class on the causeway, the description is good.

2nd round:  

17 Nov 2021 Acc Even though it seems unlikely; I still think this is a good record. I agree with Mark that with a scope and the experience of the observers, it passes.

 

2021-55 Hooded Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 28 Sep 2021 Acc  
Mike H. 6 Oct 2021 Acc Another easy ID
Max M. 27 Sep 2021 Acc Good looking bird... Nice record and find by MS!
Bryant O. 29 Sep 2021 Acc Great photos!
Mike S. 22 Oct 2021 Acc  
Bryan S. 21 Oct 2021 Acc Wish they were all this easy..
Mark S. 12 Oct 2021 Acc No doubt on this one.
David W. 28 Sep 2021 Acc A very distinctive warbler documented with excellent photos and a good writeup. Nice.
Kevin W. 25 Oct 2021 Acc Great photos of distinctive bird.

 

2021-56 Prothonotary Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 24 Oct 2021 Acc Clear ID seen by many.
Mike H. 6 Oct 2021 Acc Easy ID.
Max M. 30 Sep 2021 Acc I was able to see this lovely, chunky warbler briefly that evening after Pomera and Kris found it. Good description.
Bryant O. 30 Sep 2021 Acc Description and experience of observer very convincing. I also saw this bird later the same day she reported it. The size and orangey-yellow color were very striking, as was the length of the bill
Mike S. 22 Oct 2021 Acc Diagnostic photo
Bryan S. 21 Oct 2021 Acc  
Mark S. 14 Oct 2021 Acc Well-documented, distinctive species.
David W. 30 Sep 2021 Acc Excellent description and handling of of similar species.
Kevin W. 25 Oct 2021 Acc Definitive photos provided.

    

2021-57 Long-tailed Jaeger

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 24 Oct 2021 No, ID I'm not sure that other Jaeger species can effectively be ruled out

2nd round:  

14 Dec 2021 No, ID I don't think we can effectively narrow this sighting down to the species level.
Mike H. 3 Nov 2021 Acc Using a few assumptions to fill in the gaps on the description given, it seems to be good for LTJA.

2nd round:  

27 Dec 2021 No, ID I agree with others that there are just too many holes in this description.
Max M. 7 Oct 2021 No, ID This bird was initially described as a Parasitic, and I don't know if the description completely rules out Parasitic. Aging of this bird seems a bit off, but I would like to see what others think. The age given is "adult or subadult" but description matches subadult or juvenile better? Kind of confused.

2nd round:  

27 Nov 2021 No, ID I am continuing to not accept this record. Again - the record submitter initially ID'd the bird as a "Jaeger sp." on both eBird and Facebook Rare Bird Alert when it was discovered on August 21st. They initially described the bird as a "Jaeger sp." but added that it was probably a Parasitic on their eBird report, with no details /field marks provided, just description of behavior and location. Immediately after photos of an actual Long-tailed Jaeger on Utah Lake 22 days later, they changed their eBird list and description to Long-tailed Jaeger. That's 3 weeks later - still with no description of field marks. And then - for a third time - they updated their eBird comments AFTER they submitted a record, on October 2nd to match their comments for the UBRC record. I'm sorry, but it seems a bit sketchy to me to go from "Jaeger sp." on August 21st with a pretty much non-existant description, to somewhat "detailed" field marks on October 2nd (over 2 months past the original sighting). That is a long time to with "added research" without photos to potentially convince yourself that you saw something you may not have seen. Even for intermediately experienced birders (isn't part of our job as reviewers to know not just birds of Utah, but the birders?), it seems concerning to not provide at least some detailed notes at the time of sighting, especially if you are not experienced with certain species. Not to mention I still do not believe the record completely rules out Parasitic. Too many questions and concerns with this one.
Bryant O. 6 Oct 2021 No, ID Thanks Milt for separating this record. As I alluded to, perhaps not so tactfully, I have a lot of concerns about this record. 1st, there change of ID from Parasitic to Long-tailed raised a red flag. IDing a surprise Jaeger at close range with only a 10 second look without photos can be very problematic, especially if one is not experienced enough to know what to look for. The fact they linked to a sub-adult Long-tailed as an example of what they saw is unfortunate since sub-adults are pelagic and virtually unknown inland, a fact they probably didn't realize. They failed to really hit on any solid field marks unique to Long-tailed, such as white on shafts of upper wing, or bill length etc, and seem even unsure what age it was, which greatly effects ID. As such I just don't think they got a good enough look at this bird to have any confidence in their ID, and based on their description it does not seem to be the same Jaeger seen 3 weeks later on Utah Lake farther south.

