Records Committee Utah Ornithological Society Web Site

Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society

Status & Comments
Year 2023 (records 1 through 35)

2023-01 Red-shouldered Hawk

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	30 Jan 2023	Acc
Max M.	3 Jan 2023	Acc
Keeli M..	28 Jan 2023	Acc	Looks like a pretty good immature RSHA to me.
Bryant O.	4 Jan 2023	Acc	Well documented
Kris P.	22 Jan 2023	Acc
Mike S.	23 Jan 2023	Acc
Mark S.	20 Jan 2023	Acc	Photo, coupled with the description of the flying bird eliminate similar species, especially Broad-winged Hawk (that shouldn't even be in the U.S. this time of year). The pattern of tail bands and heavily marked underparts only fits Red-shouldered Hawk.
David W.	4 Jan 2023	Acc	I wish the similar species section had been more thorough, but I think the case has been adequately made.
Kevin W.	25 Jan 2023	Acc	Tail bands, dark streaks on chest, big yellow cere; looks like a Red-shouldered Hawk to me.

2023-02 Red-shouldered Hawk

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	30 Jan 2023	Acc	Good photo.
Max M.	6 Feb 2023	Acc
Keeli M..	28 Jan 2023	Acc	Nice adult RSHA.
Bryant O.	7 Jan 2023	Acc	Nice looking adult
Kris P.	22 Jan 2023	Acc	Beautiful bird.
Mike S.	23 Jan 2023	Acc
Mark S.	20 Jan 2023	Acc	Excellent documentation and photos.
David W.	10 Jan 2023	Acc	Great photos compliment this convincing record.
Kevin W.	25 Jan 2023	Acc	Great photos showing Red-shouldered Hawk.

2023-03 Chestnut-collared Longspur

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	15 Feb 2023	Acc
Max M.	6 Feb 2023	Acc
Keeli M..	28 Jan 2023	Acc	Glad there are tail pattern photos.
Bryant O.	10 Jan 2023	Acc
Kris P.	23 Jan 2023	Acc
Mike S.	23 Jan 2023	Acc	Excellent documentation.
Mark S.	20 Jan 2023	Acc	Excellent write-up; photos support the i.d.
David W.	7 Feb 2023	Acc	Nice record.
Kevin W.	25 Jan 2023	Acc	I wish I had more experience with this species! The black pattern on the tail in the photos clenches it for me, but I think I can see the reddish on the nape as well.

