Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society
   
Status & Comments
Year 2022 (records 31 through 71)

2022-31 Scarlet Tanager

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 30 Jun 2022 Acc Although no photo, this would be a difficult ID to mistake

2nd round:

17 Aug 2022 No,ID Other's concerns, combined with my initial thoughts are a good enough reason to vote no. And I swear I use punctuations. I don t know why they don t show on my comments???
Mike H. 24 Jul 2022 To 2nd I guess I'm confused on the Time of Observation? If a bird was observed for 3 minutes consecutively or even total, I don't feel there would've been a need for discussion about what they observed? Also, bird was observed with a camera, but no photos? Bird observed may very well have been a SCTA, but IMO there are a couple of questionable details within this sight record.

2nd round:

16 Aug 2022 No,ID Other's concerns, combined with my initial thoughts are a good enough reason to vote no. And I swear I use punctuations. I don t know why they don t show on my comments???
Max M. 5 Jul 2022 Acc Not sure what else this bird could be. .

2nd round:

2 Aug 2022 No,ID Changing my vote based on comments from other reviewers. Not enough detail to eliminate other species.
Keeli M.. 5 Jul 2022 Acc Again, hard decision whether to accept without photos, but description backs up ID. Not a lot of ID options for bright red birds.

2nd round:

29 Jul 2022 No,ID Changing my mind on this one after agreeing with many of the comments. Hard to mistake other species for this one, but there does seem to be a lack of details and I am left wondering why they couldn't get photos.
Bryant O. 30 Jun 2022 No, ID I'm unconvinced by the sparse details provided they did not infact see a Summer Tanager. Looking at a bird high above in the canopy on a cloudy day, I think the illusion of black wings could be easily created by shading. Given how often Scarlet are reported in Washington county(multiple every year), this seems to be a common pitfall. I'd like another field mark like calls heard, bill color/size, tail color etc. to accept.

2nd round:

31 Jul 2022 No,ID I continue to have doubts and want more field marks than just 1, glad a few others also have concerns. The lack of photos even though seen through a camera is troubling as well.
Kris P. 15 Jul 2022 Acc  

2nd round:

11 Aug 2022 No,ID I'm changing my vote from 'Accept' to 'No, ID' due to my changing opinion that the details supporting the ID are too sparse and not enough. Sparse but still enough would have been if the observer had also mentioned the bird having a black tail. The contrast in colors of red under-body and black tail should have been visible from the perspective below and might have resolved concerns about a trick of light making the wings appear black on the sides of the body. Of course, the fact that photos might be available to validate the ID but weren't included further nudged my Not Accept' vote. So all I can wish for is a re-submittal of this record including photos that resolve the ID.
Mike S. 24 Jul 2022 No, ID While a "red bird with black wings" could certainly be describing a male Scarlet Tanager, there simply isn't enough here to rule out similar species.

I'm also a bit confused about the camera/lens optical equipment mentioned since there are no photos included with the record.

2nd round:

26 Jul 2022 No,ID As Bryant mentions, this species is often reported in Washington County without compelling evidence. Just this past April at the Red Cliffs Bird Fest, someone reported a Scarlet Tanager at Tonaquint and similarly mentioned the "black wings" as the distinguishing field mark to rule out Summer Tanagers (common at that location). And yet, none of the many other birders in the area were able to back up that observation.

In this case, the similar species mentioned are the ones most likely to present confusion. However, there isn't much written about HOW those species were eliminated (also mentioned by David). I am further troubled by the observers' lack of experience with this and similar species.

All things considered, I believe there is too much uncertainty.
David W. 7 Jul 2022 To 2nd I'm leaning very weakly toward acceptance because that color combination is not very common in this part of the world. On the other hand, the paucity of detail is very troubling. How did the observers determine the size of the bird? Was it relative to other birds seen near this one? In what way did this bird's behavior/flight not match a Vermillion flycatcher? And the fact that the only recorded difference between the Vermillion was its size and behavior makes me wonder how good of a look was had. Something just seems oddly uncertain about this record.

2nd round:

3 Aug 2022 No,ID My concerns about this record have only been strengthened by those of others.
Kevin W. 13 Jul 2022 Acc Although a brief sighting, the black wings rule out similar Summer Tanager..

2nd round:

10 Aug 2022 No,ID  I'm changing my vote. I agree with others that the lack of details leave room for question.

 

2022-32 Hudsonian Godwit

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 2 Jul 2022 Acc Clear record

2nd round:

17 Aug 2022 Acc Continuing to approve on same basis
Mike H. 14 Jul 2022 Acc  

2nd round:

8 Sep 2022 Acc Continuing to accept. Molt pattern and occurrence seem a better fit for HUGO.
Max M. 5 Jul 2022 Acc Photos definitely show HUGO.

2nd round:

9 Sep 2022 Acc  
Keeli M.. 29 Jul 2022 No, ID My lack of ID experience with this species and similar species may show here, but I am unconvinced of this ID. Photo C does not show the same dark tail and wingtip feathers or coloration that the other photos seem to show, and I disagree with the statement that the photos make the identification straightforward. I'm also concerned that some of the description doesn't match up with ID as Hudsonian. As the smallest Godwit, I'd expect them to be perceived as roughly the same size as a Willet, not noticeably larger. While it was stated the color of the feathers made it clear it was a Hudsonian, not describing what color was observed and relying on the photos which may not be 100% true to color was less helpful for me diagnostically (Like saying you know that it's an aspen because of the way it is, if anyone gets that reference).

2nd round:

13 Aug 2022 Acc Appreciate Bryant's research and explanation of the molting pattern. Revising my original comments to say, I agree that Hudsonian is the most likely.
Bryant O. 2 Jul 2022 Acc Clearly a Godwit and not a Marbled as to gray, molting from basic into alternate plumage. I compared photos of Bar-tailed and Hudsonian in May on Macaulay Library, found several HUGO that closely matched this bird and no Bar-tailed. They seem to molt different, with the HUGO molting the back 1st then the belly with head and throat last, Bar-tailed molt 1st to a red torso starting on the throat. Black-tailed mostly ruled out by range as no western US records south of Alaska, only 1 west of Mississippi in TX, seem to gain red head and neck 1st, then molt body feathers. Of these 3, Hudsonian also far more likely

2nd round:

10 Aug 2022 Acc I also struggled with this one a bit, trying to wrap my head around exactly why it is a Hudsonian since the record didn't provide great details. So I had to do my own independent research to understand the molt cycle of all Godwit species to justify my vote. Here are some examples I talked about: Molting HUGO: https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/58234921
And Bar-tailed in various stages of molt:
https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/58978691
And Black-tailed:
https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/455135291

Note how in Bar-tailed and Black-tailed the torso molts first turning red, then the back. In Hudsonian the back turns dark before the torso turns red, matching this bird with a molting back but sparse molt on the torso..
Kris P. 15 Jul 2022 Acc  

2nd round:

20 Aug 2022 Acc I'm comfortable with the ID. I agree with Keeli's comments regarding descriptions that lean on the photos rather than also independently describing what the observer saw. I always want both; more info is better than less.
Mike S. 24 Jul 2022 Acc Nice documentation.

2nd round:

24 Aug 2022 Acc Continuing to accept based on photos and probability of occurrence. I also studied photos in the Macauley Library, (confining the search to May) and I agree with Bryant's assessment.
David W. 3 Aug 2022 Acc OK, I guess the spotting is definitive.

2nd round:

25 Aug 2022 Acc Still think this is a good record.
Kevin W. 10 Aug 2022 Acc Photos look like a Hudsonian Godwit

2nd round:

17 Aug 2022 Acc Continuing to accept. Thanks to Bryant for pointing out specific features.
 

   

2022-33 Red Phalarope

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 3 Aug 2022 No, ID With this observer's track record, we can only go by photos, which are pretty impossible to ascertain.

2nd round:

17 Aug 2022 No, ID Description and photos fail to solidify the ID and rule out similar species.
Mike H. 16 Aug 2022 No, ID The photos neither prove or disprove the vague description which I feel isn't enough to accept this record.

2nd round:

27 Sep 2022 No, ID Nothing stated after the first round of voting has changed my opinion on this record.
Max M. 5 Jul 2022 No, ID There is just too much that is wrong with this record. "Alternate plumage" would be breeding plumage, which is not the case with the bird in the photo. Almost (if not all) July records of REPH in the lower 48 are adults in breeding plumage or molting, and are towards the end of the month. I could not find any REPH records at the beginning of July inland in the lower 48. Juveniles don't even start to leave breeding grounds until August. Etc. etc. etc. - the photos are too blurry to rule out basic plumage RNPH. I was there on the same day, an hour before this sighting was reported, and saw a number of basic plumaged RNPH - which is probably what this bird is.

2nd round:

9 Sep 2022 No, ID Continuing to reject based on a number of inadequacies.
Keeli M.. 5 Jul 2022 No, ID Photos and description don't provide sufficient evidence to me to rule out Red-necked Phalarope.

2nd round:

14 Sep 2022 No, ID Continuing to reject. Photos and description just don't support ID strongly enough or rule out Red-necked Phalarope enough to accept. I also agree that there are issues in the description as other reviewers discussed.
Bryant O. 4 Jul 2022 No, ID There are a number of problems with this record. The date is very concerning, there are no July records of this species with physical evidence in Utah ( or any accepted), or the interior west before July 24th. The plumage is concerning, as the photos show a phalarope in full basic plumage. I can find very few photos on eBird of a July Red Phalarope that are not in Alternate plumage or molting. Photos show a phalarope with a streaky back about the same size as the Red-necked next to it (Red should be larger and stouter necked). Moreover, The observers lack of understand of the correct terminology of alternate plumage (AKA breeding) is a big red flag, and speaks to this observers over confidence, they do not know as much as they think they do. Additionally, I was there a few hours before this report, with 3 other competent observers, and there were a few basic plumage Phalarope mixed in with the large number of alternate plumage Red-necked and Wilson's Phalarope, but upon close inspection all were Red-necked. Birds move around, but I see no evidence this observer did not simply misidentify a basic plumage Red-necked Phalarope.

2nd round:

17 Aug 2022 No, ID Observer provided no real field mark to eliminate Red-necked. Exactly how was the bill lighter? Was it yellow, pink or just paler gray? Bill length compared to Red-necked not mentioned. Same size as Red-necked is troubling as Red are bigger. "more gray back" doesn't adequately describe back, compared to alternate or basic plumage Red-necked? No mention of streaking on back visible in poor photos. Timing and molt not addressed. Lack of understanding of "Alternate Plumage" is a problem. Observer mentions seeing Red several times in Utah, but a quick search of records show he has no accepted records by the UBRC or on eBird, yet he does report them from AIC every year. A more plausible explanation is observer doesn't know how to ID Red Phalarope, it is a very tricky ID.
Kris P. 27 Jul 2022 No, ID I don't believe even the most liberal allowances for molt, age or timing would put the ID of this bird as a Red Phalarope in the realm of the possible. I think this sighting would need to be supported by an extraordinary photo as the claim defies what is presently known about the species' phenology.

2nd round:

18 Aug 2022 No, ID I remain firm not to accept this record after reviewing everyone else's comments. This record is a matter of the ECREE concept: Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence, and the narrative and photographic evidence don't support the ID. Further, I researched every July inland Red Phalarope record in eBird in support of my first round vote and found that each one that named the age of the bird listed an adult. (Several referred to accepted records of state records committees without the detail of age). To the best of my research, an immature Red Phalarope has never been documented inland in early July, an opinion further substantiated by multiple sources that describe ages and migratory timing. That this record would be the first-ever, or perhaps just not formally described yet, is too unlikely.
Mike S. 6 Aug 2022 No, ID I don't believe a Red Phalarope would resemble this bird in early July. At this date, Red Phalaropes would almost certainly be in breeding plumage (the bird in these photos is obviously not). Also, the timing would be very unusual for a Red Phalarope in Utah..

2nd round:

16 Aug 2022 No, ID I agree with others that this is very likely a Red-necked Phalarope. Basic plumage at this date almost certainly eliminates a Red Phalarope. Additional red flags include the unusual timing for a REPH, and the presence of several competent birders at this location the same day, none of whom identified a REPH.
David W. 7 Jul 2022 Acc The bird does indeed appear to be slightly smaller than the surrounding Wilson's and the head (crown) too white for a Red-necked. The back is a bit patterned but is overall relatively flat gray. The description of the pale bill base are compelling.

2nd round:

25 Aug 2022 No, ID Since I no longer have access to the Cornell charts showing molts, it is hard for me to weigh in on whether the Red-necked and Red have different timing for their basic plumage. So I'll leave that alone.

I suppose basing my vote on the slight paleness of bill base is not entirely justifiable considering that the description is based on "From photo(s) taken at the time of the sighting." Was the bird identified in the field, or afterwards looking at photos?
Kevin W.  10 Aug 2022 Acc I wish the photos were a little more clear, and that the description was a little more detailed. Given the photos, though, it looks more like a Red Phalarope than the others.

2nd round:

17 Aug 2022 No, ID I agree with others that the photos are poor and description not adequate to rule out Red-necked phalarope.

 

2022-34 Arctic Tern

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 3 Aug 2022 Acc I hesitate to accept, but shoot, I can't rule out Arctic Tern and I can rule out Common with the tail apparently being longer than the wingtips and those stubby legs.

