Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society
   
Status & Comments
Year 2022 (records 1 through 30)

2022-01 Mexican Duck

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 24 Jan 2022 To 2nd I think we need to come up with a criteria for accepting these Mexican duck records. Every record has some degree of hybridization. Where do we draw the line for "pure enough" to accept? And do we? Pushing through to the second round for discussion

2nd round:

 9 Mar 2022 No, ID I'm going to vote no on this due to the slight curl in the tail feather and how dark the upper tail is. Obviously a mixed genetic duck, albeit mostly Mexican. Should discuss standards further.
Mike H. 8 Feb 2022 To 2nd  

2nd round:

 18 Mar 2022 Acc Agreed with others that there needs to be better criteria on what should be accepted. The We could pick apart every record do MEDU or Looks good enough are comments that are rarely mentioned when speaking of YBSA.
Max M. 9 Jan 2022 To 2nd I don't think this is as "pure" of an example of a MEDU as the previous record in Washington County. Superficially shows mostly MEDU traits but central tail feathers showing a slight curl and the rump seems blackish (although some scalloping visible). How "pure" does it have to be to pass as a Utah Mexican Duck? I don't know - I want to see what other reviewers think on this one.

2nd round:

9 Feb 2022 Acc It seems most are comfortable considering this within the range of variation for a Utah "Mexican Duck". Still a bit fuzzy on the criteria.
Keeli M.. 18 Jan 2022 Acc Fairly good photos. This bird shows strong characteristics supporting ID of Mexican Duck: Dark brown coverts and tail feathers without any curling (hybrid would show white and curling), clean demarcation between breast and lighter tan throat, dark cap and eye line on lighter tan face, and olive green bill. What little we can see of of the speculum appears blue/turquoise with thin white edging supporting Mexican duck ID. Described behavior - not taking food from people and remaining in the water - could also support ID of Mexican duck. Super dark (blackish) coverts might be a hybrid indicator, but Mexican/mallard hybrids should show white, not black on covert and tail feathers. Size of duck (larger than mallard female) might also be indicative of hybridization, but could also be possibly explained by natural variation. Cumulatively, traits support ID as Mexican duck, and it's likely that most MEDUs contain some hybrid genes at this point.

2nd round:

 

 8 Feb 2022 Acc Agree that better criteria might be needed to decide what constitutes a "pure enough" MEDU. Still consider the evidence supportive enough to accept as MEDU.
Bryant O. 8 Jan 2022 Acc Again, we could nit pick about the purity of this bird and call it a potential hybrid, but this one looks pretty good to me.

2nd round:

 

 22 Feb 2022 Acc In the past decade Mexican Ducks have greatly increased their presence in the US north of the border, in southern AZ they are now one of the commonest waterfowl encountered. At the same time we have seen a dramatic increase in their occurrence here, so I think its important to document that range expansion in the interior west. Perhaps at one time no "pure" Mexican Ducks occurred in the US, but I'm not sure that is still the case? The same may happen in Utah as well. With greater occurrence, we also see more hybrids, indeed I saw an almost Mallard type yesterday. Whether we call them all hybrids or not, its important to understand what's happening on the ground with these new ducks. I think even in MX there is not full agreement as to what a "pure " bird is, hence their treatment as a ssp. for so long. In my mind, clear and obvious F1 and F2 hybrids should be called as such, but does having a great great great grandfather as a Mallard make it impure? The tail is the best thing to look at, and this one has a brown tail with almost no curl to R1, and although there are some dark markings in the feathers of the rump, the rump is not solid black. So to my eye, it looks good for a Mexican. I presume this will no be the last time we have this discussion...
Kris P. 4 Feb 2022 Acc  

2nd round:

 

 11 Feb 2022 Acc We're bound to have the challenge of "What's the standard?" with every Mexican Duck record unless we take action to accept some general guidance so Mexican Duck records won't be subject to nine different standards. Following Sibley and other authors who offer the wisdom that any Mexican duck north of the U.S.-Mexico border is not pure means we'd have an if-then situation on our hands: If a Mexican Duck is observed in Utah, then it's not a pure Mexican Duck. It would be pointless for any observer to submit a record of this species if we adopted that stringent guidance as I believe it should result in a Not Accepted result every time. I suggest we use the guidance recommended by Leukering and Mlodinow, "The Mexican Duck in Colorado, Identification and Occurrence", Colorado Birds, October 2012, Vol. 46 No. 4 that recommends "...any bird exhibiting no sign of gene introgression should be acceptable to us as an individual of the species it appears to be...". Adopting this philosophy doesn't mean we'll vote in lockstep as what each member takes from photos might be different. I still accept this record as a Mexican Duck even considering signs of introgression that some of you have mentioned: Green cast to the crown (given the quality of the images, I don't see it), slightly curled tail feathers (not visible when the bird is at rest in half the photos, so how convincing is that feature?) and black on the upper tail (not enough for me to take it as a conclusive sign).

Is there another solution? Is my recommendation more like trying to pound a round peg into a square hole despite what we know about Mallard introgression north of the Mexico border?

The related sticky subjects are what constitutes a species, is our species construct entirely valid, and must every bird fit in that construct? We birders and scientists like to categorize since it keeps the world neat, but perhaps everything doesn't fit into what we accept as a category.
Mike S. 19 Jan 2022 Acc I suspect some may pick out the very slight tail feather curl or the dark uppertail coverts as a reason to call this one a hybrid.
While this bird shows some traits consistent with Mallard introgression, these are quite subtle, and I don't see these as anything out of range of normal variation for Mexican Ducks in the US.

2nd round:

 

 10 Feb 2022 Acc I don't believe there is any widely agreed-upon criteria for Mexican Duck ID as it relates to dealing with Mallard characteristics. However, as mentioned by David, it is unlikely that there are any truly "pure" Mexican Ducks in the US anyway. As a personal standard, if I have to closely assess photos to nit-pick potential Mallard traits, then it's probably within range of variation for a north-of-the-border Mexican Duck.
David W. 11 Jan 2022 Acc There is definitely some green shine in the cap in some of the photos, and perhaps the chest is a hint more chestnut than the flanks, but the Committee seems to be voting to accept these back-mixed birds based on the understanding that there is no "pure" Mexican duck north of the border and for a ways down as well. The bill color, lack of curl above the tail, the dark tail feathers, the head contrast to the body, lack of black gape spot, all these point to a Mexican [mostly] duck.

2nd round:

 

 25 Feb 2022 Acc Unless there is a better established process for answering such questions, I suggest that we somehow try to set up a Zoom call to discuss this issue of Mexipato purity. We may even wish to draw in some previous members of the Committee with expertise on this issue.
--
But until then, I will vote to accept. Nothing new to add.
Kevin W. 3 Feb 2022 Acc This seems like a good candidate for Mexican Duck to me.

2nd round:

9 Mar 2022 Acc I still think that this duck shows enough good traits to be a Mexican Duck.

 

2022-02 Black-throated Blue Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 24 Jan 2022 Acc Clear record, good find
Mike H. 21 Jan 2022 Acc Photo documentation.
Max M. 19 Jan 2022 Acc  
Keeli M.. 18 Jan 2022 Acc Good photos, strongly supported ID.
Bryant O. 17 Jan 2022 Acc Photos conclusive. They texted me the photo for ID confirmation so I asked them to submit a record
Kris P. 6 Feb 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 19 Jan 2022 Acc Definitive photos.
David W. 20 Jan 2022 Acc Excellent photos confirm the ID. Well done, Sara.
Kevin W. 3 Feb 2022 Acc Photo shows distinct characteristics of Black-throated Blue Warbler.

 

2022-03 Winter Wren

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 24 Jan 2022 No, ID Warm coloration feels more like Pacific Wren to me.

2nd round:

9 Mar 2022 No, ID Warm coloration seems better for Pacific.
Mike H.  2nd:      

2nd round:

18 Mar 2022 No, ID I believe this bird to be a PAWR.
Max M. 28 Jan 2022 To 2nd While the description of the call seems to support Winter Wren, Winter and Pacific calls can be difficult to distinguish for inexperienced birders. In the photos I see plumage characteristics that seem to better support the more likely species - Pacific Wren (darker rustier tones overall, not very contrasty throat, chestnut/rufous upperparts, not seeing any grayish tones, lack of barring and contrast overall). I know many of these characteristics can be subjective, I would like to see what other reviewers think. Having a hard time confirming this without a recording.

2nd round:

 

 1 Mar 2022 No, ID Other reviewers confirmed the concerns I expressed in the first round..
Keeli M.. 24 Jan 2022 No, ID Sibley notes that the difference in call note pitch alone is not sufficient to distinguish between Pacific and Winter wrens. Identification of the two species by appearance is challenging, but this bird appears more rufous overall (Winter would be a grayer brown) with a much smoother (less barred) breast, as you would expect in a Pacific Wren, not a Winter Wren.