2023-04 Rusty Blackbird

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	15 Feb 2023	Acc	The photos do not show the diagnostic field marks that I usually look for when ID-ing a RUBL. Therefore, I m going off of the description provided by the observer. The observer seems to cover the accumulative field Mark S. but not the diagnostic field marks (UTC & tertials). Will give a soft accept.
2nd round:	14 Mar 2023	Acc
Max M.	6 Feb 2023	Acc
2nd round:	28 Feb 2023	Acc	Kris P has a good point about the observer referring to the secondaries rather than the tertials. KP also has a good point about the timing. I think all things taken together, there is enough to adequately support Rusty Blackbird. Continuing to accept.
Keeli M..	28 Jan 2023	Acc	Pictures are a little hard to tell from, but description seems to support ID to me and rule out RWBL and BRBL.
2nd round:	17 Mar 2023	Acc	No change in vote.
Bryant O.	10 Feb 2023	Acc	Photos do show a male basic plumage RUBL
2nd round:	3 Mar 2023	Acc	I also struggled with this one a bit and wished we had a clear description of the UTC and tertials. Nevertheless I do think the photos show a male RUBL. BRBL rarely if ever have the high contrast mask and pale throat seen on this Blackbird, and by this date HY BRBL should be in near adult plumage with rust restricted to the crown at most. Also the bill does look thin and slightly decurved to me
Kris P.	28 Jan 2023	Acc	I'm voting to accept based on the greater likelihood that a male Rusty Blackbird would be in Utah and showing this extent of rust on this date, rather than a Brewer's would still show this much rust in late December. I don't understand describing a wing bar similar to a Red-winged Blackbird's. The observer also misquoted Sibley Western on the critical ID point between Rusty and Brewer's Blackbirds being rusty-edged secondaries; it's rusty-edged tertials, and that's an important distinction for this pair. The observer went on to describe rusty-edged secondaries on the subject bird, so it's not clear that he was looking at the tertials. Finally, the quality of the photos doesn't support drawing conclusions on the bill shape, so it's back to timing and extensive rust making Rusty Blackbird more likely.
2nd round:	7 Mar 2023	Acc	No change in opinion.
Mike S.	18 Feb 2023	To 2nd	The question here is whether we can rule out a drab non- breeding male Brewer s Blackbird, which can occasionally look similar to this bird. The poor photos are not helpful to to rule out that possibility, in my opinion. However the extent of rustiness described would seem to lean towards a RUBL. I have enough concerns that I would like to see some discussion on this record.
2nd round:	19 Mar 2023	Acc	Although I am not completely convinced that the photos alone are diagnostic, I believe that the photos and description combined establish the ID as a Rusty Blackbird. I also agree with Kris that there is greater likelihood of this individual being a RUBL over a BRBL in late December.
Mark S.	20 Jan 2023	Acc	Good description; photos show Rusty Blackbird. And good to have a trusting SOB . . . (SOB = "spouse of birder")
2nd round:	21 Feb 2023	Acc	I think the overall rusty color, prominent pale eyebrow, and obviously pale eye adequately eliminate other possibilities.
David W.	3 Feb 2023	Acc	Yellow eye and the rufous are convincing.
2nd round:	7 Mar 2023	Acc	Nothing to add to what others have said.
Kevin W.	25 Jan 2023	Acc	Although the photos aren't the best quality, the distinctive face pattern, light eye, and thin bill are noted; I think this is a Rusty Blackbird.
2nd round:	21 Mar 2023	Acc	I still feel that this is a Rusty Blackbird.

2023-05 Chestnut-collared Longspur

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	15 Feb 2023	Acc	Photographed individual is a different bird than that photographed in 2023-03.
Max M.	6 Feb 2023	Acc	Should this record be combined with the Blue Creek Valley record? Seems like it might be the same bird?
Keeli M..	18 Feb 2023	Acc
Bryant O.	5 Feb 2023	Acc	Photos conclusive. This is likely the same bird in my record 2023-03, basically the same location. I also was able to relocate the CCLO here today(2/5)
Kris P.	28 Jan 2023	Acc	The blackish belly Terry described and captured in multiple photos is very helpful on a naturally non-distinctive bird. I did the math to calculate three round trips from Springville: 825
Mike S.	28 Feb 2023	Acc	Nice documentation of a Chestnut-collared Longspur. I believe this record should be combined with #2023-03, as the GPS coordinates of the two records show these locations to be almost exactly the same.
Mark S.	5 Feb 2023	Acc	Blackish belly is diagnostic - photos show a Chestnut-collared Longspur.
David W.	7 Feb 2023	Acc	I think this one may best be handled as a continuing bird from Bryant's sighting earlier in the month. The bird(s) is/are continuing though early Feb.
Kevin W.	14 Feb 2023	Acc	The bill shape and color, face pattern, and especially the black in the belly would indicate Chestnut-collared Longspur to me.

2023-06 Red-shouldered Hawk

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	15 Feb 2023	Acc	Well documented bird.
Max M.	13 Feb 2023	Acc	Good documentation, seen by many
Keeli M..	18 Feb 2023	Acc	Nice pic showing hint of checkerboard on the wings. Good find.
Bryant O.	10 Feb 2023	Acc	Nice juvenile
Kris P.	7 Mar 2023	Acc
Mike S.	28 Feb 2023	Acc	Nice documentation of a juvenile Red-shouldered Hawk.
Mark S.	6 Feb 2023	Acc	Excellent documentation.
David W.	7 Feb 2023	Acc	Nice. Interesting that this species was seen in nearly the same spot back in Jan 2016.
Kevin W.	14 Feb 2023	Acc	Banded tail, thick yellow cere, streaked bib - all point to it being Red-shouldered Hawk.