2nd round:

17 Aug 2022 Acc Continuing to accept based on previous field marks.
Mike H. 16 Aug 2022 Acc Red bill, stubby legs, the black cap engulfing the eye, rounded head, and tail extension all point towards Arctic.

2nd round:

8 Sep 2022 Acc If I m seeing the photos the way they really are, then I agree with the angle of the photo being of concern. The observer posted a photo to Facebook without knowing what he was looking at/for and therefore I don t place much stock in his(?)field observations. The additional comments from others are going off of the same photos that we are looking at. All of this being said, I m still accepting this on the reasons listed on my first vote.
Max M. 18 Jul 2022 Acc Photos look good for ARTE, and input from various sources are helpful in providing support for the ID. Too bad this bird seemed to be a one-hit wonder!

2nd round:

9 Sep 2022 Acc  
Keeli M.. 13 Aug 2022 Acc Photos and description are supportive of ID as Arctic Tern.

2nd round:

14 Sep 2022 Acc Continuing to accept based on record and combination of field marks.
Bryant O. 18 Jul 2022 No, ID Common Tern not eliminated, and much more likely. His ID as Arctic is based mainly on the all red bill, however Common often loose the black tip in July-august. Additional comments don't actually provide any field marks to justify Arctic. Common do have fairly short legs and leg length can be hard to judge. Tail/wing length hard to get a handle of at this angle. I would expect an Arctic to have a darker breast. Additionally, he posted other photos on Facebook which do clearly show a Common Tern with a black bill tip, then later said it could have been a different Tern. No discussion of flight field marks and poor flight photos. This Tern could be an Arctic, but I' not sure the evidence provided proves that it is. In the least, we need to give this a thorough examination

2nd round:

14 Sep 2022 No, ID I hate to be the one hold out here, but there are a couple things that continue to trouble me about this record. 1st the observer did not ID this themselves, this is an example of what might be termed a facebook sloppy ID. Unfortunately there are many hotheads who lurk on the internet and love to share their opinion, but in reality they don't know as much as they think they do. There are a lot of opinions saying "right GISS for ARTE", but none go into exact detail why and can site a single field mark that eliminates COTE. There is only 1 ARTE record in UT, is GISS enough to make the ID here? The main point of ID seems to be the all red bill, but that doesn't work for July-August terns because COTE usually lose the black tip, a fact no one mentioned. The angle of the bird is such that its head is turned away slightly and body angled too, so judgment of the bill and tail length is misleading. Leg length is also obscured by the rock, and actually looks a bit long for ARTE and closer to COTE, but again this can be deceptive depending on posture of the bird. He left out other photos from the record that clearly do show a COTE with a black bill tip and dark primaries, which he claimed later could have been a different bird as it was seen 10 minutes later, that fact calls into question the flight shots, when was that seen? The flying bird is not a COTE but the pale primaries, but appears to have a black bill on another shot only on facebook, which would be consistent with a FOTE in July so are we certain that is not a different bird? A single distant photo can be misleading, but seems to be all we are going with here and add some doubt about how many terns there were around the island and this seems a bit sketchy for me to accept. Again, it may be an ARTE, but nothing here proves that to me. But please enlighten me what I'm missing here, why is it a Zebra and not a Horse?
Kris P. 2 Aug 2022 Acc The most compelling information supporting my accept vote is the Arctic Tern GISS captured in Photos C-C1 some of which Taylor also described including:

--Attenuated, delicate profile
--Small red bill in both length and thickness rather than the greater robustness and color of the Common or Forster's
--Rounded crown
--Significant tail extension past wingtips
--Seemingly very short legs

Another feature, not part of the GISS, is the apparent concolorous dorsal wing in Photos D-D1.

I have minor reservations that the bill color could be atypical, the throat, cheek and upper breast appears white rather than gray (photo exposure?) and that the angle of Photos C-C1 may change the proportion of body parts to the whole, but the overall structure of the bird is compelling enough to quash those concerns. I suppose few submissions can be a committee member's dream record of easy analysis, and kudos to Taylor for recognizing what he saw and getting the information he was able to capture at 400 feet.

2nd round:

10 Sep 2022 Acc My best conclusion on this record, although not an easy conclusion, continues to be that this bird is an Arctic Tern. I'm casting my vote based on only the information contained in the record and not what was posted on Facebook (I don't subscribe).
Mike S. 16 Aug 2022 Acc I agree with the feedback the observer received from others on facebook. I believe that the combination of field marks in the description points to an Arctic Tern and rules out Common and Forster's. These points all appear to be consistent with the photos.
Nice documentation, and I appreciate the observer taking the time to seek input from others.

2nd round:

14 Sep 2022 Acc Bryant's first round comment caused me some hesitation, but I've decided to stick with my vote to accept. The photos are of marginal quality, but I do believe there is enough detail visible to rule out a Common Tern (particularly the details of the head, bill, proportions of wing/tail projection, and wing pattern).

It's more of a side note, but I'm not sure that we can read much into the leg length.
The following is from Birds of the World Online:
"In the hand, short tarsus length of Arctic Tern is diagnostic (≤17.0 mm). Common Tern has longer legs (tarsus ≥17.5 mm; longer than middle toe without claw)."

Although diagnostic in the hand, those measurements don't instill much confidence that leg length is a very reliable field mark.
David W. 5 Aug 2022 Acc I wish the contrasting gray of the breast were better visible, but I'll chalk that up to the severe lighting. In the other respects (esp. bill size & color, leg size, wing pattern in flight), this bird appears to be an Arctic.

2nd round:

12 Sep 2022 Acc I am not swayed from my first round vote despite Bryant's valiant attempts.
Kevin W. 10 Aug 2022 Acc Photos show what appear to be stubby legs, long tail, redder bill than Forster's or common.

2nd round:

9 Sep 2022 Acc I still feel inclined to call this an Arctic Tern.

 

2022-35 Ruff

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 3 Aug 2022 Acc Clear record, nice find
Mike H. 16 Aug 2022 Acc Not Nat Geo quality, but photos are good enough to eliminate other possibilities.
Max M. 3 Aug 2022 Acc Lovely Bird! Hope some other good rarities are found next week during the big day shorebird surveys. . .
Keeli M.. 13 Aug 2022 Acc Photo and description supportive of ID.
Bryant O. 8 Aug 2022 Acc Those orange legs were very striking, even at considerable distance
Kris P. 18 Aug 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 24 Aug 2022 Acc Good documentation. Another nice find by Max and Bryant.
David W. 3 Aug 2022 Acc Convincing, detailed writeup.
Kevin W. 17 Aug 2022 Acc Photos good enough to identify, good write-up.

 

2022-36 Hudsonian Godwit

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 17 Aug 2022 Acc Clear record
Mike H. 16 Aug 2022 Acc Photos shows a HUGO.
Max M. 9 Sep 2022 Acc Nice Record!
Keeli M.. 13 Aug 2022 Acc Photos and description are supportive of ID. Possibly same bird as previously reported?
Bryant O. 8 Aug 2022 Acc Diagnostic photos
Kris P. 10 Aug 2022 Acc Despite the dearth of reports of this species in Utah, I believe it could even be annual. Vast godwit habitat isn't accessible to us. And the factors of being in the right place at the right time with the right optics to observe and capture the critical details are immense. Detecting a HUGO could be a matter of a single MAGO in a flock of thousands of resting birds re-positioning 6 inches to one side.

That being said, I believe the supplemental August 7 sighting listed on the summary page for this record depicts a Marbled Godwit in the photos. The sighting was also reported in eBird on that day and I believe the photos depict a buffy-brown Marbled Godwit with patterned upper-parts and not a mostly-plain grayish and white Hudsonian Godwit as described in the checklist's word picture.
Mike S. 5 Sep 2022 Acc Nice written documentation establishes the ID. Photos show clear differences from nearby Marbled Godwits.
David W. 7 Sep 2022 Acc Excellent writeup by Kristin. I am only voting to accept her sighting, not the many that were reported after her because I believe some of those may have represented wishful thinking. I've not had a chance to go through any of the subsequent sightings to evaluate their validity, one way or another.
Kevin W. 17 Aug 2022 Acc Photos show good Hudsonian Godwit comparison with Marbled Godwits, especially the grayer back and white undertail coverts.

 

2022-37 Red Phalarope

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 25 Aug 2022 Acc  
Mike H. 8 Sep 2022 Acc Photo clearly shows a molting REPH.
Max M. 9 Sep 2022 Acc Nice bird, nice to have a rarity during our Intermountain West Shorebird Survey Big Day.
Keeli M.. 14 Sep 2022 Acc Photos and description, especially examples of molt stages, are supportive of ID and rule out similar species.
Bryant O. 13 Aug 2022 Acc  
Kris P. 9 Sep 2022 Acc Nice find, Bryant, to have documented during the shorebird survey. The observation of the yellow base of the bill, and rufous on the rear flank and base of the outer tail feathers in several photos are particularly helpful given the bird's partial molt status.
Mike S. 7 Sep 2022 Acc Good documentation, including photos showing a clear side-by-side comparison with a RNPH.

Interesting note on the timing, which is relatively early for a Red Phalarope: this would be the first UBRC-accepted REPH record for August since 1979. However, I do see some other August eBird records (also from Antelope Island Causeway).
David W. 30 Aug 2022 Acc Wow, remnants of breeding plumage. You don't see that every day (or decade) in Utah. Another rarity found and well-documented in Utah by Bryant.
Kevin W. 9 Sep 2022 Acc Tricky plumage, but I think some of the field marks that confirm this as a red are the bicolored bill and its thickness, the reddish color left on breast and vent, and the plain gray back. Good documentation.

 

2022-38 Boreal Owl

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 25 Aug 2022 Acc  
Mike H. 22 Aug 2022 Acc A documented breeding species in Utah.
Max M. 9 Sep 2022 Acc  
Keeli M.. 14 Sep 2022 Acc Photos and description and response to playback are supportive of ID
Bryant O. 22 Aug 2022 Acc Known location and great photos leave no doubt
Kris P. 10 Sep 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 7 Sep 2022 Acc Great photos clearly show a Boreal Owl.
David W. 30 Aug 2022 Acc Another great record from Jeff. Amazing pictures confirm his detailed field mark narrative. Bill color, head shape, forehead pattern, etc. Very nice.
Kevin W. 9 Sep 2022 Acc Great photos of a hard to document bird.

   

2022-39 Long-tailed Jaeger

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 25 Sep 2022 Acc Thin bill, light coloration, ok, I'll go for it

2nd round:

10 Nov 2022 Acc Field marks fit best for long-tailed, with that thin bill and light coloration.
Mike H. 27 Sep 2022 To 2nd  

2nd round:

27 Nov 2022 Acc A few of my questions/concerns can t be answered by the photos alone, but taken as a whole, I do feel there is more weight on the LTJA side of the scale.
Max M. 9 Sep 2022 Acc Good description and find by a couple of our own.

2nd round:

24 Oct 2022 Acc I agree with others comments that between the description and the photos, particularly the one showing the white shafts limited to P8 and P9 are enough to accept this difficult ID. I also looked at photos of the nape/contrasting cap in juvenile jaegers and this supports LTJA.
Keeli M.. 14 Sep 2022 Acc Nice job getting photos! Jaeger sightings are always fleeting.

2nd round:

12 Oct 2022 Acc Agree that jaegers can be challenging to ID, but also concur that the sum of the evidence presented continues to support ID as Long-tailed Jaeger.
Bryant O. 3 Sep 2022 Acc An addition feature that favors LTJA is the pale clean nape contrasting with a dark crown visible in photos. POJA and PAJA should have a uniform colored head and nape as juveniles regardless of morph. To sum up, my general impression of GISS in the field was of a LTJA and photos support that ID. Matt got additional photos, but lost his camera disc. If ever found those photos should show up in the eBird checklist.