2nd round:

5 Mar 2022 No, ID Plumage characteristics better support Pacific wren, and I echo what other reviewers wrote about memory of the call not being sufficient to rule out Pacific, especially given the observers lack of experience with either species.
Bryant O. 24 Jan 2022 To 2nd Although their description of the call sounds good for Winter, I'm concerned with the observers lack of experience with either Winter or Pacific Wren and the fact they didn't even consider Pacific in the field during observation. Unfortunately Merlin may have biased their field assessment. I know that once I listen to a recording of a call, I have a hard time remembering the call I actually heard in the field. This is a tricky ID, not one to be attempted by beginners using Merlin IMO.

2nd round:

5 Mar 2022 No, ID I agree it looks better for Pacific and it sounds like most of us have concerns their lack of experience with Winter/Pacific Wrens as well.
Kris P. 7 Feb 2022 No, ID Excellent photos, which are not all that easy to get of a Troglodytes sp., show the bird to be a Pacific Wren. While the chip call is diagnostic, comparing a memory of a call never heard before this incident from either Pacific or Winter Wren after the fact with several audio resources is full of pitfalls and more likely to muddle that memory rather than be helpful.

2nd round:

17 Mar 2022 No, ID No change in opinion from my original comments.
Mike S. 2 Feb 2022 No, ID Visually, this bird appears to be a Pacific Wren with darker rusty underparts and less heavily-marked flanks than what I would expect for a typical Winter Wren. A diagnostic recording of the call would override this concern, but the call description is less definitive than I would like. At the very least, Pacific Wren cannot be ruled out.

2nd round:

 

 28 Feb 2022 No, ID No changes of opinion.
David W. 8 Feb 2022 To 2nd I'm sorry to punt on this one. I have gone back & forth on this record. It sure is on the rufous side of Troglodytes wrens, and lacks some of the patterning I would hope to see in Winter wrens. The observer did note the calls, but doesn't do a great job describing how they used them to differentiate from a Pacific wren.
His writeup seems to hint at his inexperience with the Pacific wren, so that makes me more hesitant. I agree with the observer that it is unfortunate they did not get a recording.

2nd round:

 

 25 Feb 2022 No, ID Well, not seeing anything but confirmatory doubt from my fellow Committee members. Seeing no arguments to the contrary, I will stick with my original concerns that this looks more like a Pacific wren. I don't think an adequate case for Winter wren has been made.
Kevin W. 3 Feb 2022 No, ID Not having recordings of the voice, we can't judge on that, but from the photos provided, I believe this to be the expected Pacific Wren. Overall color is rich cinnamon-rufous. The throat and breast color are pretty uniform. The breast is relatively unstreaked. Other features that are supposed to distinguish the two species seem rather subjective or supposedly variable.

2nd round:

 

 9 Mar 2022 No, ID I can't rule out Pacific Wren, which it seems more like to me.

 

2022-04 Ruff

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 9 Mar 2022 Acc  
Mike H. 18 Mar 2022 Acc  
Max M. 22 Feb 2022 Acc Great find(s) by the Idaho crew and good documentation.
Keeli M.. 5 Mar 2022 Acc Photos are fairly diagnostic and show good size comparison with yellowlegs. The description of the U-shape white markings on uppertail coverts is pretty diagonostic. Bird(s) were observed and ID confirmed by multiple birders. Photos, while not the highest quality due to distance, are supportive of ID.
Bryant O. 22 Feb 2022 Acc Well written record and the many photos available leave no doubt. As mentioned, me and Max chased this bird and meet Darren in the parking lot, we followed his directions, and as we approached many yellowlegs got up and flew around, causing us a bit of anxiety, but then re-landed fairly close to shore, but alas it was not in that group. So I started scanning the more distant yellowlegs farther out, and quickly found a scaly backed Ruff, motioning to Max "got it". But as I was watching it, much to my surprise, another walked up and joined the other! One had greenish legs the other bright orange. I'm not sure how/if leg color changes in Ruff as they mature, but both were females based on the fact they were smaller than Greater Yellowlegs (I've seen a male next to Greater Yellowlegs at Farmington Bay, they are notably bigger) and both were in identical adult plumage with gray/brown back and a white belly, not the golden buffy plumage of a juvenile. So there we had em, 2 Reeve as happy as can be.
Kris P. 21 Mar 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 28 Feb 2022 Acc Nice record, confirmed with photos and backed up by many observers.
David W. 25 Feb 2022 Acc Seen and reported by very many competent birders. Nice writeup.
Surely, seeing how long these birds have been around, someone got some clearer photos than the heroic efforts included with this record. I know I certainly did NOT, but I saw folks with some mighty mighty lenses while there.
Kevin W. 9 Mar 2022 Acc The photos show what the observer described, specifically, the scaled back, down-turned bill, small-headed appearance. It seems to fit a Ruff.

 

2022-05 Great Gray Owl

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 9 Mar 2022 Acc Crazy record

2nd round:

23 Apr 2022 Acc  
Mike H. 18 Mar 2022 To 2nd There is no doubt on the ID of the bird in the photo. My only question is if this photo was actually taken in Utah. Observer on eBird is from Canada. Are there other photos? Does anyone know the observer? Just curious if anyone else has these concerns?

2nd round:

24 Apr 2022 Acc  
Max M. 10 Mar 2022 Acc  

2nd round:

14 Apr 2022 Acc Thanks to Kris and Stephanie for sleuthing to confirm this siting. Nice record!
Keeli M.. 6 Apr 2022 Acc Conclusive photo.
Bryant O. 8 Mar 2022 Acc Photos leave no doubt, but good example of an account that would be hard to believe without photos. Hopefully it didn't end up "controlled" on the Hill Field runway...

2nd round:

6 Apr 2022 Acc I see no evidence of deception and Stephanie's skills in cyber sleuthing seem to corroborate her Utah residency and the location. FYI, according to my UDWR contacts we do have a few GGOW potentially nesting in Utah in the Bear River Range north of Tony's Grove that have been found on surveys. They of course keep the sightings and locations well hidden, which eBirds policy of treating GGOW as a sensitive species helps with, so its not as far out of range as records indicate. But an exceptional yard bird for the Wasatch Front!
Kris P. 31 Mar 2022 Acc  

2nd round:

6 Apr 2022 Acc I know Amy and I find no reason not to accept this record. Amy works for the PacifiCorps Raptor Hazard Mitigation Program with Val Frojker and has been involved in a personal effort to establish a bird feeder at Snowbasin Ski Resort as a foot in the door to (again) try to make that ski area a research site for the rosy-finch study. I exchanged e-mails with her after she filed the record:
------ Original message------
From: Amy Harvey
Date: Tue, Mar 8, 2022 6:23 PM
To: kristinpurdy15@gmail.com;
Cc:
Subject:Re: GGOW Record

Right!? So wild!!! I couldn t believe my eyes so I had to go see for myself. Very cool but also alarming!

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 4:51 PM kristinpurdy15@gmail.com <kristinpurdy15@gmail.com> wrote:
Amy,

Your Great Gray Owl sighting is quite a shocker. What a weird place and time for that bird to appear.

Thanks for submitting that record.

Kris

Sent from my Verizon LG Smartphone
--
Amy Harvey
(801)845-8533
Mike S. 8 Mar 2022 Acc Despite the lack of description, the photo clearly shows a Great Gray Owl.
Nice record of a species that may wander into Utah more often than we realize.

2nd round:

7 Apr 2022 Acc Thanks to Stephanie and Kris for providing the additional details. This should eliminate any doubt about the location. Great record!
David W. 17 Mar 2022 Acc As unexpected as the location sounds, the photo is pretty convincing.

Although Barred owls and Spotted owls also have concentric rings on their facial discs, those species (which are brown) lack yellow eyes and have pale spots on their backs rather than dark ones.

2nd round:

14 Apr 2022 Acc Kristin's posting reinforces my first round vote. Wonder what happened to that lost bird..
Kevin W. 9 Mar 2022 Acc It sure is. Wow.

2nd round:

14 Apr 2022 Acc Identity not in question; and it's authenticity seems legitimate as well.

  

2022-06 Mute Swan

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 19 Mar 2022 No, Int Per email discussion, we're not sure if it meets the requirements to be on the review list

2nd round:

23 Apr 2022 No, Int  
Mike H.   2nd: 24 Apr 2022 No, Int  
Max M. 31 Mar 2022 To 2nd Breeding and locally established. I don't think we need to review this species, just need to decide what criteria (our own? Or other organizations') we need to use for evaluating establishment/status. How long/what numbers are goof enough?