2023-07 Philadelphia Vireo

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	13 Feb 2023	No, ID	Not enough detail to eliminate WAVI. No mention of dark eyeline extending to the base of the bill, and "yellow chest and belly" doesn't seem adequate to differentiate between a heavily marked Warbling. No mention of yellow wash on UTC.
Bryant O.	10 Feb 2023	No, ID	No mention of the most important field mark, the dark eyeline going between the eye and the bill? Fall WAVI can be very yellow in fresh plumage
Kris P.	10 Mar 2023	No, ID	Warbling Vireo was not ruled out. The observer neither mentioned the Philadelphia's more distinct face pattern due to a darker crown, dark lores and dark eye-line, nor did he establish correctly where a Philadelphia would show yellow on the underparts differently than would a Warbling. Given how similar these two species are, establishing face pattern and yellow underpart differences are critical.
Mike S.	28 Feb 2023	No, ID	The limited description simply does not provide enough detail to eliminate a Warbling Vireo.
Mark S.	21 Feb 2023	No, ID	Description doesn't eliminate a bright Warbling Vireo, especially of the eastern ssp. The description of the face actually fits Warbling better than Philadelphia.
David W.	28 Feb 2023	No, ID	Though it is possible that the observer saw a Philadelphia vireo, he did not adequately rule out the more likely Warbling vireo. Specifically: 1) No mention of whether the belly or breast were more intensely yellow. Both species can have a yellow breast, but the Philadelphia should have a breast brighter yellow than the belly. In the Overall Pattern section, the observer mentions a yellow wash on the belly but does not mention the breast. In the Similar Species section, the observer says, "Warbling Vireo eliminated via yellow chest and belly." As noted, both species can have yellow underparts, both breast and belly. 2) No mention of the color of the lores. Although this is not an entirely reliable field mark, the Philadelphia should, on average, have a darker loral "wedge". 3) Overall GISS. The observer failed to adequately discuss the overall shape and appearance of the bird to support his ID. Philadelphia vireos usually have shorter bills, shorter-tails enhancing a plump look, and rounder heads. Although some of these field marks were mentioned, they were not specifically compared to a Warbling vireo. Since the bill and tail length are relative and subtle comparisons, they ought to be mentioned relative to the corresponding species to be truly useful. Both species have short, slightly hooked bills. Both species have relatively short tails compared to most other similar passerines. Were there other Warbling or Philadelphia vireos around for a direct comparison? The report does not say. To sum up, the observer did not address any of the key field marks which would lead one to conclude this was anything but a fall Warbling vireo.
Kevin W.	14 Feb 2023	No, ID	Similar Warbling Vireo not eliminated, as the observer doesn't indicate how the yellow on the chest and belly is distributed (should be brighter on throat for Philadelphia; on sides for Warbling). The observer doesn't mention other definitive characteristics like darker crown and lores, shorter bill of Philadelphia.