2nd round:

2 Nov 2022 Acc I was waiting to comment in the 2nd round hoping to hear Mike H.'s concerns so I could address them, but since the deadline is approaching here goes. So looking at this Jaeger, juvenile Pomarine is immediately eliminated by the all dark primary covers on the underwing, in a POJA they should be white based creating the so called "double flash" of white on the underwing. Also the structure and proportions are all wrong: narrow wings, long tail, not pot bellied or bulky and skua like. So really we are considering juvenile LTJA vs PAJA, and this was apparent to me in the field. There are a number of pro LTJA field marks. The best field mark in favor of LTJA is the white in the primaries on the upperside. In a PAJA 4 or 5 outer primaries show white shafts, and usually white bases, creating a white crescent on the upper wing, on a LTJA only the outer 2 primaries show any white, limited to the shafts, so no crescent is seen. Photos F and G show this clearly and seal the deal. Also, PAJA are generally darker with rufous feather edging making the underwing covers appear darker than the flanks, LTJA have white feather edging making the underwing covers appear paler than the flanks. Overall PAJA are a warm rufous brown and LTJA are a cold gray brown, PAJA also show streaking on the flanks and nape that are lacking in this Jaeger. When I talk about GISS, what I'm really addressing is my quick assessment of the structure and proportions of the bird, which are absolute field marks that distinguish them. LTJA are longer, narrower winged, longer tailed(not just the tail plumes) and slimmer, giving a more tern like flight and impression. In 2014 I observed multiple PAJA and a LTJA on AIC, this difference in structure and flight style became apparent to me, and that was recently solidified by my experience with both in the arctic and all 3 on the ocean, these are really differences, as real as that between a Robin and a Solitaire. Assessing GISS in the field is something all experienced birders do all the time and is just a quick assessment of the birds structure and field marks based on experience with the species. My GISS of the bird in the field was LTJA, and the photos show real field marks that confirm that impression. For what its worth, I saw another Jaeger a few weeks later at Bountiful Pond, also a fast fly over. My GISS on that Jaeger was a PAJA, but my photos are so poor that I can't prove it, so I did not and will not submit a record for it, even though I'm 99% sure that's what it was, because I understand the difference between GISS impressions and proof.
Kris P. 21 Sep 2022 To 2nd I have significant concerns with this record because it represents mostly a GISS ID of a juvenile of a confusing genera trio all of which have color morphs, with no other birds present for a size reference. In addition, in common jaeger fashion, the bird didn't present either a long or a great viewing/photographic opportunity to gather/document the information to make me entirely comfortable with the ID. I find the documentation less than definitive, so I'd like to send this one for discussion

2nd round:

3 Nov 2022 Acc Thanks to all for considering this record a second time. I'm not fond of my using the 'To 2nd' vote option and chose it only after significant study and deliberation given we'd all need to consider the record again due to my choice. I'm voting to accept due to the most compelling features or lack thereof including:

Described or visible in photos:
- Cold brown tones
- Long, narrow-based wings and hand area
- Slim body
- Pale under-wing crescent and minimal white outer primary shafts

Not present:
- Warm brown tones (PAJA)
- Bulky body and broad-based wings (POJA)
- Primary shaft and pale under-wing crescent patterns (both PAJA and POJA)

There are minor contributing plumage characters as well not necessary to itemize as all of you have made your cases.

I think I recall seeing Bryant's eBird checklist on the day of the sighting at first listing the bird as a Parasitic/Long-tailed Jaeger, and later editing it to Long-tailed. I assumed this delay reflected caution in not calling the ID based upon only the field observation before reviewing the photos. If this is correct and not a fiction in my head, I appreciate Bryant's caution.

I've been hopeful Matt would have found his camera disc and posted his pics, because images from another angle might have been helpful. I don't see evidence in the record of independent conclusions or conferring about the bird. (While this may have occurred, it's not specifically listed). I think that info would have helped offset the challenge inherent in a juvenile jaeger ID and helped allay my doubts.
Mike S. 2 Oct 2022 Acc Although additional photos showing the upper-side of the wing would be useful, I believe the other field marks point to a Long-tailed Jaeger over Parasitic.

2nd round:

11 Oct 2022 Acc I understand the hesitation to accept given that this is challenging ID made even harder when you don't have the most cooperative bird. However, when taken in combination, I do believe there is enough evidence to call this a Long-tailed Jaeger. A better upper-side photo of the wing should eliminate all doubt, but the one poor photo we do have does appear to suggest a LTJA. Also, I believe there is something to Bryant's mention of the crown/nape contrast. I can find very few examples of this extent of contrast on a juvenile Parasitic, but it seems to be a normal feature of juvenile Long-tailed.
David W. 7 Sep 2022 Acc I think two of the photos (F & G) show the pale wing shafts being confined to the leading edge on the upper side of the wing (P8,P9). Initially seen by Lauri, alarm sounded by Matt, photos and field marks taken by the quick-witted Bryant.

2nd round:

4 Oct 2022 Acc Although I agree that jaegers are notoriously difficult to key out in the field, I find the photos prove the case in this sighting. A GISS argument can sometimes make one a bit queasy, but it's hard to argue with the white shaft pattern on the upperwing and some of the other details. My hat off on the quick response with the camera.
Kevin W. 30 Sep 2022 Acc Well written description (including some characteristics that I didn't know). Photos show marks characteristic of Long-tailed Jaeger.

2nd round:

28 Oct 2022 Acc I continue to think that there are enough field marks shown in the photos to identify this as a long-tailed Jaeger.

 

2022-40 Tennessee Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 25 Sep 2022 Acc Description seems to eliminate other species, observer seems fairly experienced with the species
Mike H. 16 Oct 2022 Acc Both observers have established a very good record of finding rarities with good documentation and I feel there is enough in their description of field marks to accept this record.
Max M. 9 Sep 2022 Acc Good description eliminating similar species.
Keeli M.. 14 Sep 2022 Acc Description of bird is supportive of ID, and all white underside and undertail rules out a lot of species.
Bryant O. 9 Sep 2022 Acc Good description adequately eliminates similar species. Interesting that this sounds more like an alternate plumage male with the gray head, unlike they typical basic plumage TEWA that are usually seen in fall in Utah.
Kris P. 2 Oct 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 2 Oct 2022 Acc I believe the written documentation is adequate. Combination of white underparts (including undertail coverts), white supercilium, olive-green back, and bill shape indicates a Tennessee Warbler.
David W. 7 Sep 2022 Acc Good description of the relevant field marks.
Kevin W. 30 Sep 2022 Acc The description eliminates other similar species, including Orange-crowned.

 

2022-41 Rusty Blackbird

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 25 Sep 2022 Acc Rusty coloration, curved bill
Mike H. 27 Sep 2022 Acc Pale tipped undertail coverts are diagnostic.
Max M. 9 Sep 2022 Acc  
Keeli M.. 2 Oct 2022 Acc Good substantiating photos and recording. Interesting find, good memory of sighting.
Bryant O. 9 Sep 2022 Acc Photos leave no doubt. This RUBL was seen during the period that the UBRC no longer reviewed RUBL(2019-2020). I actually emailed them to submit a record in 2019, only to get a response that the species was not on the review list. There are a number of other records of RUBL during this period, should all of them be submitted? This is an annual expected winter resident in small numbers. ID is tricky, but nevertheless I believe their status in Utah is well established.
Kris P. 3 Oct 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 2 Oct 2022 Acc Good photos clearly show a Rusty Blackbird.
David W. 9 Sep 2022 Acc Excellent photos and good recording.
Kevin W. 30 Sep 2022 Acc Rusty coloration and face pattern eliminate similar species.

 

2022-42 Tennessee Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 25 Sep 2022 Acc  
Mike H. 16 Oct 2022 Acc  
Max M. 30 Sep 2022 Acc Good documentation
Keeli M.. 12 Oct 2022 Acc Photos are diagnostic and rule out most other species.
Bryant O. 25 Sep 2022 Acc Photos leave no doubt
Kris P. 2 Oct 2022 Acc I thought this bird was going to be a slam-dunk given the emphasis on the white undertail coverts until I opened the photos. A couple plumage characters favor Orange-crowned more including:

- Fairly prominent, pale, split eyering
- Significant blurry breast streaks

However, the structure of the tail with its short extension beyond those white undertail coverts carries more weight for me and therefore, I'll accept this bird as a Tennessee.
Mike S. 2 Oct 2022 Acc Photos appear to show a 'first fall' Tennessee Warbler (dark eyeline, pale supercilium, white undertail coverts).

I am glad there are photos because the description only focuses on the pale undertail coverts to rule out Orange-crowned. While that's a good field mark, I don't believe it is diagnostic as a stand-alone.
David W. 27 Sep 2022 Acc Good photos support narrative.
Kevin W. 30 Sep 2022 Acc Photos show yellowish warbler with white undertail coverts.

   

2022-43 Philadelphia Vireo

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 11 Oct 2022 Acc I'm seeing pretty dark lores there; ok, I'll go for it
Mike H. 16 Oct 2022 Acc Good photos! Dark lores stand out.
Max M. 30 Sep 2022 Acc Nice bird and record!
Keeli M.. 2 Oct 2022 Acc Good photos. Dark lores, shape and coloration look right to me to support ID.
Bryant O. 25 Sep 2022 Acc Photos leave no doubt
Kris P. 3 Oct 2022 Acc I appreciate Quinn's efforts and success in getting multiple diagnostic photos. The narrative on this record is somewhat thin and misleading, and the photos were really necessary as the truth-tellers.
Mike S. 4 Oct 2022 Acc Diagnostic photos. Dark lores and overall bold/contrasting facial pattern, combined with a fairly bright yellow throat, rule out a 'bright' western Warbling Vireo. Structural details (round head, short bill, short tail) also help to rule out WAVI and other similar species.
David W. 27 Sep 2022 Acc Although this can be a difficult ID, the photos capture the relevant field marks, including the dark lores, dark coverts, and yellower throat than flanks.
Kevin W. 30 Sep 2022 Acc Yellowish throat, dark lores, shortish bill indicate Philadelphia Vireo.

 

2022-44 Boreal Owl

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 11 Oct 2022 Acc  
Mike H. 16 Oct 2022 Acc This is a species that has been well documented in the correct, but limited habitat of the Unitas. I feel this is a species that we may want to consider removing from the review list.
Max M. 30 Sep 2022 Acc 8? Holy cow. I guess my only questions are how long will we be reviewing BOOW records knowing they are residents- just not well documented, and why put conservative 4 on eBird and 8 on the record? Does anyone else think those numbers should align?
Keeli M.. 12 Oct 2022 Acc Great photos, great owl.
Bryant O. 25 Sep 2022 Acc Photos leave no doubt
Kris P. 3 Oct 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 4 Oct 2022 Acc Great record!
David W. 27 Sep 2022 Acc Jeff Cooper continues to almost magically find and spectacularly photograph this species in Utah. Amazing.
Kevin W. 19 Oct 2022 Acc Good photos of a Boreal Owl.

 

2022-45 Chestnut-sided Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 11 Oct 2022 Acc  
Mike H. 27 Sep 2022 Acc Photo clearly shows a CSWA.
Max M. 30 Sep 2022 Acc One of my favorite warblers
Keeli M.. 12 Oct 2022 Acc Nice find! Good supporting photos.
Bryant O. 27 Sep 2022 Acc Photos conclusive
Kris P. 4 Oct 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 7 Oct 2022 Acc Great photos are definitive.
David W. 27 Sep 2022 Acc Looks like an immature male to me.
Kevin W. 19 Oct 2022 Acc Photos depict warbler with greenish crown, wingbars, and even slightly rufous sides, eliminating other species.

 

2022-46 Chestnut-sided Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 11 Oct 2022 Acc  

2nd round:

10 Nov 2022 Acc Continuing to accept -- I agree that while the photos aren't the greatest, they're diagnostic along with the description
Mike H.    2nd: 31 Oct 2022 Acc The combination of observed field marks does eliminate other warbler species.
Max M. 30 Sep 2022 Acc This one was not as cooperative as the first as far as photos, but I was able to get a really good definitive look before it vanished in the wind.

2nd round:

21 Oct 2022 Acc I know the photo isn't the best - but I still think it is definitive Underside is uniform/pale grayish white - which could potentially be confused with Bay-breasted, Blackpoll, Pine Golden-winged, or maybe Tennessee. Bay-breasted, Blackpoll, Pine can be eliminated by yellowish-green tinge on wingbar and color of the back/nape. Golden-winged has a different wingbar pattern and gray back/nape. Tennessee eliminated due to presence of a wingbar. No visible streaking of any kind eliminates many other warblers. Northern Parula would have yellow in throat. If there is a species that the description and photo do not eliminate I would be interested in knowing what that may be if this goes to a third round.
Keeli M.. 12 Oct 2022 Acc Wish photo was better, but description is diagnostic and observers are experienced with ID.

2nd round:

26 Nov 2022 Acc Continuing to accept based on earlier comments and agree with others' comments.
Bryant O. 27 Sep 2022 Acc Description conclusive

2nd round:

21 Oct 2022 Acc Photos, although poor, are diagnostic
Kris P. 4 Oct 2022 Acc  

2nd round:

25 Oct 2022 Acc I think Team Malmquist saw and documented enough to defend the ID. I agree with Max's comment that no other warbler shows the determining combination of field marks including bright eye-ring (not eye-arcs); greenish-yellow wing-bars, one of which shows in the photo and appears bold, not narrow; and pale (but not yellow), unstreaked under-parts. In addition, Max's extensive experience with this and other eastern warblers helps offset the short observation time. A good 5-second view can be enough to observe distinctive features. I have no hesitation about accepting the record.
Mike S. 7 Oct 2022 Acc Combination of written description and poor photo establishes the ID.

2nd round:

27 Oct 2022 Acc No change of opinion, still believe the documentation is adequate for this species.  (comments added 3 Nov 2022)
David W. 27 Sep 2022 Acc A weak accept on this one. Recommend getting a better cameraman.

2nd round:

1 Nov 2022 Acc No new thoughts from the first round.
Kevin W. 19 Oct 2022 No, ID Other than maybe a little greenish color on the back, the photo doesn't show much for distinguishing field marks. I question if there is enough info in the description to eliminate other species.

2nd round:

28 Oct 2022 Acc The description in the record is good. The photo could be better, but Max does a good job in eliminating other possibilities with it.