2nd round:

7 May 2022 No, Int Thanks Kevin for the detailed ABA info, I agree with David and others - we should probably codify our criteria, whether that is our own or even the ABAs.
Keeli M.. 6 Apr 2022 No, Int According to the ABA criteria - I'm still unsure whether there is sufficient gene flow between these populations to consider them established, and I'm also unsure as to whether they are targets of any control efforts.

2nd round:

16 May 2022 No, Int I agree with everyone's comments. While the distinct populations may be self-sustaining locally, I don't think their populations in Utah are sufficient to consider them established, nor do I believe there's any gene flow occurring at the state level.
Bryant O. 13 Mar 2022 To 2nd My intent is not to argue for their acceptance, but to establish how long they have been nesting in Utah and how many do we have? And to discuss when/if they could be considered to meet the status of "established"? I've seen juveniles at this location for at least a decade and have seen them on nests and with young at Tonaquints pond as well for several consecutive years. Do we follow ABA rules on acceptance of exotics? Anyone know more details of nesting? What do other think?

2nd round:

17 Apr 2022 No, Int OK, the committee doesn't seem to think they are establish so I'll drop this. But what does their populations need to be and how many nesting pairs and fledged chicks before both populations become established? That number is not clear to me, but seems we will only get more as time goes on. With climate change, we should anticipate more exotics, such as is happening in AZ and CA with parrots and other tropical species now, as their populations expand they will begin to wander into Utah. I don't think ABA is looking specifically at Utah so passing the buck may not always work for us.
Kris P. 17 Mar 2022 No, Int I accept Bryant's intent that this record is a tool to resolve the greater issue of setting a standard to determine when an exotic species is established according to the initial discussion on the RECCOM list serv, rather than a review species for committee consideration using a record submission. But the obligation to review it remains as long as the record remains. Both No, Nat and No, Int apply given that the provenance of these birds is undetermined. It's a safe bet that aviculture escapees, aviculture established at particular sites, transients and swans hatched in the wild all exist in Utah. Which status do the swans of this record hold? They don't appear to have markings that indicate wild or aviculture, nor did Bryant report observing markings, but the legs aren't visible for the sake of bands or present/absent halluces. So we just ... don't ... know. Let the discussion continue in other fora.

2nd round:

7 May 2022 No, Int To address Bryant's question "what does their populations need to be and how many nesting pairs and fledged chicks before both populations become established?", I think any number we come up with is arbitrary and unknowable. I believe we're going to have to kick this can down the road and consider the question again when data shows the populations are increasing more than we see now and birds are appearing in additional locations. My gut says the DWR will develop an eradication program should this happen, even though right now (3/17/22 e-mail exchange with with Blair Stringham, Migratory Bird Program Manager) they're not considering one and the division removes them only when they find Mute Swans in waterfowl management areas.

Generally two locations is not widespread enough in my opinion, and Kevin's research into the numbers shows the occurrence still to be quite low and not justifying calling them established.

Thanks very much, Kevin, for your extensive research.
Mike S. 12 Apr 2022 To 2nd Photos clearly show Mute Swans, so the ID is not in question. Regarding provenance and whether this species should be added to our Utah list:
As Bryant mentions, this species is clearly common around St. George and they often nest here (most notably at Tonaquint). It's quite easy to find this species at many of our ponds in the St. George area.
I suppose it would be difficult to determine what percentage of these birds are escaped captives vs. offspring of established wild populations. However, I would lean towards acceptance based on the frequency of observations and our knowledge of nesting/recruitment.

Regardless of what is decided, I don't believe we should be reviewing this species going forward. I will try to be better prepared to provide additional input during the next voting round, but thanks to everyone for the research you have shared in the email thread.

2nd round:

12 May 2022 No, Int I agree with others that there are too many 'red flags' and unknowns regarding potential establishment of this species. I cannot ever recall seeing a Mute Swan outside of local parks/golf courses/residential areas here in Washington County, and it appears that eBird shows a similar situation (only occasional records at the local reservoirs, even the ones not far from residential areas). All of this may indicate that the population here is not self-sustaining (consistent with the point raised by Kevin).

Regarding birds elsewhere in the state, such as Deer Creek - I agree with others that the current population(s) is not yet large enough to be considered 'established.' This topic may well be worth revisiting several years down the road, but for now, I believe it's better to leave this species off of our state checklist based on data currently available.
David W. 17 Mar 2022 No, Int Although it appears to be increasing in my experience, I do not think the population of this species is sufficiently large to argue for true established status. One has to remember that these birds are very large and obvious, so likely to be noticed if present, so the ones we regularly see on a regular basis do not necessarily indicate a large number of individuals. It is my opinion that the two main populations in the state, in Heber Valley and the St. George area, do not exceed 50 individuals total. Maybe there are more than I think, but in the absence of official, professional census numbers (surely DNR has such data), I will vote for now to continue to consider this species insufficiently established to be placed on our main checklist. I am willing to be convinced with proper data.

2nd round:

4 May 2022 No, Int I've nothing to add to my first round comments. Thanks to Kevin for his in-depth dive on this issue.

Are we as a Committee done clarifying our approach to introduced species, or do we wish to better codify our criteria? I think the latter is the better approach.
Kevin W. 31 Mar 2022 No, Int Bryant poses a great question here, and as has been indicated in back-and-forth emails, one that will return often in the future for other species- that is, has Mute Swan become established in Utah?
The American Birding Association (ABA) has accepted Mute Swan populations to be established throughout much of the mid-west and east, as well as southwestern British Columbia and the Austin region of Texas (the last population being documented through ebird reports dating back to 2003) https://www.aba.org/aba-area-introduced-species/.
In regards to the population that Bryant mentions in the St. George area, I do not think this meets the criteria that ABA sets for established populations, specifically number 7: The population is not directly dependent on human support. Although the Mute Swans around St. George fly around from duck pond and golf course pond regularly, they all get fed. They rarely show up at locations where duck feeding does not occur, and if they do, they don't stay there long.
In regards to the Deer Creek population, Bryant says that they've been documented since 2002, and "nesting annual for X? years." The ebird records show that they have been there since at least 2011, and some submitters indicate that they've been breeding there for several years (Dave Hascom, 2 March 2018). Note, though, that they shouldn't be accepted until after they've been breeding for 15 years. The maximum number of birds observed, though was only 9. In my subjective opinion, nine birds does not an established population make.
If Deer Creek birds are expanding and the actual population is much more than that, I might reverse that opinion. I'm very interested in others' comments.

2nd round:

18 Apr 2022 No, Int The ABA has set criteria for determining establishment of exotic species, which is helpful: https://www.aba.org/criteria-for-determining-establishment-of-exotics/

I feel that the Mute Swan "populations" in Utah fall short on several points:
3) The population is not currently, and is not likely to be, the subject of a control program where eradication may be a management goal that is likely to succeed. Providing Utah has valuable populations of Tundra and Trumpeter Swans, it seems highly likely that control programs will be established to control Mute Swans once they begin to interact.
4) The population is large enough to survive a routine amount of mortality or nesting failure. The ABA doesn't set a number of individuals to be "large enough," but indicate that ideally, it should contain several hundred individuals. The Mute Swans haven't reached near that quantity.
5) Sufficient offspring are being produced to maintain or increase the population. From ebird records, it seems that the populations fluctuate, and even though they have been breeding for several years, often remain at only a handful of individuals.
6) The population has been present for at least 15 years. The earliest I can find evidence of breeding in ebird for the Deer Creek Reservoir population is Dave Hascom's record from 2 March 2014, indicating that a couple of his swans were first-year birds. This would indicate that the breeding population has only been documented for eight years.
7) The population is not directly dependent on human support.I feel that the Washington County population doesn't meet this criteria; Mute Swans here are regularly fed and only regularly frequent areas where they are fed.

I looked into Mute Swans in California and Washington, and found the following for CA: A moderately sized resident population occurs in the north San Francisco Bay area and near Sacramento, probably numbering several hundred individuals. Smaller numbers are found elsewhere in northern California from San Benito County north to the Oregon border, primarily west of the Sierra Nevada. Single birds and pairs are occasionally recorded in southern California, likely representing local escapees from aviculture, though some reports of juveniles may be the result of dispersal from successful local breeding. Pairs breed occasionally, but there is currently no well-established population in southern California. Given its potential status as a pest species, it currently has a low potential to be added to the state list.

And I was emailed this response from WA: Widely introduced to N.America, has developed self-sustaining population in various parts of the continent, including s. B.C. (Ciaranca et al. 1997). In Washington, sporadic breeding has occurred at several sites around the Puget Trough and nr. Yakima. Not currently established in Washington, likely due at least in part to control activities by WDFW. Listed as a deleterious exotic wildlife species by WDFW in 1997, so the species cannot be kept in captivity or released without special authorization. The control activities and the listing are in response to reports that feral populations elsewhere in N. America compete with native waterfowl and impact aquatic vegetation [Kaufman et al. 1996]. The small number of winter records from coastal areas from the small s. B.C. populations on Vancouver I., at Stanley Park in Vancouver. and Pitt L. (W. Weber p.c.). Records elsewhere, including many summer records, are likely escapees from captivity.