2023-08 Western Gull

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	15 Feb 2023	No, ID	When looking at the photos provided, I do not see a WEGU. I see 2 LBBG types in the photos for this and 2023-09, but do not see either species reported.
Max M.	13 Feb 2023	No, ID	This looks perfectly fine for a LBBG. Legs, although dull compared to adult LBBG are well within range for a 3Cy LBBG, along with "mascara". This individual was reported and photographed by others with input from the NA Gulls Facebook group, and there is unanimous consensus that this is a LBBG.
2nd round:	14 Apr 2023	No, ID	Nothing to add
Keeli M..	17 Mar 2023	No, ID	Weird gull, but a vagrant Western is highly unlikely given the notorious non-mobility of the species. Looks more like not-quite adult LBBG to me, not withstanding the pink legs. Long-winged body profile and the almost complete absence of white in the wingtips rules out WEGU and SBGU. Almost dark bill points to a sub-adult bird which could account for the pink legs.
2nd round:	22 Apr 2023	No, ID	Nothing to add to previous comments.
Bryant O.	10 Feb 2023	No, ID	Not even sure which gull he's referring to, but all I see are LBBG in photos with yellow legs. No Western would have a dirty head like these and have completely different structure
2nd round:	3 Apr 2023	No, ID	Clearly a LBBG. I applaud the observer for including photos and soliciting opinions online before submitting, everyone who commented suggested LBBG to the observer, unfortunately he didn't listen and submitted a record anyway.
Kris P.	17 Mar 2023	No, ID	I understand why a dark-backed gull with pink legs would grab a birder's attention in Utah, but I believe these gulls to be Lesser Black-backed or possibly even second- or third-generation hybrids with Herring Gulls. I'm looking for other explanations as to why they have pink legs when they appear to have Lesser Black-backed structure. I also think there's a conflict between what the observer reports and what the photos show. In addition, using the same photo evidence in this record and in record 2023-09 but with different descriptive words while claiming a different and even more rare species there means to me that the observer is guessing and is not in a position to defend either choice.
2nd round:	27 Mar 2023	No, ID	I have nothing to add given our consensus on this record.
Mike S.	24 Mar 2023	No, ID	My vote is based on the two birds shown in the photos attached to this record, plus the individual reported as a Slaty-backed Gull in the ebird checklist. I believe that before we can consider these rarities we need to rule out other, more likely species. These all appear to be (at minimum) 3rd winter gulls, showing a dark mantle and unmarked underparts. I am curious to see others thoughts, but in my opinion, Lesser Black-backed has not been adequately eliminated by the photos or description. The most compelling case against LBBG is the pink legs, but would hesitate to eliminate a more expected species based on a single feature (especially with gulls). There may be additional options that I m not considering (hybrids, etc.), but either way, I don t believe these birds can be confidently identified as Western or Slaty-backed Gulls.
2nd round:	29 Mar 2023	No, ID	Agree with others that these appear to be Lesser Black-backed Gulls rather than the rarities reported.
Mark S.	22 Feb 2023	No, ID	This is clearly not a Western Gull (nor Slaty-backed). The structure is wrong, the bill is too small, and apparently has some black on it, the streaking on the head is too heavy and too concentrated around the eye, and the bird seems to be noticeably smaller than an apparent Herring Gull in the photo. The only thing "wrong" for this being a Lesser Black-backed Gull is the (somewhat) pinkish legs. But I reached out to Alvaro Jaramillo, who responded with this: "Both of those birds look like Lesser Black-backed Gulls to me. Pink legs are sometimes retained late into the immature stages in that species. Streaking patterns, darkness above, structure, black on bill, narrow tertial crescents.... all look good for Lesser Black-back to me."
2nd round:	25 Mar 2023	No, ID	As per my first round comments - the committee seems to agree on Lesser Black-backed Gull for these.
David W.	21 Mar 2023	No, ID	First, let me note that I have never had to vote on a record which was submitted simultaneously as two different species. It does not speak well of the confidence level of the observer. Second, for a Western, these birds appear to have a bills which are too small/thin (going by photos rather than written claims), body shape a bit too attenuated, and appear to be smaller than the Herring gull next to them (especially the bird on the right). I do not believe adult Western gulls usually have that dark smudge around the eye so often seen in winter Lesser black-backed gulls.
2nd round:	29 Mar 2023	No, ID	Nothing to add to first-round comments.
Kevin W.	14 Feb 2023	Acc	The pink legs and dark mantle seem to eliminate other similar species, though I'm curious to know what others with more gull experience say.
2nd round:	27 Mar 2023	No, ID	I appreciate others' input, and especially identification clues. I agree, looks more like a Lesser Black-backed Gull.