2nd round:  

23 Nov 2021 No, ID Most concerned about their linking to a sub-adult bird as a match for what they saw, which is highly unlikely. If they can't correctly age the bird, they clearly didn't get a good enough view to ID it to species. I also think the power of suggestion influenced their assessment, as they originally reported it as a Parasitic but then were immediately informed Long-tailed was possible as well. I noted they changed their ID to Long-tailed right after we reported a Long-tailed on Utah Lake, which seemed suspect as well. Records without physical evidence require a very thorough written description to eliminate all other similar species, this record falls short of that.
Mike S. 8 Nov 2021 Acc I am always hesitant to accept fairly brief flyover observations. However, I believe the description of the tail, underwings, and undertail coverts all seem like a good match for a Long-tailed Jaeger.

2nd round:  

15 Dec 2021 No, ID As written, I still believe Long-tailed Jaeger is the best match. However, I agree with others that there is probably too much uncertainty to be confident. The amount of time that elapsed before they settled on the ID is a concern.
Bryan S.  2rd: 14 Dec 2021 No, ID I missed the first round voting, but agree with the comments that is seems a bit sketchy with the observers changing their minds, no photos, short view of a notoriously tough group to ID
Mark S. 14 Oct 2021 Acc Written description adequately eliminates other jaegers - length of central tail feathers, barring of the undertail coverts and lack of white at the base of the primaries eliminates Parasitic Jaeger.

2nd round:  

11 Dec 2021 No, ID While I still think that the description fits Long-tailed Jaeger better than other species, I understand the concerns of other committee members regarding the difficulty of this i.d., and the scant information presented here.

To err on the side of caution, I'll change my vote.
David W. 6 Oct 2021 To 2nd I struggled with this one. The record, although good for a Long-tailed jaeger, is a bit sparse and doesn't do a great job in eliminating the possibility of a Parasitic with long central rectrices. The breast pattern does lean toward a Long-tailed, but there are examples of Parasitics with dark-breast/head and white belly too.

2nd round:  

9 Dec 2021 No, ID I just have too many concerns that the case has been inadequately made in this record.
Kevin W. 25 Oct 2021 Acc Description seems good for Long-tailed Jaeger.

2nd round:  

20 Dec 2021 No, ID I agree with others, that Parasitic Jaeger isn't sufficiently ruled out, and the changing of the species identification by the reporter in ebird and facebook seem suspect.

 

2021-58 Parasitic Jaeger

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 26 Oct 2021 No, ID Without a photo or detailed description I don't think we can fully rule out other jaeger species

2nd round:  

29 Dec 2021 No, ID Other species not effectively eliminated.
Mike H. 15 Nov 2021 To 2nd Description doesn t do a good job of eliminating other Jaeger sp.

2nd round:  

27 Dec 2021 No, ID I still believe that there isn t enough in the description to rule out other jaeger sp..
Max M. 12 Oct 2021 No, ID I don't believe other jaeger species can be ruled out based on the description provided, especially given unknown age of the individual.

2nd round:  

27 Nov 2021 No, ID Sounds like other reviewers share my concerns.
Bryant O. 10 Oct 2021 No, ID Although it has been an exceptional good year for Jaegers, not just in Utah but across the continent inland, a couple things seem incomplete on this record. I'm most troubled by the fact other species of Jaeger were not even considered in similar species. Also the fact age was uncertain is troubling, as different rules apply to ID adults or juveniles. If they didn't get a good enough look to age it, they probably didn't get a good enough look to ID it to species. I believe they saw a Jaeger, but its not clear to me which species.

2nd round:  

23 Nov 2021 No, ID Although probably a Parasitic, no real attempt to eliminate other Jaeger species or age the bird are a big concern of mine. Records without physical evidence require a very thorough written description to eliminate all other similar species, this record falls short of that.
Mike S. 8 Nov 2021 No, ID Not enough detail in this description to ID to species.

2nd round:  

7 Dec 2021 No, ID I still don't believe there is enough in this description to definitively rule out similar species.
Bryan S. 2nd: 14 Dec 2021 No, ID  Does not eliminate other Jaeger species
Mark S. 14 Oct 2021 Acc I don't like that nothing was written about how the other jaegers were eliminated, but the description doesn't fit anything other than Parasitic Jaeger.

2nd round:  

11 Dec 2021 No, ID Again, I can be convinced to err on the side of caution, and not accept a record that is inadequately written.
David W. 13 Oct 2021 No, ID I think this record, though leaning toward Parasitic, is a bit too
vague to ID down to species with certainty.

2nd round:  

9 Dec 2021 No, ID I will stick with my original vote.
Kevin W. 25 Oct 2021 Acc Description seems good for Parasitic Jaeger.