 

2022-47 Yellow-throated Vireo

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 11 Oct 2022 Acc Stunner
Mike H. 27 Sep 2022 Acc Clear photo.
Max M. 30 Sep 2022 Acc  
Keeli M.. 12 Oct 2022 Acc Excellent photos. Solid bird.
Bryant O. 27 Sep 2022 Acc Photos conclusive
Kris P. 2 Oct 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 7 Oct 2022 Acc Nice photos of a distinctive species.
David W. 30 Sep 2022 Acc Nice photos and writeup. Another fine rarity by Weston from this little-birded spot.
Kevin W. 19 Oct 2022 Acc Good photos showing distinctive Yellow throat.

 

2022-48 Tennessee Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 11 Oct 2022 Acc Hm, it tough to accept without a photo (seems to be a recurring thing with this observer) but I think she's safely eliminated similar species with description.

2nd round:

10 Nov 2022 Acc I think Mike S put it best, that the majority of the field marks lean toward TEWA and it's not an exceptionally rare species for Utah. It's a plausible sighting and the white undertail coverts are a pretty reliable field mark for the species.
Mike H. 31 Oct 2022 Acc Soft accept. Don t want to hold up this record any longer or be the only reason it s pushed to a 2nd, but kind of hoping it does.

2nd round:

27 Nov 2022 Acc My soft accept in the first round was mostly based on on a few tidbits that probably aren t even criteria for accept/reject. I too question the fact that this observer reports a TEWA EVERY Fall while I ve yet to record one in Utah. However, is this enough to reject a record? I don t think so. I also question the fact that a photo has never been obtained by the observer that usually has a camera with them. Again, is this a reason to reject? Probably not. I ve also had a couple of strange encounters in the field with this observer that, at those moments, made me question her vision/ID skill level. Also, not anything strong enough to not allow a record through. I will weigh her description against itself and accept.
Max M. 30 Sep 2022 Acc I am hesitant to accept this record given the observer indicates that it was an adult male, but the description seems like a mish mash of adult and HY field marks, and the one field mark that is diagnostic for AdM in the fall (blue or gray in the crown) is missing. Otherwise sounds like a TEWA. If it goes to a 2nd round I am interested in seeing what other committee members think.

2nd round:

23 Nov 2022 No, ID I am having a hard time with this record and I am glad that others expressed concerns in the first round. I agree with Mike S. and Kris regarding variability with molt and you shouldn't need a camera with proper documentation. However, this individual has a habit of taking photos of other people's rare finds, but not her own. I agree that the description eliminates OCWA but I am concerned with the overall description and calling it an adult male. In her original eBird Checklist (https://ebird.org/checklist/S119288197) the observer's description aligns much better with a HY bird. "Small light yellow bird with sharp bill, short tail, thin pale eyebrow with visible eyeline, whitish undertail coverts." No mention of olive. That doesn't really jive with her report description. Something just isn't sitting right with me on this one. If you have a camera, you should be able to document rare birds that you find sometimes. . . even if not always.
Keeli M.. 12 Oct 2022 Acc Wish observer got photos, but white under tail in combination with the other descriptive characteristics is fairly diagnostic.

2nd round:

26 Nov 2022 Acc Still think majority of field marks support ID, still wish observer had photos.
Bryant O. 30 Sep 2022 No, ID I'm hesitant to accept a record of TEWA without photos, its all to easy to get a partial look at an OCWA and talk oneself into believing its a TEWA. OCWA of the west coast race are very TEWA like. Also this observer reports TEWA every fall, but has never obtained a photo which seems a bit sketchy.

2nd round:

2 Nov 2022 No, ID I'm glad to see others have some concerns similar to mine even if they voted to accept. There are a couple inconsistencies in the write up, "adult male" because of? And "gray in the flanks"? Fall TEWA are all yellow on the flanks. Either this observer has some serious TEWA mojo, like Kris does for PROW or Max does for CSWA, or I do for BBWA, or somethings amiss(note that all of the other observers above have provided physical evidence to prove their spirit warbler mojo). I know this observer carries a camera, I suggest they put more effort into getting documentation for some of their sightings. As such, wolf can only be cried so many times. Maybe she saw a TEWA, but she has never proved that she knows how to tell them from OCWA so I remain skeptical.
Kris P. 2 Oct 2022 Acc  

2nd round:

14 Nov 2022 Acc I think the sum of the observations is weighty enough in favor of accepting as a Tennessee. I also think it's possible a Tennessee's appearance in migration could be slightly variable due to the species' variable pre-basic molt strategy where the molt can be completed before/during/suspended during/completed after southbound migration. Pyle, Pt. 1, describes AHY/ASY male with a bluish-gray crown with green mottling. Observer didn't mention the base color of the crown, but she did mention olive mottling.

And what Mike S. said regarding carrying a camera. That opinion is near to my heart because I only digiscope and won't be capturing photos of warblers any time soon. While I thoroughly understand the comfort of reviewing diagnostic photos with difficult IDs, I don't want photos accompanying records to become a UBRC requirement either stated or de facto except in very unusual circumstances. This is not it.
Mike S. 12 Oct 2022 Acc Written description adequately rules out similar species.

2nd round:

3 Nov 2022 Acc This is an interesting discussion. It is indeed a concern when an observer carries a camera but has a habit of not providing photos with their records. However, I have a difficult time using that as a reviewing criteria (especially without knowing if the observer had their camera with them on this particular day). Lack of photos aside, if anyone has any firsthand accounts or specific reasons why we should be skeptical of this observer then I am happy to re-evaluate.

This record is complicated by the fact that this can be a difficult ID (TEWA vs. OCWA). However, I do believe the majority of the field marks tilt in favor of TEWA, including the most important ones (particularly the details of the face and undertail coverts, and apparent lack of breast/flank streaking). Personally, I don't find it to be an unbelievable circumstance that someone could have especially good luck finding this species in Utah. For example, see TEWA records # 2018-52 and 2019-05 from the same location only about one month apart. If this was an exceptionally rare species I'd be much more hesitant to accept, but I believe the documentation is adequate for a semi-regular (albeit rare) migrant.
David W. 4 Oct 2022 Acc Good description. I applaud the precise description of where the bird was found, and encourage the observer to include such helpful info in her future eBird posts to enable others to share in her discoveries. Nice bird which can easily be overlooked.

2nd round:

22 Nov 2022 Acc Although Bryant brings up some troubling concerns, I don't have enough information to act on them. I therefore stick to my original vote.
Kevin W. 19 Oct 2022 Acc Description eliminates similar Orange-crowned Warbler.

2nd round:

8 Dec 2022 Acc I agree with others that there are concerns, but I don't believe they warrant not accepting, if the details provided are indeed (mostly) accurate.

 

2022-49 Great Crested Flycatcher

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 11 Oct 2022 Acc Another stunner
Mike H. 31 Oct 2022 Acc  
Max M. 30 Sep 2022 Acc Despite the original observer needing some help with the ID - good photo documentation and seen by many. I also heard Suzi's recording of it calling, not sure why she didn't incorporate that into the record.
Keeli M.. 12 Oct 2022 Acc Description doesn't rule out other similar Myiarchis species, however, pictures show bright white tertials, pale pase of bill, and more yellow on the upper belly which all support ID as Great Crested to me.
Bryant O. 30 Sep 2022 Acc Photos and audio(on eBird) leave no doubt despite lack of detail in the written record.
Kris P. 10 Oct 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 12 Oct 2022 Acc
Nice record, seen and photographed by many. 
Some of the eBird checklists have photos showing the bold white tertial edges. See below: 
https://ebird.org/checklist/S119726924
https://ebird.org/checklist/S119742594
David W. 30 Sep 2022 Acc I'll be honest, I was going to vote "No" for lack of definitive evidence based just on the writeup and first set of photos (though the olive back was compelling). But the second set of photos better showed the pale base of the bill to better support the ID (though Nutting's still had to be considered, eliminated by the broad white inner tertial edges). Based on the way this is written up, I think we ought to include Max in the "References counsulted" section. Great find.
Kevin W. 19 Oct 2022 Acc I don't have much experience with Great-cresteds, and wouldn't mind some discussion on distinguishing from Brown-cresteds. That said, the duller rufous tail with brown sides, brighter yellow belly, darker gray chest, and the recorded call all seem to point toward Great-crested for me.

 

2022-50 Thick-billed Kingbird

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 11 Oct 2022 Acc Wowza
Mike H. 16 Oct 2022 Acc Well documented rarity.
Max M. 1 Nov 2022 Acc Excellent find
Keeli M.. 12 Oct 2022 Acc Great find. Saw this bird myself as well, and it was truly Thiccc.
Bryant O. 9 Oct 2022 Acc  
Kris P. 10 Oct 2022 Acc Terrific find, Bryant; you brought joy to many with this discovery.
Mike S. 11 Oct 2022 Acc Distinctive species, well-documented by many.
Congrats to Bryant on a great find!
This will apparently be among the northernmost records of this species, only surpassed by a couple of crazy outliers, according to eBird.
David W. 12 Oct 2022 Acc One of the most cooperative and photographed rarities in recent years. Yet another great find by our own Bryant.
Kevin W. 19 Oct 2022 Acc That's a thick bill! Pretty much eliminates other possibilities.

  

2022-51 Black-throated Green Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 2 Nov 2022 Acc  

2nd round:

16 Dec 2022 Acc While it is odd that a fall warbler would be singing, I'm convinced by the audio and detailed description.
Mike H. 14 Nov 2022 To 2nd For a first round vote I m going to base my judgement off of the concrete documentation which is the audio recording. The tempo seems a little vivace for a Black-throated Green and to me almost sounds more like the A5 type song of the Hermit Warbler.

2nd round:

15 Dec 2022 Acc Are there audio recordings that match Black-throated Green? Yes. Although, I m still puzzled by the song I referred to in my previous comment. As a whole, I do feel there is a lot more going for voting to accept than to not.
Max M. 24 Oct 2022 To 2nd This is a weird record. . . To have a fall warbler sing continuously for a long period of time makes me question the recording, although local birds are heard in the background. There are also loud bumps/noises and what sounds like footsteps walking away from the recording device? Maybe I am just hearing things. The song seems to match Black-throated Green, but I have been told that there can be overlap with Hermit, Townsend's Black-throated Green, and that the song isn't always reliable. They also admit to using callback but then say they don't use callback when recording? I am on the fence with this one and would like to hear others thoughts.

2nd round:

19 Dec 2022 Acc Agree with Kris's write-up, while I still have concerns with this record I think the information provided is enough to accept
Keeli M.. 10 Nov 2022 Acc Observers did a thoroughly decent job of describing the bird they observed and how they ruled out similar species. Wish they had pics, but based on description I think ID is worth accepting.

2nd round:

7 Dec 2022 Acc It is very weird that the warbler was singing like this in the fall, but I think the description and recording together rule out other options (including a hybrid). Agree with Kris's comments that while there do seem to be oddities, based solely on combination of description and recording, I'm still voting to accept.
Bryant O. 9 Oct 2022 To 2nd I'm concerned about the potential for confusion of this species with TOWA X HEWA, especially since that was not considered in the field during observation, only after the fact. TOWA X HEWA is far more likely in Utah than BTNW. However, the recording does sound better for BTNW than TOWA X HEWA, but it is very odd that the bird is singing in the fall, and there was no mention of the warbler singing in the original notes on eBird. Full discloser, this record was accepted on eBird, apparently the observer did not want to submit a record but the reviewer accepted it anyway, I flagged the media for re-review then discussed the ID with the eBird reviewer and asked that a record be submitted for such a rare bird. The eBird notes have since been altered to match the record, but originally there was no mention of it singing, only "responded to playback once", which made the recording seem suspect, were they recording themselves doing playback or was the bird singing? I now wish I would have taken a screen shot of the original notes. But something seems off here and I'm eager to hear others thoughts.

2nd round:

19 Dec 2022 No, ID So many inconsistencies with this record. I'm most concerned with how much their notes changed on eBird before they submitted the record to after. They greatly altered their story for the record, and the recording did not jive with the original notes. I just can't bring myself to vote for this one due to the changed notes, but again I wish I would have taken a screen shot of their original notes so others could see the drastic difference.
Kris P. 12 Oct 2022 Acc I struggled with this record and the poor-quality audio file and notes that don't match for a long time until I reviewed Von's Oct 1 eBird checklist reporting this bird. The checklist includes the same narrative description as in this record, but a different, shorter and easier-to-listen-to audio file that corresponds with the narrative description. I agree with the analysis of both the bird's physical appearance, the audio record and the sonogram in the eBird checklist. It's unfortunate that the vent area wasn't seen well to assess the presence of yellow.

2nd round:

2 Dec 2022 Acc I'm voting to accept again. I think I share everyone's concerns for the multiple oddities with this record, the greatest of those being the profuse fall singing. The mis-match of the descriptive words and the terrible audio file (the words match the audio file in the eBird checklist, not the one supplied for the record) made the first-round vote exceptionally difficult until I figured this out. Still, I can't vote based on oddities or weirdness when I believe the eBird checklist audio file is accurate for a Black-throated Green as are the descriptive words, and so the facts support the conclusion. Thanks to Bryant for mentioning the hybrid possibility; I also believe the written description rules out a Hermit x Townsend's hybrid. I'm OK with the elimination of other species occurring after the sighting rather than in the field. It seems normal to me to analyze a sighting after the fact possibly with the help of your reference library. Also note that Karen listed she took notes at the time of the sighting and of course, documenting immediately helps avoid the pitfall of memory getting muddled by consulting references.
Mike S. 9 Nov 2022 Acc There are some strange elements of this record, which have caused me some concern. A singing fall warbler, way out of range during migration would seem quite unusual. However, it's difficult to argue with the audio recording in the eBird checklist.