2023-09 Slaty-backed Gull

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	15 Feb 2023	No, ID	Structure is wrong for SBGU. Bill and primaries are indicative of a 3rd cycle LBBG. Pinkish legs (if not an artifact) are sometimes found in LBBG as well.
Max M.	13 Feb 2023	No, ID	Again, Looks fine for a LBBG. Appears that the birds in question for both 2023-08 and 2023-09 were photographed with more detail here (although labeled as the same bird under WEGU): https://ebird.org/checklist/S128114408. These photos do a better job showing the leg color.
2nd round:	14 Apr 2023	No, ID	Again seems as we are all on the same page on these two records. Nothing to add
Keeli M..	17 Mar 2023	No, ID	LBBG has not been adequately ruled out to me. I'm not convinced this bird actually has pink feet from the photos, and the messy head pattern concentrated around the eye with the light iris are markers for both SBGU and LBBG. There's not enough white in the wingtips. In fact, a LBBG gull was reported the same day at Farmington Bay with much better photos that looks pretty much to be the same bird. https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/536387921. Need better pics to back up extraordinary ID claims IMO.
2nd round:	22 Apr 2023	No, ID	Nothing to add to previous comments.
Bryant O.	10 Feb 2023	No, ID	Not even sure which gull is supposedly the Slaty-backed, but all I see are LBBG with yellow legs. No mentions of size, tertial crescent, "string of pearl's on the primaries, eye color etc. Clearly observer knows little of gull ID.
2nd round:	3 Apr 2023	No, ID	Clearly a LBBG. I applaud the observer for including photos and soliciting opinions online before submitting, everyone who commented suggested LBBG to the observer, unfortunately he didn't listen and submitted a record anyway.
Kris P.	17 Mar 2023	No, ID	I understand why a dark-backed gull with pink legs would grab a birder's attention in Utah, but I believe these gulls to be Lesser Black-backed or possibly even second- or third-generation hybrids with Herring Gulls. I'm looking for other explanations as to why they have pink legs when they appear to have Lesser Black-backed structure. I also think there's a conflict between what the observer reports and what the photos show. In addition, using the same photo evidence in this record and in record 2023-08 but with different descriptive words while claiming a different and even more rare species here means to me that the observer is guessing and is not in a position to defend either choice.
2nd round:	27 Mar 2023	No, ID	I have nothing to add given our consensus on this record.
Mike S.	24 Mar 2023	No, ID	My vote is based on the two birds shown in the photos attached to this record, plus the individual reported as a Slaty-backed Gull in the ebird checklist. I believe that before we can consider these rarities we need to rule out other, more likely species. These all appear to be (at minimum) 3rd winter gulls, showing a dark mantle and clean white underparts. I am curious to see others thoughts, but in my opinion, Lesser Black-backed has not been adequately eliminated by the photos or description. The most compelling case against LBBG is the pink legs, but would hesitate to eliminate a more expected species based on a single feature (especially with gulls). There may be additional options that I m not considering (hybrids, etc.), but either way, I don t believe these birds can be confidently identified as Western or Slaty-backed Gulls.
2nd round:	29 Mar 2023	No, ID	Agree with others that these appear to be Lesser Black-backed Gulls rather than the rarities reported.
Mark S.	22 Feb 2023	No, ID	Perhaps we are overdue for a Slaty-backed Gull in Utah, but this isn't it. Paraphrasing my comments from record 2023-08, these birds look like Lesser Black-backed Gulls: This is clearly not a Slaty-backed Gull. The structure is wrong, the bill is too small, and apparently has some black on it, the tertial crescents are too narrow, streaking on the head is too heavy, and the bird seems to be noticeably smaller than an apparent Herring Gull in the photo. The only thing "wrong" for this being a Lesser Black-backed Gull is the (somewhat) pinkish legs. But I reached out to Alvaro Jaramillo, who responded with this: "Both of those birds look like Lesser Black-backed Gulls to me. Pink legs are sometimes retained late into the immature stages in that species. Streaking patterns, darkness above, structure, black on bill, narrow tertial crescents.... all look good for Lesser Black-back to me."
2nd round:	25 Mar 2023	No, ID	As per my first round comments - the committee seems to agree on Lesser Black-backed Gull for these.
David W.	21 Mar 2023	No, ID	Again, not sure the Committee should be in the job of acting as a field guide for people unsure of an ID, who are throwing guesses at a wall to see what sticks. But here goes... These gulls do not appear to have a bills large enough for a Slaty-backed gull. The leg color is fairly neutral beige/flesh-tone on the left bird and outright yellowy on the right bird, neither being the bright pink color one associates with adult Slaty-backs (albeit, the observer is not making a claim of this being an adult gull). One should note that Lesser black-backed gulls sometimes have flesh-colored rather than yellow legs. Though I am no expert on that species, the white tertial band on the folded wings seems thin for a Slaty-backed as well. In general, I am puzzled as to why the observer would leap to the conclusion that these are such immensely rare gulls (and two!!) rather than something more common? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But where is that evidence? I would hope to see some diagnostic photos (or at least descriptions) of the wingtip pattern or broad white trailing edges in flight. Eye color? No effort to eliminate the possibility of a hybrid. On the plus side, I applaud the observer for including photos.
2nd round:	29 Mar 2023	No, ID	Nothing to add to first-round comments.
Kevin W.	21 Mar 2023	To, 2nd	I'm not sure that Western is eliminated; I'd appreciate others' input on this gull.
2nd round:	27 Mar 2023	No, ID	Again, I appreciate the input of others with more gull experience. Looks like a Lesser Black-backed.