Providing both these states have many more Mute Swans that in Utah, and both feel that their populations are not yet established, I feel that Utah's Mute Swan population falls far short of this metric.

 

 2022-07 Vaux's Swift

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 19 Mar 2022 Acc  
Max M. 31 Mar 2022 Acc  
Keeli M.. 6 Apr 2022 Acc Good photo (especially of a swift!). Write-up and photo support ID. Lighter ventral plumage supports ID as Vaux's and not Chimney to me.
Bryant O. 20 Mar 2022 Acc The photos do seem to show the shorter, broader wings and more compact structure of a Vaux's vs Chimney, plus the overall paler color favors VASW as well.
Kris P. 31 Mar 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 20 Apr 2022 Acc Nice photo description adequately rules out the similar (but far less likely) Chimney Swift.
David W. 22 Mar 2022 Acc Looks good. Remarkable photo, which is not unusual for Jeff.
Kevin W. 14 Apr 2022 Acc Well written description; good photos eliminate similar Chimney Swift.

 

2022-08 Mexican Duck

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 10 May 2022 No, ID This one falls too far in the hybrid zone for me. Reddish breast and curled uppertail coverts.
Mike H. 13 May 2022 No, ID I believe this is a hybrid. The white collar at the base of the neck is a good indicator.
Max M. 31 Mar 2022 No, ID Lack of description doesn't help, and quality of photos difficult to discern some details.Tail curl and white looks like a solid hybrid. . Still need criteria
Keeli M.. 6 Apr 2022 No, ID My feeling on this one is the white in the tail (based on Photo D specifically) makes it a hybrid. Mexican duck traits are present (brown plumage coupled with bill that is the olive yellow color, dark cap and eyeline), but the presence of those white tail feathers tells me it's not pure Mexican duck.
Bryant O. 30 Mar 2022 No, ID Even in the poor photos we can see white outer tail feathers and a half curl in the tail. Additionally the record provided no further description disusing hybrid possibilities, so hybrid was not even considered?
Kris P. 1 Apr 2022 No, ID Terse narrative description and not addressing in the Similar Species section a MEDU x MALL hybrid, the most likely confusing taxa given that this bird is a drake, leave the heavy lifting of supporting the ID to the photos. Unfortunately, the distance and bright light of the viewing circumstances obscures the fidelity of detail necessary. This bird shows signs of introgression including a white neck-ring and curled tail feathers. The white outer tail feathers may be feather color or an artifact of light due to the bright day, so that important feature is indeterminate. The upper- and under-tail covert color and pattern can't be assessed from the pictures, nor are qualities of the specula visible. These features may have been more easily assessed in person than the photos reflect, but I can't see enough in the photos to offset the signs of introgression and accept this record.
Mike S. 7 Apr 2022 No, ID I'm seeing several obvious Mallard characteristics in this bird, particularly a white neck ring, pale tail feathers with a prominent tail curl, and contrasting shades of brown on the body.
David W. 28 Mar 2022 No, ID I know the Committee has been agonizing over where to draw the line between what is acceptable gene flow and what is too much hybridization, but this duck clearly falls into the hybrid category for me.

It has a clearly defined white neck collar, a nearly solid breast contrasting with the spotted flanks, the tail is very white, there is a definite curl to the upper tail feather(s), and the folded wings near the tail and even far up on the back are silvery gray as in a mallard.
Kevin W. 7 Apr 2022 No, ID I'm curious to see what others say, particularly with recent discussion on other Mexican Duck records. This individual, though, seems to have some curl to the tail feathers shown in most photos, and is most likely as much Mallard as Mexican Duck.

 

2022-09 Mexican Duck

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 10 May 2022 Acc This seems to be closer to a "pure" Mexican duck. I see no curling in the tail and the uppertail coverts seem lighter.
Mike H. 13 May 2022 Acc  
Max M. 31 Mar 2022 Acc  
Keeli M.. 6 Apr 2022 Acc Traits seem much more supportive for this ID and photos are good quality.
Bryant O. 30 Mar 2022 Acc This one looks good for a MEDU, however I would like better photos of the tail and rump. I guess we are going to get more of these records so we need a way to deal with them. Maybe a scoring system? I've seen 3 different MEDU X MALL this week and another purish MEDU was reported on eBird in near Heber, so the sooner we figure out how to deal with these the better, they aren't going away any time soon. I'm curios how other BRC deal with this problem, such as in AZ, TX(with MODU), or on the east coast(with ABDU)? Maybe we don't have to re-invent the wheel?
Kris P. 1 Apr 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 7 Apr 2022 Acc No issues with this one. Good photos appear to show a Mexican Duck, including brown tail with no curl, relatively consistent body color/pattern, solid yellow bill, etc.
David W. 29 Mar 2022 Acc This one appears to be mostly Mexican duck (rather than Mixican duck). Evenly speckled on torso, tail is darker than a Mallard's, nice bill, no visible curl on tail.
Kevin W. 14 Apr 2022 Acc This bird shows good traits for a Mexican Duck. I was able to study what I assumed to be this individual on October 4, two days after the report, and it seemed to check the boxes for a Mexican Duck as near as I could tell.

 

2022-10 Eastern Bluebird

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 10 May 2022 No, ID I'd like to approve this sighting but I don't feel I safely can. If they were too far away to get a recording, I think there's too much question. We're going a lot on color which can be subjective and conditional on lighting, especially at that distance.

2nd round:

16 May 2022 No, ID Continue to have too much doubt on this record to accept. I think with the distance, the appearance of a red throat could have been an effect of lighting and shadow.

3rd round:

 17 Jun 2022 No, ID Continuing to vote No on the record. I think there could have been lighting conditions making the birds appear to have rust-colored throats.
Mike H. 24 Apr 2022 Acc Seems to fit EABL. The throat description would rule out other possibilities.

2nd round:

25 May 2022 No, ID After reading the comments, I feel that there is enough doubt to question the observation.

3rd round:

 14 Jul 2022 Acc I ve been back and forth on this record more than my wishy-washy voting shows. I think Mike s knowledge of the experience of the borders is enough to make me tilt back towards accept .
Max M. 31 Mar 2022 Acc  

2nd round:

28 May 2022 Acc Continuing to accept this record despite some folks' concerns. Although she doesn't provide all field marks to differentiate from other bluebird species, the throat color is one of the most important field marks, and I still think the record does enough to eliminate other bb's. Also - I understand KRPU's comment regarding the perception of experience as potentially influencing a voter's decision. However, it says right in the bylaws that "A Voting Member should possess expertise in identification of Utah birds, knowledge of Utah bird distribution, and familiarity with birders and localities in Utah." It clearly states "familiarity with birders", which I think is part of our job as a committee in determining the validity of a record. Without physical documentation, anyone can accurately describe the field marks of the bird they thought they saw (they could copy them right out of a field guide), but I feel that experience in combination with the record/description is important. I won't name names, but there are folks who could have a flawless description of the species, but their reputation alone would bring a number of us to a "no" vote without a second thought. All that aside, the submitter is an excellent birder and has lots of experience with bluebird species.

3rd round:

 28 Jun 2022 Acc Continuing to accept.
Keeli M.. 6 Apr 2022 Acc No photos to support, but observer has solid experience IDing this suite of species and provides good justification for this specific ID.

2nd round:

17 Jun 2022 Acc While I agree that caution must be had when accepting sightings based on description alone without documentation, I also have a high level of confidence in Terri's ability to correctly identify this species. Continuing to accept ID.