I was initially worried about the possibility of the observer(s) picking up their own playback in the recording, but this seems to be addressed in the write-up. The physical description of the bird seems to rule out similar species as well. All things considered, I'm having a hard time finding a good reason to vote against this record.

2nd round:

17 Dec 2022 Acc This record is odd in all of the ways that have already been mentioned, and for those reasons I do maintain some degree of skepticism...

However, the actual documentation is strong enough that I'm continuing to accept (especially the audio recording, but also the written description to a lesser degree). I guess we could debate whether the documentation is believable based on some of the oddities mentioned, but I'm willing to give the observers the benefit of that doubt.
David W. 19 Oct 2022 Acc As much as we've been spoiled in recent years with the inclusion of photos with the records, the writeup here is very complete.

2nd round:

14 Dec 2022 Acc I think Kris put it well.
Kevin W. 19 Oct 2022 No, ID This may have been a Black-throated Green Warbler, but I don't know if there's enough evidence to prove it. The recording doesn't seem definitive to me, and the description doesn't do much to  eliminate the more expected Townsend's Warbler.

2nd round:

8 Dec 2022 No, ID I'm still not convinced that there is enough evidence to accept this record, and comments on the song by Max, Keeli, and Bryant cause me hesitation to accept the recording as proof.

 

2022-52 Chestnut-sided Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Mike H. 31 Oct 2022 Acc  
Max M. 24 Oct 2022 Acc Nice find and documentation
Keeli M.. 10 Nov 2022 Acc Nice photos.
Bryant O. 14 Oct 2022 Acc Nice photos, exceptional year for this species in Utah
Kris P. 10 Oct 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 12 Oct 2022 Acc  
David W. 12 Oct 2022 Acc Quite a few of these reported this year. Nice photos.
Kevin W. 19 Oct 2022 Acc Green cap, bold eyering, wingbars all point to Chestnut-sided.

 

2022-53 Wood Thrush

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 2 Nov 2022 No, ID I don't think the observer has ruled out other expected species effectively. Veery should also be considered.

2nd round:

16 Dec 2022 No, ID Other similar species not effectively ruled out.
Mike H. 14 Nov 2022 No, ID Although the observer may very well have seen a Wood Thrush, I m not sure that there is enough in the description to eliminate a more boldly colored subspecies of a Hermit Thrush.

2nd round:

12 Dec 2022 No, ID Still feel my first round comments are true.
Max M. 24 Oct 2022 To 2nd Not sure Russet-backed Swainson's Thrush can be eliminated, but other than that not sure what this might be. Interested in others thoughts.

2nd round:

2 Nov 2022 No, ID Looks like other committee members share my concerns about eliminating similar more common species.
Keeli M.. 10 Nov 2022 Acc Hesitant to accept without photo, but seems like a hard one to mis-ID.

2nd round:

7 Dec 2022 No, ID After reading everyone else's comments, changing my vote. I agree that the observer did not adequately rule out other species, and there is a possibility for mis-ID.
Bryant O. 16 Oct 2022 Acc Hermit thrush seems eliminated so as much as I wish they had a photo for this level of rarity, I can't imagine what else it could have been.

2nd round:

29 Nov 2022 No, ID I agree with others points that other species not adequately eliminated. Although they claim to be familiar with Hermit Thrush, I think even a familiar bird in out of context habitat can be confusing if unexpected. I think with this level of rarity, with no physical evidence a detailed elimination of all possibilities must be provided, which was not achieved here. They could have seen a Wood Thrush, but they didn't prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
Kris P. 17 Oct 2022 No, ID This is an enticing possibility although the information is not quite robust enough for me to accept. I don't think a Veery was ruled out with the words, "orange tinted brown". I think it's also critical to establish how deeply into the belly the black spots were to distinguish a Wood Thrush from Catharus sp. thrushes, but the record describes the spots only as a feature of the breast.

2nd round:

16 Nov 2022 No, ID I'm staying with my 'not accept' vote. I think the observer was not familiar with all the possibilities he needed to eliminate to defend the ID; the descriptive words fit more than the Wood Thrush. Our collective doubt offered four species more likely. The record addresses only one of those and we still had doubts about that one.
Mike S. 24 Oct 2022 To 2nd I'd like to see some discussion on this record. The written description is not very thorough, and some of the field marks are fairly ambiguous. I'd like to see more details about the head/face, and the underparts besides just the "bold spotting". I would also like to see a more thorough effort to rule out similar species to make sure the observer is even aware of some of the more likely possibilities, specifically a Brown Thrasher or Pacific (Russet-backed) Swainson's Thrush, which may show a reddish tint to the upperparts if viewed in good light.

There aren't many birds that match the description provided: "...orange tinted brown on back, dark eyes, white eye rings, very dark distinct spots on breast..."
However, I'm not certain that this combination is distinctive enough to accept.
The timing of the observation is consistent with other Wood Thrush records from southern Nevada and California, Arizona, etc. Ultimately, I'd like to see others' opinions before making a final decision on this record.

2nd round:

5 Dec 2022 No, ID I agree that there is too much uncertainty based on the limited description and the lack of similar species mentioned.
David W. 20 Oct 2022 To 2nd I am a bit troubled by the half-hearted treatment in the Similar Species section. I would like to have seen a more vigorous defense against the possibility of Catharus thrushes (especially the more reddish Hermit thrushes and Swainson's), mentioning whether the spotting extended to the face, the shape of the spots, how far down they extended, were they just dark or actually black. How reddish was that back? Did the lower back contrast to the tail; and if so, how? Was the bill thrush shaped? I will likely end up voting for this record in the second round, but I wanted to see if others were uncomfortable too. (Maybe I've grown spoiled by all the photos we have received with records lately.)

2nd round:

14 Dec 2022 No, ID OK, I'll succumb to my doubts, seeing as they appear to be shared by others on the Committee.
Kevin W. 19 Oct 2022 No, ID I don't think enough description is given to eliminate more expected Hermit Thrush (although the observer seems to know Hermit Thrushes). The reddish back, dark spots, and eyering could just as well describe Hermit (or Swainson's) Thrush.

2nd round:

8 Dec 2022 No, ID I don't think that the observer provides enough detail to eliminate other, more expected, species.

 

2022-54 Zone-tailed Hawk

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 2 Nov 2022 Acc  
Mike H. 14 Nov 2022 Acc  
Max M. 24 Oct 2022 Acc Nice photo and documentation from one of our own
Keeli M.. 10 Nov 2022 Acc Nice diagnostic photo.
Bryant O. 14 Oct 2022 Acc Photos leave no doubt
Kris P. 17 Oct 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 20 Oct 2022 Acc  
David W. 12 Oct 2022 Acc Nice record.
Kevin W. 24 Oct 2022 Acc Photo shows wing and tail pattern of Zone-tailed Hawk.

 

2022-55 Boreal Owl

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 2 Nov 2022 Acc  
Mike H. 16 Oct 2022 Acc As stated previously, this is a species that we may want to remove from the review list. This record only strengthens that notion with them being found in multiple drainages.
Max M. 24 Oct 2022 Acc Not sure we need to review records of BOOW from the Uintas at this point
Keeli M.. 10 Nov 2022 Acc Finding them all over the place this year up there!
Bryant O. 17 Oct 2022 Acc  
Kris P. 17 Oct 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 20 Oct 2022 Acc Another great Boreal Owl record.
Regarding some previous comments on the potential of removing this species from the review list:
In my opinion, we should gather more records over a longer period of time before that happens. The majority of our 'accepted' records have come since 2019 (same can be said for records on eBird). I have little doubt that this is mostly a result of increasing observer coverage. However, don't think it hurts to continue gathering records, just in case the recent uptick of observations is a short-term/temporary surge. Luckily, Jeff has made his records very easy to review with his awesome photos.
David W. 19 Oct 2022 Acc Another amazing photo from Jeff Cooper.
-
I wonder whether this is now an adequately documented species in this area and should be taken off the review list for the Murdock Basin area. Jeff apparently has no problem finding them and getting them to pose in pines.
Kevin W. 28 Oct 2022 Acc Photos show diagnostic field marks of Boreal Owl.

 

2022-56 Red Phalarope

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 2 Nov 2022 Acc  
Mike H. 27 Nov 2022 Acc  
Max M. 24 Oct 2022 Acc Although the photo isn't the best - looks good for a REPH with supporting description.
Keeli M.. 10 Nov 2022 Acc Stout short bill, clean gray back and photos all support ID
Bryant O. 20 Oct 2022 Acc  
Kris P. 2 Nov 2022 Acc Structure of the species described in the narrative is evident in the photos, and together they easily eliminate the Red-necked.
Mike S. 3 Nov 2022 Acc Nice documentation eliminates similar species.
David W. 10 Nov 2022 Acc Although I have a couple of small concerns about this record, I think the photos and description do indicate a Red phalarope. The bill shape, uniform gray back, and wing bars all point to a REPH.

My concerns are that the rump was described as gray when it is shown as black in field guides. The other is the forehead was described as white but this bird looked as if it might still have some of its breeding colors because the dark on the forehead came down more than one might expect considering the rest of the plumage was so far along into its molt.
Kevin W. 28 Oct 2022 Acc Stout bill and facial and back patterns distinguish this from other phalaropes.

 

2022-57 Boreal Owl

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 2 Nov 2022 Acc  
Mike H. 14 Nov 2022 Acc  
Max M. 24 Oct 2022 Acc  
Keeli M.. 10 Nov 2022 Acc Nice photo
Bryant O. 21 Oct 2022 Acc Good photos. We could probably stop reviewing this species in the Uintas, but they still need to be reviewed in the rest of the state.
Kris P. 17 Oct 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 20 Oct 2022 Acc Another great Boreal Owl record.
(also, see my comment on record # 2022-55)
David W. 19 Oct 2022 Acc Another amazing photo from Jeff Cooper.
Kevin W. 28 Oct 2022 Acc How many Boreal Owls can one birder find in a season?? Good photo.

 

2022-58 Boreal Owl

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 2 Nov 2022 Acc  
Mike H. 14 Nov 2022 Acc  
Max M. 24 Oct 2022 Acc  
Keeli M.. 10 Nov 2022 Acc BOOW all over the place. Nice sighting.
Bryant O. 21 Oct 2022 Acc good Photos
Kris P. 2 Nov 2022 Acc It's a pleasure to participate in the formality of accepting another of Jeff's records on this species. His efforts to document the species in Utah are pushing the boundaries of what we know about range and especially, occurrence.
Mike S. 20 Oct 2022 Acc Another great Boreal Owl record.
I'm fine with combining the two sight records since the locations were relatively close. I would recommend including those distance details in the record summary.
(also, see my comment on record # 2022-55)
David W. 19 Oct 2022 Acc Another amazing photo from the owl whisperer.
Kevin W. 15 Nov 2022 Acc More good Boreal Owl records, and more than likely represent separate individuals, based on distance.

 

2022-59 Yellow-billed Loon

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 2 Nov 2022 Acc  

2nd round:

16 Dec 2022 No, ID I agree that the record is a bit muddled. The first bird appears to be a common; the bill seems rather thin for a Yellow-billed. And the culmen is mostly dark. In photos C & D we see no discreet auricular patch that I'd expect to see on a Yellow-billed in this plumage. The third set of photos show a little bit more detail, but I don't think we can rule out common here either. No auricular patch, mostly dark culmen. And in the photo where we can see the chin clearly, I don't see chin feathering extending
to point below posterior edge of nostril. I don't think Common can effectively be ruled out here.
Mike H. 27 Nov 2022 Acc I believe this record was initially muddled a bit as a few photos of a Common Loon were being reported as the bird in question. Bill, back pattern, forehead shape check, check, and check.

2nd round:

26 Dec 2022 No, ID I might be letting my memory get the best of me, but I swear I saw reports of this observation on eBird that looked good for YBLO. However, the photos attached do indeed look better for a COLO and everyone else seems to agree.
Max M. 24 Oct 2022 No, ID I don't see why this isn't just a palish Common Loon with a pale bill/overexposed photos? Color still doesn't seem right.

2nd round:

19 Dec 2022 No, ID Thanks to Bryant and Kris for the thorough breakdown, I continue to believe that the bird(s) photographed and provided as documentation show COLO.
Keeli M.. 12 Nov 2022 Acc Nice find! Good supporting photos and descriptions. Very large pale bill.

2nd round:

28 Dec 2022 No, ID I echo Kevin's comments. Confused by this record, and think that more than one bird is represented in the photos, but after reading everyone's comments and taking a closer look, agree that common loon is not ruled out.
Bryant O. 20 Oct 2022 No, ID Loon in this record looks much better for a juvenile Common, dark head with notable collar in neck, smallish silvery bill. Dave Hanscom's Loon photos (which may or may not be the same Loon) also seems to show an overexposed Common. Lauri Taylor/David Wheelers photos and description the most Yellow-billed like, but again the head seems too dark with a notable collar on the neck and bill color hard to judge in poor lighting. Also note timing, YBLO are very late migrants and most records in lower 48 after Nov. 1st, all fall records in Utah after Nov. 16th.