2023-10 Winter Wren

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	28 Feb 2023	Acc	Good description, photos and audio. Seems to be a few of these around this year.
Bryant O.	3 Mar 2023	Acc	Audio recording clear and conclusive, photos consistent with Winter as well.
Kris P.	22 Mar 2023	Acc	I think the audio is definitive. I appreciate Kenny's passing on the ID of the Dec 20 bird given the overlap of color tones with Pacific Wren. Kudos for the effort to document this individual.
Mike S.	29 Mar 2023	Acc	Nice documentation establishes the ID, especially the diagnostic audio recordings.
Mark S.	3 Mar 2023	Acc	Excellent documentation. Calls distinctive, photos supportive of the identification.
David W.	31 Mar 2023	Acc	Looks & sounds like the Winter wren. Spectrograms are a much better match for this species as well.
Kevin W.	21 Mar 2023	Acc	Grayer tones overall and pale throat give this wren a Winter vibe. The song seems to match as well.

2023-11 Mexican Duck

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	14 Apr 2023	Acc	Wish the photos were a bit better but the description and photos appear to support "Utah" MEDU
2nd round:	1 May 2023	Acc	Nothing to add - continuing to accept.
Keeli M..	22 Apr 2023	Acc	Pictures and description seem to support ID. No white or curling in the tail, yellow bill with female type plumage, dark body.
2nd round:	7 May 2023	Acc	No additional comments.
Bryant O.	15 Mar 2023	Acc	No obvious signs of hybrid on this one.
2nd round:	4 May 2023	Acc	Continue to feel this looks good for Mexican, especially the dark tail and brown rump.
Kris P. 2nd:	8 May 2023	Acc	Good enough for a Mexican Duck. I have qualms about assessing signs of a hybrid given the terse description and media quality, but still, good enough.
Mike S.	20 Apr 2023	Acc	All the usual caveats apply that we have often discussed when reviewing records of this species. However, the photos and video appear to show a Mexican Duck.
2nd round:	3 May 2023	Acc	No change of opinion...
Mark S.	14 Mar 2023	Acc	No self-respecting Mexican Duck would be caught dead in a lake with that much snow and ice! That being said, none of the signs of a hybrid are visible, and the only feature we can't see well - the tail curl - is reported by the observer as not present, or at least not visible. The dark body, dark tail, and clear bill are all consistent with Mexican Duck - very similar to the ones I saw just a few days ago.
2nd round:	7 May 2023	Acc	As per my first round comments.
David W.	31 Mar 2023	Acc	Though showing signs of hybridization, probably "good enough" by our recent standards.
2nd round:	9 May 2023	Acc	No change of opinion...
Kevin W.	21 Mar 2023	No, ID	This may be a Mexican Duck, but the photos are not sharp enough to detect details in the tail and undertail coverts to eliminate a hybrid.
2nd round:	2 May 2023	Acc	I can buy it. With the description along with the photos, I'll reverse my decision.

2023-12 Brown Thrasher

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	14 Apr 2023	Acc	Photo looks good for Brown Thrasher, little odd that they didn't include Sage Thrasher in their similar species section.
Keeli M..	22 Apr 2023	Acc	Pictures seem to support. Very rufous bird. With that long beak and tail I'm blanking on what else it could be.
Bryant O.	3 Apr 2023	Acc	Photos and description good for BRTH.
Kris P.	8 May 2023	Acc	Excellent record; thoroughly documented. Other submitters would do well to use Melissa and Spencer's example of how to document a rare bird right.
Mike S.	3 May 2023	Acc	Photos and description establish the ID.
Mark S.	3 Apr 2023	Acc	Good documentation; photo clearly shows a Brown Thrasher.
David W.	5 Apr 2023	Acc	Can't think of anything else this could be.
Kevin W.	2 May 2023	Acc	Photos, although not great, show distinctive color and shape of Brown Thrasher.