3rd round:

 5 Jul 2022 Acc Still voting to accept for reasons previously discussed. Still believe the information provided is enough to rule out other species.
Bryant O. 31 Mar 2022 Acc  

2nd round:

11 May 2022 Acc Having worked with Terri more many years, I know she is a very experience and thorough birder, head of the UDWR central region non-game bird monitoring program with a PHD in Ornithology. She was with me when we spotted 2 EABL on the Jordan River CBC 1/1/2017, and she confirmed my suspicions with her extensive experience with EABL, doing field work in Texas and growing up in Indiana, so I know she is very familiar with this species as well as the common Bluebirds in Utah. Also, male EABL are the only Bluebirds with red on the throat, and its not exceptional for mixed sex groups to be seen together in Utah

3rd round:

 17 Jun 2022 Acc Even setting aside the experience and competence of the observer(which I think is totally relevant), the record does provide enough detail to rule out Western and Mountain Bluebird. Male Easterns are the only bluebirds with red/rust/orange throats, and although some female Mountain can have some rusty in the throat, Western never do. Eastern females can and usually do have rusty throats, so I'm not sure what Kris is referring to? At less than 50m with 10x binoculars in late morning for 10 minutes, I'm not sure how the illusion of red on the throat could be created? That sounds like a very good look. Also note that, the Mexican/Arizonan subspecies of Eastern Bluebird, which is the probable race to occur in Washington county, usually have a drab low contrast dingy gray to buff belly and UTC, so that could explain the lack of mentioning of that, because it wasn't present or not a prominent field mark
Kris P. 6 May 2022 No, ID Not enough information distinguishing this trio from Western Bluebirds. This record boils down to the observation of "reddish throats", meaning all three birds including the females had reddish throats. I would expect typical females to have white throats and am wondering about the observation circumstances that caused their throats to appear reddish. It's possible that the females were bright adults that caused the orange on the sides of the neck to be more extensive, but this wasn't mentioned, nor were multiple other field marks that might have strengthened the ID. So I resist speculating and vote solely on the minimal distinguishing information here, which is not enough for me to accept. The reddish throat field mark justifies the male's ID, but the record is for all three birds and I can't vote for them separately.

2nd round:

13 May 2022 No, ID Observational details are lacking. Of primary importance to me in all records, but especially records that don t include physical evidence, are Field Marks and Identifying Characteristics and Similar species and how they were eliminated reflecting what the observer actually saw and the defense of the ID. Observer and Previous experience with this & similar species are of secondary importance to me except in unusual circumstances (side note: I have long wished that the observer s name and experience were redacted from the record before the record is offered to the committee. I believe that information unduly influences). The bird s appearance is observed, reported, and defended or it s not. Beginners who log lifers have the capability to observe, report and defend their conclusion just fine; we see it often.

I don t question Terri s experience with bluebirds. What prevents me from accepting the record is the dearth of information reported from a 5-10 minute observation in good light. Given that the birds were actively foraging it seems like all three birds white bellies and under-tail coverts would have been visible at some time during that period, and those are important features distinguishing them from Western Bluebirds, especially the drabber females. I also need to re-iterate that the identifying characteristic in this record that weighs prominently is reddish throats , a field mark that female Eastern Bluebirds don t show.

3rd round:

 20 Jun 2022 No, ID This is one of those records where I believe the observer most likely saw Eastern Bluebirds, but the documentation is not robust enough to accept. No change in opinion from previous voting rounds.
Mike S. 2 May 2022 No, ID I'll start by saying I think there is a good chance the observer did in fact see Eastern Bluebirds. However, the documentation isn't as solid as I would like for this species. Although "reddish throats" would obviously suggest EABL over similar species, other details are lacking. There is no mention of a white belly, color of sides of the neck, etc. A more detailed description of the upperparts (besides "blue back") would be helpful as well. The fact that two of these birds were females, potentially creating a more challenging ID, also raises some concern, in addition to the lack of vocalizations. I'd rather err on the side of caution for this record.

2nd round:

10 Jun 2022 No, ID No changes in my opinion from the first round.
Despite the description of the red throats, I believe there are some important EABL field marks missing that are not mentioned here.

I understand the arguments to accept, and hearing about the observer's competence is reassuring. However, the documentation does not quite rise to a level where I am comfortable accepting.

3rd round:

 16 Jul 2022 No, ID No change of opinion.
David W. 31 Mar 2022 Acc Bluebird with a red breast and throat.

2nd round:

25 May 2022 Acc Although I have sympathies with most of the points brought up by those voting in the negative, and especially the failure to mention the obvious rusty patches on the mantle, I also have to say that a quick search of the internet for female Eastern bluebirds shows a plethora of photos showing birds with what, from oblique and side views, appear to be red throats. Whether one wants to quibble about where a throat ends and a chin begins, or whether a broad malar stripe is a throat, or whether an overall rufous wash constitutes a reddish throat, it is hard for me to see that as a disqualifying argument. In field observations, we do not have a bird in the hand, so overall generalizations sometimes have to do.

Again, although I regret that the observer didn't mention all of the field marks, we have never insisted on a comprehensive list of field marks where one definitive mark makes the case. I am voting on what was reported, not what wasn't reported or what I would have liked to have been reported. The observer reported a bluebird with a red throat.

3rd round:

7 Jul 2022 Acc I think people bring up proper concerns, but I agree with what Bryant had to say on this report.
Kevin W. 14 Apr 2022 Acc The description fits Eastern Bluebird, and the submitter seems experienced in separating similar Western Bluebirds.

2nd round:

25 May 2022 Acc Although details are sparse, I think that the information provided, particularly the red throat, eliminates similar Western Bluebirds.

3rd round:

13 Jul 2022 Acc I still believe there is enough description to rule out similar Western Bluebird.

 

2022-11 Red-throated Loon

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 23 Apr 2022 Acc  
Mike H. 24 Apr 2022 Acc Well documented.
Max M. 14 Apr 2022 Acc  
Keeli M.. 7 May 2022 Acc Photo is not the best quality, but with description, I think is supportive of ID.
Bryant O. 4 Apr 2022 Acc Although originally IDed as a PALO, later better photos were obtained and RTLO seems the clear ID
Kris P. 7 May 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 2 May 2022 Acc Photo shows a Red-throated Loon.
David W. 5 Apr 2022 Acc I'm impressed that Dave got such a diagnostic photo. He doesn't carry one of those 3-foot lenses, so that's quite an achievement.
Kevin W. 18 Apr 2022 Acc Photos shows a Red-throated Loon; delicate neck and head, upturned bill, and dark back.

 

2022-12 Tricolored Heron

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 10 May 2022 Acc Great find!
Mike H. 10 May 2022 Acc Seen by many, well documented.
Max M. 7 May 2022 Acc Excellent record - hard to believe the last one was seen the year I was born! Still appears to be sticking around.
Keeli M.. 7 May 2022 Acc Well documented bird with many confirmed observations and photos.
Bryant O. 4 May 2022 Acc Photos leave no doubt.
Kris P. 19 May 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 1 Jun 2022 Acc Diagnostic photos, confirmed by many observers. Great record!
(Also, slightly amused to see that the last time this species was recorded in Utah was the day before I was born).
David W. 4 May 2022 Acc Clearly this species, seemingly seen by every birder in Utah by now. Wonderful find!
Kevin W. 25 May 2022 Acc Photos are good enough to show distinct characteristics of Tricolored Heron.

 

2022-13 Zone-tailed Hawk

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 10 May 2022 Acc  
Mike H. 25 May 2022 Acc Diagnostic undertail pattern.
Max M. 7 May 2022 Acc Nice find by Quinn!
Keeli M.. 7 May 2022 Acc Good documenting photos shows tails stripes, gray barring on wings, and shape as supportive of Zone-tailed.
Bryant O. 4 May 2022 Acc Photos leave no doubt, despite lack of details in the record. I advocate for making all fields required to be filled in before a record can be submitted. Even if comment is "unknown", that is helpful and can tell us about the experience level of the birder.
Kris P. 10 May 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 1 Jun 2022 Acc Photos clearly show a Zone-tailed Hawk
David W. 4 May 2022 Acc Great photos.
Kevin W. 25 May 2022 Acc Photos distinctly show banded tail and barred underwings.

 

2022-14 Brown Thrasher

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 14 May 2022 Acc Clear record
Mike H. 6 Jun 2022 Acc Great photos.
Max M. 7 May 2022 Acc  
Keeli M.. 7 May 2022 Acc Good supportive photos. Rufous coloration, heavy dark streaking, and shorter bill are supportive of ID.
Bryant O. 4 May 2022 Acc Photos leave no doubt, despite lack of details in the record.
Kris P. 20 May 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 1 Jun 2022 Acc Good photos show a Brown Thrasher.
David W. 4 May 2022 Acc Photos show this species.
Kevin W. 25 May 2022 Acc Photos show a Brown Thrasher, distinct from other expected thrashers.

 

2022-15 Dusky-capped Flycatcher

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 10 May 2022 Acc  
Mike H. 6 Jun 2022 Acc Good documentation with audio. Well written, thorough report. Tail is a bit worn, but still should show the rufous if present. Wheer call sounds good and matches spectrogram. Great find!
Max M. 7 May 2022 Acc Another excellent record
Keeli M.. 7 May 2022 Acc Good photos audio recordings of the sad "wheer" call are supportive of ID as Dusky-capped. On the smaller end of the Myiarchus spectrum, no rufous on the underside of tail.
Bryant O. 4 May 2022 Acc Excellent record with photos, audio and great details in the record. If only they all could be this good!
Kris P. 31 May 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 1 Jun 2022 Acc I spent a significant amount of time researching this species after documenting the first state record back in 2018. When I saw this report on facebook I was initially skeptical, but the photos and audio recording leave no doubt.
A few things that jump out from the photos:

1. The underside of the tail is almost entirely dark brown with very little rufous. The slight amount of rufous on the tail is mostly restricted to the outer edges of the rectrices (mostly visible from upper-side of tail). This differs from other Myiarchus, particularly the expected BCFL and ATFL at this location.