2nd round:

29 Nov 2022 No, ID I believe all photos provided on this record, including Lauri Taylor's, show a Common Loon. the head and neck are just too dark for a YBLO, which should not show a clear partial neck collar. Structurally it fits better a Common as well, and the bill is within range of Common. Full disclosure, Dave Hanscom sent me his photos after originally finding it, asking my opinion. The next day I went and looked for it and found the loon he saw, working the inlet shoreline. I watched it for over an hour, an although it spent most of its time diving, I came away with the impression it was not a YBLO. This can be a tricky ID, either poor light or too much light, can make a Common look Yellow-billed. But the all dark culmen in all photos pretty much makes it a Common. Hybrid COLO X YBLO are known, and I don't know what they look like, but really this looks like a solid Common to me.
Kris P. 8 Nov 2022 No, ID An odd bird, not fitting well in either Yellow-billed or Common Loon camp, but slightly favoring Common Loon due to structure. I don't think the size of the bill is outside the range of the Common Loon even though it's atypical. And despite the description of the bill as all-pale, multiple photos show a dark area on the culmen that I can't all brush off as shadows. The bird's slimmer neck appears to favor the Common more, rather than the thicker neck of the Yellow-billed. While the smudgy brownish color favors Yellow-billed, the darkness of the head and neck along with the striking pattern of contrast of white triangle above the broken neck-collar favors Common. Finally, the bridled back favors Yellow-billed. I see conflicts between the descriptive words and the bird's appearance in the photos. For this bird to be definitively ID'd, I think photos of significantly better quality and detail are necessary and therefore, it's best to leave this bird as a loon sp. I don't see compelling enough evidence to identify this as a Yellow-billed.

I find record 2022-59 (not 2022-59a) to be an oddity. This is another record only partly documented, and with some of the simplest and most straightforward fields left blank. I don't understand a willingness to contribute to the state's database of rare birds and then give incomplete information, which makes me distrust the remainder of that sight record. In addition, the submitter was not able to identify the bird himself due to distance, heat distortion and lighting angle, but chose to claim "discovering" the bird four days later after another birder proposed an ID. My impression is that the purpose of the sight record was to claim seeing a rare bird first, because the credibility of the limited information submitted was seriously flawed.

2nd round:

1 Dec 2022 No, ID I'm doubling down on my first-round opinion because I've come to believe the photos depict at least two different birds. I think photos A-D depict a Common Loon due to the smaller bill structurally right for a Common, dark culmen and more delicate head and neck. Photos E-H depict a loon with some intermediate characters between the two species not convincing enough to label it a Yellow-billed.

I can only vote on what's presented here in the record as I think that's the level playing field from which we have to operate (no shade intended toward those of you who saw the bird in person).
Mike S. 22 Nov 2022 No, ID I'm having a difficult time calling this a Yellow-billed Loon with any degree of confidence. I'm also not convinced that all of the photos are even showing the same individual.

I believe that the jagged, heavily contrasting neck markings look better for a Common Loon, and I'm not sure we have a great handle on the actual bill color/shape based on the quality of these photos and various lighting conditions.

I'm seeing too much uncertainty here to accept, and I have doubts that anything is outside of range of variation for a Common Loon.

2nd round:

17 Dec 2022 No, ID I appreciate the description in David's comments, which admittedly sounds better for a Yellow-billed Loon than anything included in the actual record. However, I agree with others that the documentation provided is less than definitive for a YBLO, and I'd lean towards a COLO based on all of the photos.
David W. 25 Oct 2022 Acc I don't know what to think of this record. On one hand, the photos other than Lauri Taylor's look marginal at best for Yellow-billed loon (being taken at great distance). On the other hand, Dave Hanscom, who took some of those marginal photos, must have seen the bird that Lauri (and I) saw -- as his eBird report was the one that caused Lauri & me to go up in the first place. The idea that he did not see a Yellow-billed loon and that we did is therefore very unlikely indeed. So I am put in an odd position of voting on what Lauri & I saw/photographed and the written description of what the others reported (not necessarily their photos). I will refer to this agglomeration of field marks as "our loon." I may be crossing over into advocacy here, for which I apologize, especially since I did not submit a report myself.

Our loon had the following field marks:

-- a very blocky head with two very prominent bulges above the eyes (greater than any I have ever noticed on a Common loon). I know most birds can alter the contour of their heads to some degree (as, notoriously, do the scaup), but this loon maintained the blocky head shape consistently.

-- the bill was very pale in a yellowish hue rather than the pale silvery hue often displayed by Common loons). This was visible through the scope even though the loon was somewhat backlit by the morning sun (though at a high angle and behind the mountains). Lauri returned later that day with another friend just before Bryant showed up and saw what they say was the same loon on the northern portion of the reservoir (not surprising--we all know loons are very quick swimmers and often move around). This 2nd sighting was several hours later and the sun had moved to a better angle, allowing the loon (which apparently was very close to the shore by the dam) to be seen in good light. Lauri reports that the bill was clearly yellow.

-- the shape and size of the bill was consistent with the National Geographic field guide illustrations for the Yellow-billed loon. The Common loons on the reservoir that day had smaller, thinner bills with less an upslanted tip to the lower mandible. This was sadly not captured well in most of the photos, though some of Lauri's photos and Dave's photo C show it fairly well (as affirmed by a better birder than myself, a fellow veteran of this Committee).

-- the color of the head and neck was pale brown, a warmer tone than the Common loons in the area. It is unfortunate that Lauri's photos were taken in the cold light of dawn, somewhat backlit, and that there were no Common loons in those photos for comparison. They don't fully capture this warmer hue. Dave and Ben both subsequently reported this phenomenon in their reports as well (much to my relief). I think our loon was comparable to the photo of an immature bird shown in Wikimedia (and Dave Hanscom agreed that this corresponds to what he saw too): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yellow-billed_Loon.jpg

-- it held its bill above horizontal much of the time (though it kept diving and would look down before each dive).

-- others (including David H) reported our loon looked larger than the nearby Common loons. Of course, like us, he did not have side-by side comparison. This loon appeared to be a bit of a loner compared to the other loons on the reservoir, who often congregated into small groups.

In summation, I feel very confident we saw a Yellow-billed loon, fairly comfortable from Dave Hanscom's description that he saw one, and a little less comfortable that Ben saw one because he relies on the descriptions of Dave. But, seeing as I do believe the loon was there in mid October, I won't veto Ben's record for leaning a bit too heavily on the report of one of the state's premier birders (Dave the First of Summit County).

2nd round:

29 Nov 2022 Acc I have nothing to add to my first round comments other than to say I think Mike got it just right. I agree there are some photos of a common loon muddling the record.
Kevin W. 15 Nov 2022 Acc Pale, upturned bill makes it look like a Yellow-billed Loon to me.

2nd round:

8 Dec 2022 No, ID What seemed like a straightforward "accept" turns out not to be. After reading others' comments and looking more closely at the photos and field marks, I agree with others that it just doesn't seem completely consistent with Yellow-billed.

 

2022-60 Palm Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 2 Nov 2022 Acc  
Mike H. 27 Nov 2022 Acc  
Max M. 24 Oct 2022 Acc Good documentation photos
Keeli M.. 12 Nov 2022 Acc Combination of characteristics narrow down possibilities here. Good photos.
Bryant O. 1 Nov 2022 Acc Good photos
Kris P. 14 Nov 2022 Acc An excellent team effort by these two birders. Well-seen, nicely photographed and thoroughly researched.
Mike S. 22 Nov 2022 Acc Photos show a Palm Warbler.
David W. 1 Nov 2022 Acc Nice photos of the bird in the Tamarisk. I especially appreciate photo E of the tail underside pattern. Odd that the tail bobbing was not noted, but I suppose different folks focus on different things.
Kevin W. 15 Nov 2022 Acc Bright yellow rump and undertail coverts, dark and white tail pattern, streaked chest, brown on the crown all point toward Palm Warbler.

 

2022-61 Tennessee Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 2 Nov 2022 Acc Although no photo was provided, I think the observer did a good job of ruling out other species in the description.

2nd round:

16 Dec 2022 Acc I could see how if you have a highly contrasting gray head, how the back could be seen as "lime" green. I think the observer was clarifying that it looked bright instead of a dull or olive green. I think the lack of wingbars or eyering would rule out chestnut-sided. While undertail coverts would rule out Orange-crowned. Although I would love to have seen photos, I'm giving the record the benefit of the doubt.
Mike H. 15 Dec 2022 Acc Soft accept.

2nd round:

6 Jan 2023 No, ID My  soft accept  in the first round was giving the descriptor some latitude with the Lime Green depiction. However, after reading other s comments with the same heed, I will lean No, ID.
Max M. 22 Nov 2022 Acc Interested to know the experience of the other observers who independently ID'd this bird. If this goes to a second round, maybe we can learn a bit more from our Washington Co. reps and whether or not they asked for a supplemental record?

2nd round:

22 Jan 2023 No, ID I was on the fence in the first round, and other's comments have swayed me to change my vote to no based on the record itself, even if others may have seen a TEWA in the area.
Keeli M.. 12 Nov 2022 Acc Description is supportive of ID and ruling out other species.

2nd round:

28 Dec 2022 Acc Agree that lime green is an odd descriptor, but also agree with Stephanie's comment that observer was trying to differentiate from olive green. Sibley's description is "bright green" even though TEWA look greenish yellow to me, so I'm wondering if that's where the observer is getting that language from. I think the other options are fairly solidly ruled out even if there's some inconsistencies in the description, and I'm also giving the observer the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Bryant O. 1 Nov 2022 No, ID I'm confused by their description of "lime Green" upper and crown with white belly and no yellow? Fall TEWA are a lemony yellow on the breast, belly and yellowish on the back and crown, not "lime green". Males in alternate plumage in the spring can have a greenish back and white belly, but they have a gray head. I don't know what they saw, but it doesn't sound like a fall TEWA to me.

2nd round:

19 Dec 2022 No, ID Continuing to have concerns about their description which doesn't match a fall TEWA, glad some others feel the same.
Kris P. 14 Nov 2022 No, ID I can't reconcile the description of the color as "bright lime-green" and the bill as "long" with the ID of Tennessee Warbler. On my bird color wheel, bright lime green is a Chestnut-sided Warbler color, and a long warbler bill is a Yellow-throated/Black-and-White/Prothonotary/waterthrush. And no yellow, not even a wash, does not seem quite right on a fall bird. That the bird had white under-tail coverts is helpful, but not enough to overcome the troubling details.

2nd round:

27 Dec 2022 No, ID No change in opinion on this one. A few things are amiss..
Mike S. 30 Nov 2022 Acc I believe the description is adequate for an adult Tennessee Warbler. This bird was also reported by Steve & Cindy Sommerfeld in our local texting group (they may have been with the Audubon group mentioned in this sight record). I tried chasing that evening with no luck.

2nd round:

17 Jan 2023 Acc While some of the concerns with this record are valid, I still believe the combination of field marks establishes the ID of a TEWA and rules out an OCWA (the most likely species to present confusion).

I'm not overly concerned about the "lime green" description because of the points made by Stephanie and Keeli. Color descriptions are fairly subjective and "yellow" to one person may be "green" to another. I believe that the intent was to describe "bright" upperparts, which would be more consistent with a TEWA than an OCWA.

"Whitish-gray" underparts with "no yellow" would be a bit unusual for an October bird. But I can find examples of TEWA at this time of year with underparts that are at least mostly "whitish-gray."
See an example here:

I do have some reservations about the described crown color, plus David's comment about the eyeline, and Kris's comment about the bill. But I still believe the record includes the most important field marks for a TEWA.
David W. 10 Nov 2022 To 2nd  I have some concerns about this record, though not to the point where I wish to vote NO in the first round:
-- BRIGHT lime green back? I guess some might describe it that way in bright sun...
-- No yellow on a fall bird? Not even a wash?
-- Differentiating from Orange crowned by saying it lacked that species' dark eyeline? If anything, the opposite is true. This is what troubles me the most.

2nd round:

22 Dec 2022 No, ID I'm still left with doubt on this one.
Kevin W. 15 Nov 2022 Acc The description seems to be good for a Tennessee Warbler.

2nd round:

19 Dec 2022 No, ID Others' points are right. The description is off. Enough so, that I'm not sure they knew what they were seeing. I also knew about the Somerfelds' Tennessee Warbler, but I don't think I can assume that this was the same bird based on what was described.