2023-13 Eastern Pheobe

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	14 May 2023	Acc	Well documented record.
Max M.	1 May 2023	Acc	Good documentation and seen by many.
Keeli M..	22 Apr 2023	Acc	Excellent supporting photos from multiple angles supporting ID.
Bryant O.	26 Apr 2023	Acc
Kris P.	8 May 2023	Acc
Mike S.	3 May 2023	Acc	Nice documentation.
Mark S.	21 Apr 2023	Acc	Well-documented.
David W.	27 Apr 2023	Acc	Sure looked and continues to look like an Eastern phoebe to me. Wonderful photos.
Kevin W.	2 May 2023	Acc	Great photos show distinct features of Eastern Phoebe.

2023-14 Yellow-throated Vireo

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	14 May 2023	Acc	Photo shows a Yellow-throated Vireo.
Max M.	1 May 2023	Acc	Good bird! Nice photos
Keeli M..	7 May 2023	Acc	I think photos are pretty definitive here. Fun bird!
Bryant O.	4 May 2023	Acc	Photos clearly show a YTVI. I went and looked for this bird a week later, odd habitat for a migrant, high elevation mixed conifer forest with snow nearby, but this guys has feeders with hundreds of birds on them, especially finches, so the vireo must have came in to see what all the fuss was about then split. I did not find it nor did multiple parties of the Red Cliffs Bird Festival a couple days before me. Observer was attending that festival and showed his photos to one of my volunteers who then sent them to me and I asked him to submit a record.
Kris P.	8 May 2023	Acc
Mike S.	3 May 2023	Acc	I heard about this observation from an attendee of the Red Cliffs Bird Fest and was initially skeptical. However, it's difficult to argue with these photos. Nice record.
Mark S.	30 Apr 2023	Acc	Photos clearly show Yellow-throated Vireo.
David W.	2 May 2023	Acc	Very nice record with convincing photos.
Kevin W.	2 May 2023	Acc	Good photos show Yellow-throated Vireo. It seems that most records of this species in Utah are fall records, so it is significant that this one is found in April.