2nd round:  

20 Dec 2021 No, ID Other reviewers have convincing arguments that this report did not adequately eliminate other species, or supply enough detail to do so.

   

2021-59 Red Phalarope

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 24 Oct 2021 Acc  
Mike H. 15 Nov 2021 Acc  
Max M. 12 Oct 2021 Acc I was lucky enough to see this bird and ID it myself. Nice find!
Bryant O. 10 Oct 2021 Acc Although I could not see this field mark in the field, photos of this bird do show it does indeed have a very tiny amount of pink at the base of the lower mandible, as seen here: https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/376457881
Mike S. 8 Nov 2021 Acc Nice photos and description.
Bryan S. 27 Oct 2021 Acc  
Mark S. 14 Oct 2021 Acc Good documentation, diagnostic photos and video.
David W. 13 Oct 2021 Acc The shape of the bill and the base color affirm this ID.
Kevin W. 2 Nov 2021 Acc Photos show characteristics of Red Phalarope including plain gray back and thick bill.

 

2021-60 Tropical Kingbird

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 24 Oct 2021 No, ID I'm not convinced that other kingbird species are effectively ruled out here

2nd round:  

14 Dec 2021 No, ID Again, we can't effectively narrow this sighting down to the species level
Mike H. 13 Oct 2021 No, ID I don t believe the photos, or the written description, are detailed enough to ID this bird at the species level. I agree that recent history has told us that TRKI is the most likely, but this sight record is still not conclusive.

2nd round:  

13 Dec 2021 No, ID I still feel there isn't enough information to ID this individual at the species level.
Max M. 12 Oct 2021 No, ID While this may in fact be a Tropical Kingbird, especially given the timing of this species and their typical northward movement, the description without vocal confirmation and the quality of photos does not adequately eliminate Couch's in my opinion.

2nd round:  

27 Nov 2021 No, ID Seems like we all had the same feelings in the first round. The observer is a good birder, but I think that he realizes there isn't enough to eliminate Couch's.
Bryant O. 13 Oct 2021 To 2nd Not sure what to do with this one. I can't get any color off the photos, and the observer made no attempt what so ever to eliminate Cassin's or Couch's? However, in all likelihood it is a Tropical, but can we say with any certainty it is not a Couch's even though Tropical is more likely? The bill does look fairly long, which favors Tropical. What do other think?

2nd round:  

23 Nov 2021 No, ID I agree the observer made no attempt to eliminate Couch's and the photos are not sufficient on their own to do so. I was torn because I think this probably is a Tropical, but not with enough certainty to accept.
Mike S. 2 Nov 2021 No, ID The poor photos appear to be consistent with a Tropical Kingbird. However, with no vocalization, Tropical/Couch's are extremely difficult to separate even with excellent photos. The written description doesn't provide any additional details that are lacking from the photos, nor does the observer make any effort to rule out a Couch's (likely an impossible task under these conditions).
One could argue for a TRKI based on probability, but aside from that, there simply isn't enough here to ID to species.

2nd round:  

7 Dec 2021 No, ID My first round concerns remain.
Bryan S.  2nd: 14 Dec 2021 No, ID no attempt to eliminate couch's & probably not possible from photos
Mark S. 14 Oct 2021 No, ID This is clearly either a Couch's or Tropical Kingbird, but there is nothing in this observation that could distinguish between those two species. The observer seems to have overlooked the possibility that it could be a Couch's.

Yes, presumably Tropical would be much more likely, both by range and date, but without vocalizations, there's no way to know for sure. And who knows how much bias is in that data, since it seems that Tropical is the default species of this pair for silent western vagrant sightings, and Couch's only chosen for vocalizing birds.

Regardless, I don't think accepting only according to range, date, or probability is a good practice for this committee, and we unfortunately have nothing else to go on here.

2nd round:  

11 Dec 2021 No, ID As per my first round comments.
David W. 13 Oct 2021 No, ID Interestingly, no attempt was made to differetiate this from the nearly-identical Couch's kingbird. I agree this is a Tropical/Couch's kingbird, but with the unfortunate quality of the photos and lack of voice data, I think this record lacks enough specificity to differentiate beyond that. The bill size does hint at Tropical, but I looked at some skins online that make me hesitate.

2nd round:  

7 Dec 2021 No, ID I've nothing further to add.
Kevin W. 2 Nov 2021 No, ID I wouldn't mind seeing some discussion on this one, particularly to rule out Couch's Kingbird. The submitter didn't try to rule out Couch's, and I'm not sure that the photos are definitive (although that is a big bill).