 

2022-62 Red Phalarope

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 10 Nov 2022 Acc Seems right for Red

2nd round:

16 Dec 2022 No, ID Re-evaluating this record, I agree it looks more like a red-necked.
Mike H. 15 Dec 2022 No, ID  

2nd round:

6 Jan 2023 No, ID Agree that this appears to be a RNPH.
Max M. 22 Nov 2022 Acc  

2nd round:

19 Dec 2022 No, ID I think I was duped by the quality of the photos. The angle of the bill to me gives the appearance of short/stout like a REPH, and maybe my colorblindness played a role in photo A1, on my computer screen it looks like there is a pale bill-base, but based on others' comments maybe it is an artifact of the image and has to do with the increased contrast. Image A also threw me off, the back looks plain gray but Bryant makes a good point about the white. Also agree with others regarding stage of molt/plumage for the time of year, and the red on the neck is inconclusive. You would think that this bird would look more like the one Bryant found a week later at the same location during the shorebird survey. Changing my vote to no.
Keeli M.. 1 Nov 2022 To 2nd  

2nd round:

28 Dec 2022 No, ID Record and photos are confusing and inconclusive to me and do not rule out Red-necked Phalarope.
Bryant O. 1 Nov 2022 No, ID The photo shows 2 Red-necked, no Red. Size can be deceptive, age, sex and individual variation can make one look bigger or smaller, even posture and behavior too. No pale in the bill base, and bill too long for Red. Red can show black and gold(juvy) streaking on the back, but not white as their Phalarope has.

2nd round:

19 Dec 2022 No, ID Still think it looks better for a Red-necked
Kris P. 2 Nov 2022 No, ID  I'm sorry to conclude that this record is a mishmash of weak details, confusing details, and good details. I find the general description of the bird with white underparts and neck with gray upperparts with faint rufous wash on front of neck not to be distinct enough from the Red-necked Phalarope to be helpful. It's confusing to me the stress on the term 'broad' to describe the bill and 'quite stout' to describe the body. Picking this bird out of a mixed flock that includes Wilson's Phalaropes due to the subject's relatively large and wide-bodied appearance doesn't make sense given that the Wilson's is a larger species. On the good side, the appearance of the plain gray back lacking streaking falls in line with what a Red Phalarope should look like. In addition, the elimination of other species has a succinct statement that somewhat defies the sense of the mish-mash.

I found the photo to be inconclusive.

I called up the Aug 5 eBird checklist that must have caught Colby's attention with the initial report of the bird. To add to the confusion, the observers reported the bird as a Red Phalarope, but entertained the idea that it could be a weird-plumaged Wilson's. So, no help there.

I can't disregard the weak and confusing details of this record that don't support the conclusion in favor of a couple that do support the conclusion, especially given that the observers seemed to have a good view and took notes while they watched.

2nd round:

16 Dec 2022 No, ID The first-round comments added weight to my substantial doubts about this record. No, again.
Mike S. 30 Nov 2022 No, ID This appears to be a Red-necked Phalarope. When seeing this record, my first concern was the date, as August 5 is pushing the very early end of the 'expected' date range of this species in the fall. The photo shows a bird that is clearly in mostly basic plumage. I would expect a REPH to be retaining more breeding plumage at this date (similar to the bird in record # 2022-37). The bill shape is difficult to assess based on the only angle we have, and I see no sign of the paler base to the lower mandible (and this is not noted in the description). This combination points to a Red-necked Phalarope.

2nd round:

5 Jan 2022 No, ID Good points made by others only boosts my confidence that this is a Red-necked Phalarope.
David W. 10 Nov 2022 No, ID I don't know. The photo and writeup don't seem to quite jive. The back seems streaky, the bill seems fairly long & thin. It does seem larger than the phalarope next to it. The reddish fringe on the neck doesn't help the case, as juvenile RN phalaropes also have that.

2nd round:

22 Dec 2022 No, ID I still think this is a likely Red-necked phalarope.
Kevin W. 15 Nov 2022 No, ID The phalarope in the photos shows a few things that I think indicate that it is not a Red. First, the bill (although the angle is difficult) appears long, and not bicolored. Second, the molt of this bird is weird for a red; Red's should molt gradually over their body. This bird, if it were a Red, would have a completely molted head from alternate into basic, while the back doesn't have the plain-gray feathers that a Red should. There are no golden feathers on the back, as there are in a Red's alternate plumage. There is some deep red color, but I assume this is an artifact of the photo (I don't think either species would have that deep red on the back, but Reds never have any red on the back). I couldn't find any photos of Red Phalarope in molt that resembled this bird (atlhough there are some fine photos here: https://ornithologi.com/2015/08/12/plumage-in-transition-red-phalarope-pre-basic-molt/ ); but I do see Red-neckeds that look similar. Size-wise, it does appear that this bird is bigger than the other (red-neck) in the photo, but I think that could be a factor of fluffing feathers, or angle, or something else.

2nd round:

19 Dec 2022 No, ID I still think the photographed bird is a red-necked phalarope, and the description isn't good enough to convince otherwise.

 

2022-63 Mexican Duck

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 16 Dec 2022 Acc While the primaries do seem a bit dark, I don't see curling in the tail; I'll call it "pure enough" to accept.
Mike H. 15 Dec 2022 Acc  
Max M. 22 Nov 2022 Acc  
Keeli M.. 26 Nov 2022 Acc Photos and description supportive of ID.
Bryant O. 11 Nov 2022 Ace I don't see any curl to the tail and tail looks brown. Would like to see rump but overall looks Mexican
Kris P. 1 Dec 2022 Ace  
Mike S. 5 Dec 2022 Ace Photos appear to show a Mexican Duck.
As we've discussed before, it's possible or perhaps even likely that even the most phenotypically pure-looking birds we get in Utah are not truly 'pure' Mexican Ducks. We may be able to nit-pick this individual, but no obvious Mallard features jump out, and I believe it's on par with records we have accepted previously.
David W. 14 Dec 2022 Ace Tail, bill, color. Looks good enough despite some grayish wash on the lower back (a hint of male Mallard).
Kevin W. 8 Dec 2022 Ace I think that this bird shows the traits that have come to be consistent with accepted records of Mexian Duck, i.e. lack of curl of tail feathers, dark undertail coverts, yellow bill, distinct change of color between neck and breast, dark crown and eye-line.

 

2022-64 Yellow-billed Loon

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 16 Dec 2022 Acc Does have that smaller-eyed look and the top mandible doesn't have that dark ridge all the way down.
Mike H. 15 Dec 2022 Acc  
Max M. 22 Nov 2022 Acc  
Keeli M.. 26 Nov 2022 Acc Descriptions and photos are supportive of ID. Big chunky loon with a big chunky pale yellow bill.
Bryant O. 20 Nov 2022 Acc  
Kris P. 1 Dec 2022 Ace A nice, clean bird that could have been the specimen for a field guide description.
Mike S. 17 Dec 2022 Ace Nice record with definitive photos.
David W. 14 Dec 2022 Acc Looks like a solid record.
Kevin W. 18 Dec 2022 Ace This bird looks to be more a straight-forward Yellow-billed Loon that the previous record that had me confused.

 

2022-65 Brown-capped Rosy-Finch

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 16 Dec 2022 To 2nd I don't know, I'm seeing a fairly clear gray crown, but want to see what others say.
Mike H. 6 Jan 2023 No, ID I m having trouble deciphering the exact angle of the head in both photos and maybe I m just not seeing what is actually present, but I don t like the lack of darker crown feathers. It appears that other than the fore crown, the gray is uniform in color? I believe this is indicative of a first Winter Interior form of Gray-crowned?

2nd round:

30 Jan 2023 No, ID  
Max M. 19 Dec 2022 Acc  

2nd round:

6 Feb 2023 No, ID On closer inspection and based on other reviewers comments, I agree that this is an immature bird and does not rule out GCRF. Changing my vote to no.
Keeli M.. 28 Dec 2022 Acc The photos had me looking pretty closely, but gray-crowned are ruled out and the description supports ID as brown-capped to me.

2nd round:

28 Jan 2023 No, ID Despite voting to accept in the first round, I really struggled with the photos and after reading everyone's comments I'm changing my mind and agreeing that hatch year GCRF is not ruled out.
Bryant O. 30 Nov 2022 No, ID I believe this species is expected annually in decent numbers in eastern Utah, and this observer has a good track record of observing this species, however I don't think this individual is without a doubt a Brown-capped. Before was can assess the head pattern, we need to know the age of the bird, Hatch year or adult? There is no mention of this in the record and angles of photos don't help. However, from what I can see this looks like a HY. Many HY GCRF have a similar crown pattern to this bird, and although some adult male BCRF can have some gray in the crown edges, I would expect them the be richer brown and pink. This is a very tricky ID and every year I see a few HY GCRF that show this head pattern, but HY BCRF should have no gray in the crown at all. This could be a HY GCRF.

2nd round:

6 Jan 2023 No, ID I see no strong argument this is a Brown-capped, and think hatch year GCRF is not ruled out.
Kris P. 5 Dec 2022 No, ID Not enough information in words or photos to distinguish this bird from a Gray-crowned Rosy-finch. The ID appears to rest solely on the crown plumage, which looks solidly gray aft of the dark fore-crown rather than more mottled as I'd expect for a Brown-capped. With this doubt, I'd need an incontrovertible description or photos of strongly pink side plumage.

2nd round:

10 Jan 2023 No, ID I also consider this observer to be careful and competent, and expect him/the location/the timing likely to produce Brown-capped Rosy-finches. But I can't quite embrace the Brown-capped ID with this record. I see many adult Gray-crowns at close range on twice-weekly winter surveys or in the hand on 6-8 banding days per winter that are a rich, warm, brown that would fit the color described. Given that the crown pattern shown in the photos favors Gray-crowned more, I don't think Gray-crowned has been ruled out.
Mike S. 31 Dec 2022 No, ID Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch cannot be ruled out by the photos or description. The Similar Species section somewhat contradicts the photos, in my opinion (I'm seeing an obvious gray crown with more contrast that I'd expect for a Brown-capped Rosy-Finch).

2nd round:

9 Jan 2023 No, ID Again, I'm not seeing evidence to support the ID of a Brown-capped. I agree with others that this is likely a hatch-year Gray-crowned.
Mark S.  2nd: 19 Jan 2023 No, ID The coldness of the brown and the lack of rosy color suggest an immature bird to me, and given the difficulty of distinguishing Brown-capped and Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch immatures, I can't see enough evidence here to make a positive identification.
David W. 31 Dec 2022 No, ID I have often voted for the records of this species submitted by this observer in the past, but I don't think there is enough evidence in this particular record of the breast/belly rosiness I think is required to eliminate the possibility of juvenile Gray-crowned.

2nd round:

6 Jan 2023 No, ID I still believe the record does not adequately dispense with the possibility of this bird being a juvenile Gray-crowned rosy-finch.
Kevin W. 19 Dec 2022 Acc The bird in the photographs is definitely more brown that even most Brown-capped are, I think. I don't think it could be anything else.

2nd round:

13 Jan 2023 No, ID HY Gray-crowned not eliminated.

 

2022-66 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 16 Dec 2022 Acc Good clear record
Max M. 19 Dec 2022 Acc  
Keeli M.. 28 Dec 2022 Acc Photos and description support ID and help rule out red-naped or hybrid.
Bryant O. 8 Dec 2022 Acc  
Kris P. 18 Dec 2022 Acc The obvious juvenal plumage combined with late fall date are compelling, along with the lack of characters that would imply Red-naped parentage. Esther Sumner happened to capture the LOWER black frame of the red throat in a photo she posted in her Dec 10 eBird checklist. That feature is helpful to know but hard to see and photograph given sapsuckers are often high obscuring especially the lower frame of the throat.
Mike S. 5 Jan 2022 Acc Nice photos and written documentation.
David W. 14 Dec 2022 Acc Retaining extensive juvenile plumage into December is pretty definitive. Also, the pattern of crown molt supports this ID.
Kevin W. 19 Dec 2022 Acc Looks good for a Yellow-bellied to me. I think that other species, and even hybrids can be eliminated by the description and photos.

 

2022-67 Snowy Owl

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 16 Dec 2022 To 2nd Pushing through to second to give us some time to see if anyone else can re-find it. The description sounds like a Snowy Owl with those yellow-eyes and dark spots. But it's unfortunate that no photos were taken, even with a cell phone, from such a close distance to confirm. Also unfortunate that the observer approached and flushed it.
Mike H. 26 Dec 2022 To 2nd My confidence in the accuracy of the human eye/mind seeing size and color has been greatly reduced after watching a documentary about this topic. The one field mark that I always look for when a report of a SNOW comes along is the facial disk. Again, no mention of this field mark. For the date, the amount of snow the W has received, the absurdly cold late Fall, and the habitat, a Snowy Owl being seen would not be the craziest thing. However, I do feel that a skewed memory of what was seen by an inexperienced observer may be the more likely culprit.

2nd round:

6 Jan 2023 No, ID Well, it looks as though my concerns align with others.
Max M. 19 Dec 2022 No, ID While the description provided supports Snowy Owl, this is not an irruption year for this species, with the closest recent sighting in northern Montana. Wonder if the headlights hitting the eyes made them appear yellow? Lack of detail in the record is concerning.

2nd round:

6 Feb 2023 No, ID Looks like we are all on the same page with this record.
Keeli M.. 28 Dec 2022 No, ID Not accepting due to admitted low light conditions of observation as well as lack of detail and no experience noted in record ruling out other species. Could eyes appearing yellow be a product headlight reflection? If they were truly yellow, it would rule out Barn Owl, but not rule out a pale Short-eared Owl to me.