2. The wing bars are brownish and lack contrast, making them relatively inconspicuous. This is an important difference from from ATFL and BCFL, which have contrastingly pale/whitish wingbars.

3. Profile views from the photos show that the bill is relatively long and thin. This bill shape differs from both ATFL and BCFL, which have bulkier bills to varying degrees.

4. Compared to ATFL, belly color is fairly bright yellow and extends higher on breast.

This combination of features also rules out other Myiarchus sp. that would be just as unlikely (or more unlikely) than DCFL.

Just as important as the physical characteristics that I noted above, the diagnostic "plaintiff whistle" can be heard in the audio recordings, which also rules out similar Myiarchus sp.

Last thing to note:
Both records of this species in Utah have now come from the Beaver Dam Wash drainage (in two completely different locations). It will be interesting to see if we get additional records of this species the coming years.
David W. 1 Jun 2022 Acc My vote is as soft as the recorded call.
Kevin W. 25 May 2022 Acc Good write-ups and photos leave little doubt for me.

 

2022-16 Vaux's Swift

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 16 May 2022 Acc Clear Record
Mike H. 13 May 2022 Acc Kenny s photos clearly show a chaetura swift, and Noah s photos show a Vaux's.
Max M. 10 May 2022 Acc  
Keeli M.. 25 May 2022 Acc Pictures support ID as swift, but not which species, however, observer's experience with identification, length of time observing this bird, and description of the bird provide enough evidence for me to accept observation.
Bryant O. 10 May 2022 Acc Photo and description adequately rule out other swifts
Kris P. 14 May 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 9 Jun 2022 Acc Good documentation, confirmed by multiple experienced birders.
David W. 25 May 2022 Acc Good description, especially noting the contrasting throat and rump.
Kevin W. 30 May 2022 Acc Photos show a Chaetura swift; the description seems good for Vaux's, and eliminates similar Chimney.

 

2022-17 Zone-tailed Hawk

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 10 May 2022 Acc  
Mike H. 25 May 2022 Acc Thinner wings, longer tail, and pale barring of underwing look good.
Max M. 10 May 2022 Acc  
Keeli M.. 25 May 2022 Acc Good supporting photo and comments. Long tail, longer narrower wings is supportive of species ID and ruling out Common Black Hawk.
Bryant O. 10 May 2022 Acc Photos leave no doubt. We could probably stop reviewing this species for Washington county but in any other region they are still exceptionally rare and often confused with other raptors.
Kris P. 10 May 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 9 Jun 2022 Acc Photo clearly shows a Zone-tailed Hawk
David W. 25 May 2022 Acc Although I quibble about the use of the phrase "mouth of the Virgin River Gorge along the Virgin River" when referring to the upper end of the gorge, I have no problems with the ID. The photo does show a Zone-tailed hawk, and the description does an admirable job of differentiating between a Black hawk.
Kevin W. 30 May 2022 Acc Photo shows tail bands and wing barring characteristic of Zone-tailed Hawks.

 

2022-18 Scaled Quail

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 10 May 2022 No, ID I'd love if this sighting was investigated further. I think it's promising but not enough for me to accept. With the lack of any evidence and the fact that the quail could be of domestic origin.

2nd round:

17 Jun 2022 No, ID Continuing to vote no, a distant audible isn't much to go off.
Mike H. 14 Jun 2022 Acc Area where DNR has historically released SCQU. My only question might be if this should be a countable species?

2nd round:

17 Jun 2022  No, Int  
Max M. 10 May 2022 Acc The location is in the right portion of the state where SCQU are likely to occur, and while it would be nice to have some sort of supporting documentation, I am not sure what other species you could confuse the song of a SCQU with. Observers seem to have experience, including recent, with this species. Voting to accept.

2nd round:

28 Jun 2022 No, Int Thanks to Kris, Mike and Bryant for the information on DWR introductions of SCQU to the area, I agree that this data makes established or naturally occurring populations questionable. Changing my vote to no.
Keeli M.. 25 May 2022 No, ID While the description of the observation is thorough, I'm not comfortable accepting an observation based on only a call they heard without other supporting evidence. Scaled quail do have a unique call, but other species calls could sound similar such as black-crowned night herons or mimics like starlings or mockingbirds.

2nd round:

17 Jun 2022 No, ID Still not comfortable accepting record based solely on description of call, however, based on committee comments it does sound like it's plausible. However, we don't have any information whether there is an established population in area, and whether this bird is a vagrant or a result of introduction, so still rejecting the ID.
Bryant O. 10 May 2022 No, Int Although there account does sound like a SCQU, when I was researching my own SCQU sighting in Utah I was in contact with DWR staff who informed me they had done a series of introductions of SCQU near the Comb Ridge west of Bluff, which is very near this location, so it seems likely this bird is part of that introduced population. I do not know the status of that population, as in if they were successful and are now breeding on their own or if introduction is still on going. There is one record in eBird of 4 nearby as well. This is pretty far west from the Montezuma Creek location where natural vagrants are known to have occurred.

2nd round:

23 Jun 2022 No, Nat Thanks Kris for providing more info on the introductions, I guess we need to know more on where they introduced them? Comb ridge is a huge area that runs from the AZ border near Monument valley into Bear's Ears west of Monticello and US191, Montezuma Canyon and McCracken Mesa is east of Blanding and US191. Until the status of introductions is clarified, maybe only accept records east of US191 as wild vagrants?
Kris P. 6 Jun 2022 No, ID Given that this species has been documented in the state only twice before, the weight of the information supporting the ID is not enough for me to accept. I think the submitter documented everything that was available to him.

2nd round:

20 Jun 2022 No, Int Thanks to Mike and Bryant for addressing the subject of introductions. The DWR Wildlife Board approved on June 2, 2022 the updated 10-year Upland Game Management Plan for 2022-2032. Here’s an excerpt regarding the historical status of the Scaled Quail: “Two areas in extreme southeastern Utah have had scaled quail sightings; Montezuma Canyon and McCracken Mesa. The likely source of these quail is New Mexico, as they experienced a high production year in 2006, which likely caused the expansion of birds in Utah, as they have been observed since 2007. Occupied range may have naturally expanded into this area of Utah due to the trending warmer temperatures, however some models do not predict suitable conditions extending into Utah (Schneider and Root 2002, Tanner et al. 2017). In addition an effort was made from 2013 to 2015 to establish a population with 40 scaled quail released in 2013, 200 in 2014, and 205 in 2015.”

I believe this data places all sightings of Scaled Quail into the suspect category until we address the dreaded question of what constitutes established and sustaining.
(special inquiry)
Mike S. 10 Jun 2022 No, ID On one hand, the description of the song does seem like it could be a match for a Scaled Quail, and this is the part of the state where this species would be expected to occur.

However, I am not sure that this committee should be accepting records based solely on call descriptions (with the potential exception of truly unique calls heard by well-known birders widely regarded for their expertise - even then, I suspect we'd have a recording in most instances). It is my experience that vocalizations can be much more difficult to remember (or to note) than visual characteristics, and different people may interpret vocalizations differently.

I am also slightly skeptical when this observer mentions that they have "identified SCQU visually and vocally many times in southwestern Colorado..." considering there are only a handful of eBird records of this species from that part of Colorado. I would not be surprised if this species is under-reported in southeastern Utah and southwestern Colorado, but I would still like more compelling evidence than what is presented here.

2nd round:

6 Jul 2022 No, ID I'm still not convinced that the documentation (a fairly brief description of the call) is adequate to establish the ID. After reading others' comments, I am further concerned about introductions of this species to this area.
I'd rather err on the side of caution for both of these reasons.
David W. 1 Jun 2022 Acc I am reluctantly voting to accept on sparse evidence.

The other Utah scaled quail record I am familiar with comes from near this area in Montezuma Canyon. I'm not sure if these would be birds trickling over from New Mexico/Colorado/Arizona or some diffusely established population in this isolated corner our state.

2nd round:

7 Jul 2022 No, Nat Thanks to Kris for the DNR report excerpt. That changes the ball game.
Kevin W. 30 May 2022 No, ID I think the observer quite possibly heard a Scaled Quail, and the habitat and even the range is right; but I question if enough info is submitted to accept.

2nd round:

13 Jul 2022 No, ID  I don't think there's enough evidence to support this record.

 

2022-19 Mexican Duck

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 10 May 2022 No, ID Difficult to assess without photo

2nd round:

17 Jun 2022 No, ID No way to assess how much hybridization could be going on with this specimen

3rd round:

3 Aug 2022 No, ID As others have pointed out, we need to come up with a clear criteria for what is "pure enough" to accept with this species. And with some key field marks that would rule out a hybridized bird, it's difficult to accept.
Mike H. 14 Jun 2022 No, ID I m back and forth on this and other reports of this species . I feel most reports show some sign of hybridization, but I m not sure where to draw the line.