2nd round:

28 Jan 2023 No, ID Looks like everyone pretty much agrees on this one. No change to my vote.
Bryant O. 15 Dec 2022 No, ID Many problems with this record, but owl described as 1 foot tall is not a Snowy, they are big. I see no reason this is not a Barn Owl which apparently was not considered. A Barn Owl in head lights on the side of a road at dusk can look very white. This seems to be a common pitfall as so may non-birders claim to see Snowy Owls as illustrated here

2nd round:

6 Jan 2023 No, ID Seems we are all mostly on the same page that this record does not prove they saw a Snowy.
Kris P. 27 Dec 2022 No, ID The scant observation details are not enough to overcome my serious doubt about this sighting given that it's profoundly unlikely in a non-irruption year for Snowy Owls in the west, and the bird is an even less-likely female (it's not clear how the observer determined the age and sex). None of the factors that would help bolster a sighting of an extreme rarity are here, either.

2nd round:

6 Jan 2023 No, ID I actually thought this record was a scam, at first, designed to punk the records committee. False reports have precedence in the Utah birding community written by knowledgeable birders with adolescent inclinations to fool others. I'm sorry that these incidents have made me cynical and made me question this observer. Once a deep dive of research convinced me he's legitimate and his record is honest, I voted not to accept and continue to vote no based on the species/sex's extreme improbability this year, and the observer's ostensible low experience in observing bird details. The Snowy Owl must be just about the most-often reported extreme rarity by non- or novice birders.
Mike S. 5 Jan 2022 No, ID The very limited description resembles that of a Snowy Owl. However, I wish there was more written about the "dark coloring" and/or "dark spots" that were observed.

Overall, I don't believe there is enough here to be confident in the ID, especially for a low light observation with no optical equipment.

2nd round:

9 Jan 2023 No, ID No change of opinion, and it looks like others are in agreement.
Mark S.  2nd: 19 Jan 2023 No, ID Owl in the headlights that looked white with dark spots? That could be any number of owls. Size estimate, beyond being simply unreliable, wouldn't fit Snowy Owl even if correct. Given the location in the middle of town, Western Screech-Owl is most likely, followed by Great Horned Owl, assuming that the yellow eyes eliminates Barn Owl.

But Snowy Owl? I don't believe it, and there's no evidence presented here to convince me otherwise.
David W. 22 Dec 2022 No, ID Though this may have been a snowy owl, the paucity of detail fails to prove the case and forces me to vote against. Specifically: no mention of the presence or absence of ears tufts and a size estimate not even close to a Snowy owl's. At least the eye color eliminates some of the more common mis-identified possibilities (like Barn owl). The case for color is a bit compromised by the fact that the sighting was in deep dusk with headlights used as illumination (which tends to wash out color).
-
On a sidenote, you gotta love the email address of the submitter. Full points.

2nd round:

5 Jan 2023 No, ID It looks as if most other people's comments align fairly well with mine. I saw nothing to bolster the argument to vote to accept, so I will stick with my first round vote.
Kevin W. 19 Dec 2022 No, ID Outstanding reports require outstanding documentation, and I don't think that this report can be confirmed with documentation provided. It could have been any "light-colored" owl that appeared white in the headlights.

2nd round:

13 Jan 2023 No, ID I still don't believe that enough evidence is presented to prove that this is a Snowy Owl, and the likelihood is low.

   

2022-68 Rusty Blackbird

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 26 Dec 2022 Acc  
Mike H. 26 Dec 2022 Acc Rusty secondary coverts and pale tipped UTC s look good.
Max M. 3 Jan 2023 Acc Great find by Jack and good documentation by many.
Keeli M.. 28 Dec 2022 Acc Great photos.
Bryant O. 23 Dec 2022 Acc Nice female seen by many
Kris P. 30 Dec 2022 Acc  
Mike S. 9 Jan 2023 Acc Nice photos show a Rusty Blackbird.
David W. 22 Dec 2022 Acc A compliant bird seen by many. Excellent photos make this one easy.
Kevin W. 13 Jan 2023 Acc Photos seem definitive for a Rusty Blackbird.

 

2022-69 Magnolia Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 26 Dec 2022 To 2nd Would like to hear others thoughts on this sighting. The description seems to fit for Magnolia, but not much is known about this observer and her experience. She said she went to go take a picture, but then saw an eye ring and somehow didn't take a picture? I would think that if she had a camera in hand, she would have wanted to capture it. Magnolia warblers, in my experience, seem to stay closer to the ground and are not terribly furtive.
Mike H. 26 Dec 2022 No, ID I m not sure exactly what the observer saw, but I don t feel there is enough in the report to rule out other warbler species.
Max M. 3 Jan 2023 No, ID Does not sufficiently eliminate similar, more likely species including Grace's Warbler (although the eye ring is interesting), also do not like the fact she is relying on Merlin to help her as the only reference for identification.

2nd round:

6 Feb 2023 No, ID No change in opinion
Keeli M.. 28 Dec 2022 No, ID Description doesn't adequately rule out why it's not a Yellow-rumped warbler or other species to me.

2nd round:

28 Jan 2023 No, ID Still unconvinced this was a Magnolia Warbler and agree there's not enough evidence to support ID.
Bryant O. 25 Dec 2022 To 2nd Although I'm having a hard time understanding what they saw and Magnolia may be the best match, I don't believe this observer has enough experience with warblers to consider all the possibilities and may have been biased by Merlin to a conclusion. Fall warblers are hard, juvenile and basic plumage birds have a lot of variation. They may have seen a Magnolia, but that may not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Honestly I'm not inclined to accept sight records with no physical evidence by inexperienced observers using Merlin to ID birds.

2nd round:

5 Feb 2023 No, ID My initial doubts were only strengthen by others concerns, agree other options not completely ruled out.
Kris P. 31 Dec 2022 No, ID Neither females nor males would show a black mask in September
- Seems like both white wing-bars should be visible at the same time, rather than only one
- I can't imagine what reference would suggest the Magnolia Warbler was likely in Utah given that our state's record is fewer than one documented sighting per year. The suggestion may have set the birder's expectation while the resulting ID and other-species elimination are not well-supported. That being said, I applaud any birder who studies in advance to learn what the possibilities are even if this resulted in a bum steer
- I sure would like to see that photo, which is implied but not stated

2nd round:

21 Jan 2023 No, ID No change in opinion. I don't think this bird was a Magnolia Warbler.
Mike S. 10 Jan 2023 No, ID I don't believe the documentation is strong enough to rule out other, more likely possibilities. With the possible exception of the described extent of yellow, nothing else is inconsistent with a YRWA, and I'm not sure a TOWA can be completely written off either.

2nd round:

17 Jan 2023 No, ID I'm not seeing any compelling evidence that this was a Magnolia Warbler. Kris raises a great point that this species wouldn't show a dark mask in September (and neither would a YRWA, despite my first round suggestion).

I believe Kevin and Max's suggestion of a Grace's Warbler would make sense (especially at this location), and no mention of GRWA in the similar species section is a red flag. Either way, there is not enough here to establish the ID of a MAWA.

(I'm also glad that others caught the reference to "taking a photo" without a photo being part of the record. Without an explanation, at least, that's also a bit of a red flag.)
Mark S.  2nd: 19 Jan 2023 No, ID The bird was seen from below, that makes me wonder how the tail pattern - the very most obvious and distinguishing feature of Magnolia Warbler in all plumages - could not be noticed, nor mentioned.

I suspect that this was one of the infinite varieties of Yellow-rumped Warbler plumage. Regardless, it doesn't sound like a Magnolia Warbler.
David W. 4 Jan 2023 Acc A soft accept. Wish there had been more detail.

2nd round:

3 Feb 2023 No, ID It's hard for me to see what other warbler has the combination of field marks described by this observer:

1. Gray head with white eyering (described as "top of head" in one portion).
2. Dark mask (and there are examples of late September birds with some level of black mask, though not many)
3. Yellow breast with dark streaking extending to flanks
4. White wing bar(s)

However, as I suggested in the first round, I was not entirely sanguine with the record because of prominent field marks I would have expected. I suppose it comes down to (lack of) qualifying adjectives. Were the eyerings solid and complete, or were they more broken like crescents? Similarly, how thick or distinct were the streaks?

I'm still on the fence on this one, but I am a bit more reluctant to vote for it after many of the other Committee members astutely pointed out that the observer used Merlin Bird ID rather than a field guide (which I had not fully digested during the first round).

I guess I will change my vote to a soft NO.
Kevin W. 13 Jan 2023 No, ID I think the observer may have seen a Magnolia Warbler, but I don't think she provides enough details to clench the identification for me. She also didn't rule out more likely species, like Grace's Warbler (which also has streaked yellow belly, wing-bars, eye ring, and mask). She mentions that she went to take a picture of it when she noticed unique features; it's too bad the photo wasn't submitted.

2nd round:

14 Feb 2023 No, ID Other more likely species not ruled out.

 

2022-70 Gyrfalcon

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Stephanie G. 26 Dec 2022 Acc Well, I can't see anything that rules out Gyrfalcon here. I agree that the facial markings rule out peregrine. The tail bands look good for Gyr too.
Mike H. 6 Jan 2023 Acc The question, as always, is provenance. Unless there is evidence/proof revealing that this bird did not arrive here under its own navigation
Max M. 3 Jan 2023 Acc Nice record
Bryant O. 26 Dec 2022 Acc Photo and description both show a juvenile Gyrfalcon. This is very far south for that species(but there are other records farther south) and unusually habitat(mountain uplands) but ID is not in question. There is the possibility of an escaped falconry bird, although I'm not sure there are many falconers in that region and most fly hybrid Gyrs these days anyway, and no mention of jesses although he did mention viewing the feet so seems likely to be a wild bird.
Kris P. 2 Jan 2023 Acc Marvelous sighting and record. I have no doubts about the ID and age of this bird. Gray juveniles (and females, although sex was not determined in the record) are the most likely color/age in the lower 48. I messaged Steve on Jan 1 asking him to address the issue of jesses, which was not originally part of the record. That he saw no evidence of them during the sparring with the Golden Eagle supports that this is not an escaped falconry bird. The extensive sparring also implies the good body conditioning of a wild bird. And it’s demonstrating wild behavior with its choice of remote and open habitat rather than near human habitation. I’m inclined to believe any escapee this young would have been out on his/her own for only a few months, would be more likely to hang around human environments and would not have been in dogfight-body condition. So; wild, yes.
Mike S. 23 Jan 2023 Acc Great record with no signs of captive origin.
Mark S. 19 Jan 2023 Acc Remarkable record, but good documentation, and the photo shows a Gyrfalcon. The only real question, as always, is whether or not this is a falconry bird. However, I see no signs that would suggest it is, and Gryfalcons are such valuable birds that casual falconers are unlikely to have them, and falconers who do generally have them equipped with tracking devices.

I looks like a wild bird to me.
David W. 4 Jan 2023 Acc Nice use of the eagle for size comparison.
Kevin W. 13 Jan 2023 Acc Woah! Awesome record. I think the photos speak for themselves - large bodied falcon with extra-long-looking barred tail, long undertail coverts, dark face.

   

2022-71 Winter Wren

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Mike H. 30 Jan 2023 Acc Sounds good. Looks ok.
Max M. 3 Jan 2023 Acc  
Keeli M.. 28 Jan 2023 Acc Not sure I'm seeing what they're talking about in the spectrogram, but I think they make a case for WIWR ID. Plumage and audio files are supportive to me.
Bryant O. 26 Dec 2022 Acc Calls are a better match for Winter Wren than Pacific. I find the spectrogram more useful than just audio, and it is available on eBird for this record here: https://ebird.org/checklist/S124051441

Note the little upward pointing arrows in the spectrogram looking like ^ , this is characteristic of Winter Wren and lacking in Pacific, which just has a flat vertical line
Compare:
WIWR-https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/190186441
PAWR-https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/190078591
Kris P. 21 Jan 2023 Acc  
Mike S. 27 Jan 2023 Acc Excellent documentation, with very good photos (in eBird checklist) showing extensive pale supercilium, throat/underparts, and sides of neck. Oddly, I had to listen to the audio recording several times because it sounded like something intermediate between a Winter and Pacific Wren call (at least to my ear). After listening to a some additional WIWR recordings, I've decided it's more than likely a simple variation of the WIWR call.
Mark S. 19 Jan 2023 Acc Excellent documentation; the call is distinctive.
David W. 6 Jan 2023 Acc A very very soft ACCEPT on this one, and maybe I should pass to the second round. I went back and forth on this record, depending which calls I compared it to, though I thought overall it sounded more like a Winter than Pacific. Apologies for the waffling.

The written description is a bit vague and could arguably apply to either of our Troglodytes species. Not much help there.

To my ears, which were never musically trained, the calls sound more like the "juicier" winter wren calls than the "drier" Pacific calls. Both species often give double calls, as this bird does (based on literature and recordings), so that is not very helpful. Ironically, the National Geo guide describes the call of the Pacific as a "chimp chimp," which is how the observer for this record describes his bird.
Kevin W. 25 Jan 2023 Acc I have a hard time discerning the difference between the recorded calls and some that I've found for Pacific Wren, but the submitted ebird photos from Colin McGuire seem to fit with the warmer brown color, lighter throat, and more white spots on wings and back (I question if Shiloh Rasmussen's ebird photos are of the same bird, as it looks more Pacific Wren-like to me, being more rufous, having a browner throat, and fewer white spots).