2nd round:

24 Jul 2022 No, ID 1- I don t feel a photo is necessary for this species if the description is very thorough. 2- I agree that we may want to look at other committees to help with some sort of criteria on this species moving forward. 3- I feel we ve let a few records through with signs of hybridization and we need to address #2 sooner than later.

3rd round:

8 Sep 2022 No, ID Nothing written by other members carried enough weight to change my initial thoughts on this record.
Max M. 10 May 2022 Acc Seems like a good description for MEDU

2nd round:

28 Jun 2022 Acc I think it is probably time for us to reach out to other state's committees (maybe CO?) to see how they deal with MEDU records and see if they have criteria they are using when it comes to level of MALL influence. This record seems fine to me for MEDU, but given others comments it seems like without photo documentation to assess potential MALL influence, there is continued disagreement. Do we need to require photo documentation specifically for this species? Personally I don't think so - and if that is the case this record seems sufficient. Maybe we need to clear some of this up before we continue to vote on MEDU records?

3rd round:

2 Aug 2022 Acc Continuing to accept..
Keeli M.. 11 Jun 2022 No, ID While it does sound likely from the description this may meet the ID requirements for MEDU, I am hesitant to accept based on an observation that was made without binos while floating by on a river and without supporting photo documentation.

2nd round:

17 Jun 2022 No, ID Still agree that hybrids are not ruled out by description and hesitant to accept this tricky species without photo.

3rd round:

29 Jul 2022 No,ID Same comments as first two rounds..
Bryant O. 10 May 2022 Acc Sounds like a good look and a good description by experience observers.

2nd round:

17 Jun 2022 Acc This is a very well written record by an observer with experience with this species group. I guess this boils down to if we as a committee will accept sight records without photos for Mexican Duck? Given their increasing occurrence here I think we should and can, as long as the observer seems competent to distinguish between obvious hybrids and purish Mexican Ducks. Again, we could nit pick every Mexican Duck record to death, but they aren't going away any time soon.

3rd round:

31 Jul 2022 Acc Although I appreciate the concerns and skepticism of those not accepting, I do feel enough details are provided to ID within a reasonable doubt here...
Kris P. 10 May 2022 Acc .

2nd round:

20 Jun 2022 Acc The observer mentioned the three most important characters to distinguish this duck from a MEDU x MALL hybrid, which were lack of a greenish tinge on the head, lack of curled tail feathers and lack of white in the tail. He also mentioned the one important character to differentiate from a hen Mallard, the yellow bill. Given that these features were noted or noted absent from just 15 feet away, that's a strong enough observation for me.

3rd round:

20 Aug 2022 Acc I continue to believe the observer knew what to look for to eliminate a hybrid, and observed and reported the critical details to support the ID of a Mexican Duck.
Mike S. 9 Jun 2022 No, ID I don't have any major issues with this write-up, and this seems to hit on many of the major points for Mexican Duck. My concern is that some of the more subtle field marks were not mentioned, many of which often come up on this committee, usually during our process of assessing photos (and in this case, we don't have any photos to assess).

There is no description of the uppertail or undertail coverts, and although the body color is mentioned, I would like to have heard more details about this, in addition to some mention of the overall patterning.

I believe I'm usually relatively lenient with accepting Mexican Duck records, even individuals that may show some subtle signs of Mallard introgression. However, without photos, I think I would need a VERY detailed write-up to be truly confident accepting records of this species in our state.

2nd round:

16 Jul 2022 No,ID I ve gone back and forth this round, but ultimately decided to stick with my first round No vote. I still believe that some of the more subtle (but potentially important) field marks are lacking, which we would almost certainly assess if photos were submitted (see first round comment). Overall, I consider myself to be relatively lenient with Mexican Duck records. However, I agree with Kevin that we should have a more thorough written description in the absence of good photos.

3rd round:

26 Jul 2022 No,ID Deferring to my comments from the first two rounds.
David W. 25 May 2022 Acc The Mexi boxes were all checked.

2nd round:

7 Jul 2022 Acc This report seemed to do a good job eliminating a strongly hybridized bird, which seems to be what we have been voting on in the last few years (seeing as they are pretty much all hybridized to some degree).

3rd round:

3 Aug 2022 Acc Nothing to add. I still think we have accepted some level of hybridization, and nothing in this report suggests strong hybridization.
Kevin W. 30 May 2022 No, ID I think (based on the review of several recent Mexican Duck records), that the yellow bill and lack of curl, although being good characteristics, do not eliminate hybrids. I would like more details, or a photo to review.

2nd round:

13 Jul 2022 No, ID I think this description lacks enough detail to determine if the Duck is a Mexican Duck. I agree that a photo shouldn't be necessary (although it's definitely helpful), but a very detailed description should be submitted if a photo is not.

3rd round:

10 Aug 2022 No, ID I still don't feel that enough detail is provided to call it a Mexican Duck.

 

2022-20 Vaux's Swift

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 10 May 2022 No, ID Description too sparse
Mike H. 14 Jun 2022 No, ID Record not strong enough to eliminate other similar species.
Max M. 24 May 2022 No, ID While it was probably a Vaux's Swift, Chimney Swift cannot be eliminated from the description.
Keeli M.. 25 May 2022 No, ID Not enough evidence given to rule out chimney swift (however unlikely that would be)
Bryant O. 10 May 2022 No, ID No attempt made to eliminate Black Swift, which is also all dark with no markings. Size can be misleading. Also no attempt to eliminate Chimney Swift.
Kris P. 14 May 2022 No, ID Several issues with this record warrant not accepting: Insufficient identifying characteristics, not eliminating Chimney Swift or swallows, and distance from the bird while not aided by optics (perhaps contributing to reporting the sparsest of detail).
Mike S. 9 Jun 2022 No, ID No optical equipment used, very limited written description, and no mention of several similar species.
David W. 24 May 2022 No, ID Although I am very confident the observer saw a Vaux's swift, there really is very little information to go on here, and certainly not enough to eliminate the less likely Chimney swift.
Kevin W. 30 May 2022 No, ID The observer makes no effort to eliminate similar (although probably far less likely) Chimney Swift.

 

2022-21 Vaux's Swift

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 16 May 2022 Acc Clear record
Mike H. 6 Jun 2022 Acc  
Max M. 21 May 2022 Acc  
Keeli M.. 25 May 2022 Acc Good supporting evidence, good description of how other species were ruled out.
Bryant O. 10 May 2022 Acc  
Kris P. 14 May 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 10 Jun 2022 Acc Nice documentation eliminates similar species.
David W. 25 May 2022 Acc I do wish the observer had specified just how much contrast there was between the throat and belly, but I suppose the lack of call helps bolster the case against a Chimney. I like and agree with what was said in the Similar Species section regarding a Chimney vs Vaux.
Kevin W. 1 Jun 2022 Acc Good description, I think I can see the lighter throat that would distinguish this as a Vaux's vs Chimney in the lightened photo.

 

2022-22 Zone-tailed Hawk

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 16 May 2022 Acc Clear record
Mike H. 25 May 2022 Acc The Tim Avery eBird photo clearly shows ZTHA.
Max M. 21 May 2022 Acc  
Keeli M.. 25 May 2022 Acc Photos support right shape/tail length for ID as Zone-tailed and help rule out Common Blackhawk. Behavior (soaring with TUVU) and other described characteristics support ID as well.
Bryant O. 17 May 2022 Acc I'm hesitant to accept this based only on the record submitted because no attempt was made to eliminate other similar raptors, such as dark morph buteos, Golden Eagle etc. However, other observations at this location have great photos and it is a known location that they occur at annually, so it seems likely that they did indeed see a ZTHA.
Kris P. 19 May 2022 Acc I'm voting to accept based on the information the record alone provides, and not considering the photo in the 5/12 eBird checklist. Twelve days between sightings of one of the windmaster-type buteos that can cover distance so easily is a lot of elapsed time to use the second sighting as justification for the record ID. The record provides enough, just barely. The 5/12 eBird checklist could be documenting a different bird.
Mike S. 16 Jun 2022 Acc Photos attached to the sight record are very poor, but the eBird checklist from May 12 leaves no doubt. This is a known location, and this may be shaping up to be an especially good year for Zone-tailed Hawks in Washington County.
David W. 25 May 2022 Acc Combination of description and shape in photo was enough to put it over the top, Tim's excellent photos, though not of the same sighting, bolster the case. This species has been regular there for many years (though one needs a bit of luck to see it).
Kevin W. 1 Jun 2022 Acc Good description. Photos submitted are not identifiable, but those submitted with the ebird checklist definitively show Zone-tailed Hawk.

 

2022-23 Ovenbird

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 30 May 2022 Acc  
Mike H. 25 May 2022 Acc  
Max M. 28 May 2022 Acc  
Keeli M.. 25 May 2022 Acc Good supporting photos. Great find.
Bryant O. 25 May 2022 Acc Photos and description leave no doubt, 1st spring record in a decade
Kris P. 20 Jun 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 16 Jun 2022 Acc Photos clearly show an Ovenbird. Nice record.
David W. 25 May 2022 Acc A fine find by one of our own.
Kevin W. 1 Jun 2022 Acc Definitive photos of distinctive bird.

 

2022-24 Palm Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 30 May 2022 Acc  
Mike H. 29 Jun 2022 Acc Photo shows a Palm Warbler.
Max M. 28 May 2022 Acc Diagnostic Photos
Keeli M.. 1 Jun 2022 Acc Good diagnostic photo. Previous experience with species made me laugh.
Bryant O. 28 May 2022 Acc Well photographed
Kris P. 21 Jun 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 25 Jun 2022 Acc Photos show a Palm Warbler
David W. 1 Jun 2022 Acc Nice find.
Kevin W. 1 Jun 2022 Acc Photos are definitive.

 

2022-25 Magnolia Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 30 May 2022 Acc  
Mike H. 29 Jun 2022 Acc Photo shows enough to determine species.
Max M. 28 May 2022 Acc Ditto - well done to the young fella who found 2 great warblers at one place!
Keeli M.. 1 Jun 2022 Acc Under tail pattern of white with black tips helps rule out Canada Warbler. Good find.
Bryant O. 28 May 2022 Acc Conclusive photos
Kris P. 21 Jun 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 25 Jun 2022 Acc Photos show a Magnolia Warbler.
David W. 1 Jun 2022 Acc The last photo shows the distinctive undertail pattern. Another great find.
Kevin W. 1 Jun 2022 Acc Good photos and description.

 

2022-26 Gyrfalcon

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 30 May 2022 No, ID Rounded wings?
Max M. 3 Jun 2022 No, ID I have a number of concerns with this record. Without optics, it seems like it would be difficult to discern the details needed to eliminate other species. The dark on the underwings seems to fit PRFA better, and it seems the level of detail needed to distinguish between a rare plumaged GRYR and a much more likely PRFA would be difficult. The drawings are eerily reminiscent of a sighting my dad had of a PRFA up at Alta a few years back: https://ebird.org/checklist/S40996559
Also - there are plenty of records of PRFA at high elevation at all times of year, despite the impression given by the record submitter.
Keeli M.. 11 Jun 2022 No, ID I don't feel like enough evidence is here to rule out other species such as NOGO, and an incidental observation without binos while skiing is suspect, but I do appreciate the effort that went into the drawings and the description of the observation.
Bryant O. 30 May 2022 No, ID There are a number of red flags for this record. The timing, very late for a Gyr(although not impossible). The Habitat, high elevation mountains: Gyrs like vast open landscapes, avoid forested regions. The lack of experience of the observer who had no optics. He gave what sounds to me like a spot on description for a Prairie Falcon, which can absolutely be seen in that habitat. Soaring migrant Falcons can look broader and more rounded winged than we are used too, of course size is hard to judge. The description of the dark auxiliaries particularly fits PRFA. In short, there is no good reason this was is not a much more likely PRFA
Kris P. 30 Jun 2022 No, ID I have particular doubts about the description of flight. The conflict between very weak, not powerful, and then deep and powerful along with the difficulty the observer had in describing the flight pattern undermines his strong impression of the underside and dark axillaries which might be appropriate for a young Gyr. due to Prairie Falcon-like heavier markings on underwing coverts. The nature of the bird's flight (flapping/gliding pattern) wasn't what I expected to read for a falcon (rather, more constant flapping) and leads to my total impression of the record not having strong enough, or perhaps incontrovertible, details to accept.
Mike S. 30 Jun 2022 No, ID I appreciate the observer s efforts, but I don t believe the documentation is adequate to establish the ID of a Gyrfalcon. The lack of optical equipment used and the timing (a bit later in the year than I would expect) are also concerning. Simply not sure we can rule out other possibilities.
David W. 1 Jun 2022 No, ID Is it just me, or does this description better fit a Prairie falcon?
Kevin W. 10 Jun 2022 No, ID I don't feel that enough evidence is submitted to accept this record for such an unusual species.

 

2022-27 Chestnut-sided Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 17 Jun 2022 Acc  
Mike H. 14 Jun 2022 Acc  
Max M. 3 Jun 2022 Acc  
Keeli M.. 1 Jun 2022 Acc Good documentation. Photos are adequate for ID confirmation. Good bird!
Bryant O. 31 May 2022 Acc This was a bugger of a bird to get eyes on. I don't know if I could have picked out the odd song of this warbler on my own over the freeway noise and cacophony of YEWA's everywhere, but once Max alerted me to it, it did stand out. We debated the songs ID, but all I knew was it was not familiar. Eventually I caught movement of a non-yellow warbler in the canopy, initially in the overcast skies deep in the shade of the canopy, it looked monochrome black and white to me, so I said, "its black and white", but immediately eliminated BTYW by the song and BAWW by the pale throat and un-nuthatch like behavior, so considered BLPW, but the song didn't match that either leaving us confused. Eventually the sun peaked out, and I got a better look, and the yellow crown and red flanks popped out, sealing the ID. We then spent 10+ more minutes getting great looks and trying to get photos, which although poor, do show the necessary field marks. A breeding plumage male CSWA has been on my wish list for a long time, so this was a welcome sighting!
Kris P. 6 Jul 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 30 Jun 2022 Acc Great documentation. Nice find by Max and Bryant!
David W. 1 Jun 2022 Acc Yet another excellent find from one of our very own.  Distinctive bird.
Kevin W. 10 Jun 2022 Acc Photos clearly show distinctive field marks of Chestnut-sided Warbler.

 

2022-28 Golden-winged Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 17 Jun 2022 Acc Seems to clearly describe Prothonotary Warbler
Mike H. 6 Jun 2022 Acc Great Find! Observed this bird myself.
Max M. 15 Jun 2022 Acc Excellent bird and documentation. Two great finds by Mr. Neill this year!
Keeli M.. 10 Jun 2022 Acc Well documented by several birders with good photos and audio recordings. Great bird!
Bryant O. 9 Jun 2022 Acc Very accommodating bird for those of us who saw it! No sign of hybridization in this one, thick mask and no yellow in the torso
Kris P. 6 Jul 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 6 Jul 2022 Acc Excellent photos clearly show a male Golden-winged Warbler.
David W. 7 Jun 2022 Acc Good photos of a very distinctive bird. I always appreciate human attempts to transcribe bird sounds--nicely done.
Kevin W. 10 Jun 2022 Acc Great photos show distinctive field marks of Golden-winged Warbler.

 

2022-29 Prothonotary Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 17 Jun 2022 Acc Seems to clearly describe Prothonotary Warbler
Mike H. 14 Jul 2022 Acc Description fits for PRWA.
Max M. 15 Jun 2022 Acc Good description eliminates similar species
Keeli M.. 5 Jul 2022 Acc Hesitant to accept without photos, but description is satisfactory for ID and white undertail coverts and lack of other distinctive head markings or wing bars rules out other species
Bryant O. 10 Jun 2022 Acc Although a bit troubled by their apparent lack of experience with this species and poor write up eliminating similar species, nevertheless their description hits all the key field marks for this species.
Kris P. 6 Jul 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 6 Jul 2022 Acc Good written description rules out similar species.
David W. 7 Jun 2022 Acc Nice description.
Kevin W. 10 Jun 2022 Acc Good description write-up, and eliminates any other likely species.

 

2022-30 Alder Flycatcher

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 30 Jun 2022 Acc Nice find
Mike H. 24 Jul 2022 Acc Diagnostic audio.
Max M. 28 Jun 2022 Acc It is about time we had a new first state record! Great documentation of this mega-rarity by many over multiple days. What a find by Adam!
Keeli M.. 5 Jul 2022 Acc Good photo and audio recordings. Audio is a solid match for Alder. Confirmed by many experienced birders.
Bryant O. 23 Jun 2022 Acc Audio recordings leave no doubt
Kris P. 14 Jul 2022 Acc Kudos to Kenny Frisch for identifying this species.
Mike S. 24 Jul 2022 Acc Great documentation with audio recordings from multiple observers confirms the ID.
David W. 19 Jul 2022 Acc Hard to argue with that suboscine song. They aren't known for creativity.
Kevin W. 13 Jul 2022 Acc I think that the call of this bird separates it from the expected Willow Flycatcher.