2023-15 Mexican Duck

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	9 Jun 2023	Acc
2nd round:	16 Jul 2023	No, ID	Agree that there are too many details pointing towards hybrid.
Max M.	23 May 2023	To 2nd	I do not believe this is the same bird that was at Powell Lake last fall (which we accepted), and there doesn't seem to be any curl in the tail but it appears somewhat light and contrasts with the rump. Maybe a bit more Mallard influence? I struggle with some of these MEDU records, would like to hear more from others.
2nd round:	13 Jul 2023	Acc	I defer to the rest of the committee on this one, changing my vote to accept.
Keeli M..	7 May 2023	To 2nd	Tail does seem to have some white in it, which could be hybrid trait, could be worn out feathers, could be an artifact of light reflection. Overall ID seems supportive of Mexican Duck. Not sure where we want to draw the line on these since, as we've previously discussed, there is likely some degree of hybridization occurring in many of these.
2nd round:	10 Jul 2023	Acc	Continuing to accept. Agree that this individual exhibits what would seem to me to be mostly Mexican Duck traits, and I don't think there's a strong argument for a clear hybrid here.
Bryant O.	6 May 2023	No, ID	I'm seeing some signs of Mallard genes, tail looks very white and rump very dark.
2nd round:	14 Jul 2023	Acc	I still think we need a better method to review Mexican Ducks rather than saying "this one seems similar to others we have accepted". I agree the tail looks pale due to wear rather than being actual white, but the rump looks rather dark. See https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/567126831 Clearly it does have some Mallard genes, however probably an F2 or F3? But until we get a better method I'll agree this duck is probably good enough to pass as a mostly Mexican, but I don't feel good about it.
Kris P.	12 Jun 2023	Acc
2nd round:	16 Jun 2023	Acc	The first round vote diversity surprised me because I think this bird is a strong candidate for a Mexican Duck. The question seems to boil down to the amount of white in the tail. Not having experience with Mexican Ducks in Mexico, I reviewed many images deep into Mexico that show Mexican Ducks with retrices as pale or paler than the subject bird. I also believe the harsh overhead lighting may have washed out those feathers making them appear paler than they are. I don't think the tail (or any other feature) shows Mallard gene introgression and am good with accepting this record again.
Mike S.	6 Jun 2023	Acc	Photos appear to show a Mexican Duck. The tail is a bit paler than most, but I believe this may be attributed to wear. The upper-tail coverts appear a bit dark (are we seeing a shadow in photos C/C1 or dark feathers?). Either way, I think we have already established a precedent of accepting individuals that are not perfectly phenotypically pure, and I don't believe this individual significantly differs from others this committee has accepted.
2nd round:	30 Jun 2023	Acc	Continuing to accept, although I understand the reluctance expressed by some. Clearly there is a spectrum of traits expressed by these Mexican/Mallard-type ducks (particularly this far north), which range from "clear hybrid" to "fairly typical Mexican Duck." Where one draws the line seems largely subjective, and I have heard a range of opinions from those I respect. Since this individual clearly shows traits that are much more on the Mexican Duck side of that spectrum, I am comfortable accepting as that species. Mark's firsthand experience from Mexico is always helpful.
Mark S.	7 May 2023	Acc	No obvious signs of hybrid - the small amount of white in the tail is consistent with Mexican Duck outside of the hybrid zone in Mexico.
2nd round:	16 Jun 2023	Acc	Given that there are unlikely to be any "pure" Mexican Ducks in Utah, and keeping in mind precedent set by this committee on this species, I fail to see any features here that would rule out a "pure" Mexican Duck. The slightly pale tail feathers are well within range of variation in presumably pure Mexican Duck in Mexico, and not pale enough for a typical Mallard. There is no sign of any tail curl. I think the "apparent" darkness of the upper tail coverts (is this even a reliable field mark?) is shadow, and not actual color. This individual looks typical of many I see in Mexico, and shows fewer signs of being a hybrid than other records accepted by the committee.
David W.	17 May 2023	Acc	This one has a lot of Mallard genes in it. It appears from the photos to be the same individual as was submitted to the Records Committee last fall as record 2022-63 Mexican Duck. It was accepted in the first round. The record should probably reflect that.
2nd round:	29 Jun 2023	Acc	Although I do think this one has more Mallard genes in it than some others we've considered in recent years, I will defer to our resident neo-Mexican Committee member's experience and Kris' research prowess.
Kevin W.	30 May 2023	Acc	Seems like a good record. The observer indicates that it may be a hybrid due to the amount of lighter feathers on the undertail coverts, but I'm not sure that there would be enough to rule out a pure(ish) Mexican, as there are several online photos of Mexican Ducks with as much light as this individual.
2nd round:	17 Jul 2023	Acc	No additional comments.

2023-16 Ruddy Turnstone

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	9 Jun 2023	Acc	Still confused as why this is on the review list, but clear to see this annual visitor was observed once again from the Causeway.
Max M.	23 May 2023	Acc	Up to 4 this spring on the causeway. Good numbers
Keeli M..	25 May 2023	Acc	Good photos and documentation.
Bryant O.	16 May 2023	Acc	When I proposed Ruddy Turnstone (and several other species) be added to the review list, it was under the premise that a new bylaw would also be adopted 1)If a species is uncommon in one very specific sub-region of the state but extremely rare everywhere else, review may be warranted. As in Zone-tailed Hawk: Uncommon and local in Washington county, but very rare anywhere else. The committee rejected that bylaw proposal, however accepted that Ruddy Turnstone be reviewed, which really didn't make much sense to me since the entire list of species I proposed was based on the adoption of said bylaw, reject all or none, but instead it went piecemeal? But that's how the votes went down Ruddy Turnstones are probably annual in spring migration on Antelope Island Causeway (AIC), but are extremely rare anywhere else, and even on AIC in fall, although probably expected at other sites at Great Salt Lake where large numbers of shorebirds (especially Black-bellied Plovers) gather in spring. Their pattern of occurrence on AIC is well enough established to probably warrant exclusion of review at that one location. However, since they are a distinctive species not easily confused with another species, review may not be warranted under the current bylaws since we can't exclude a sub-region of the state and only look at records in the state as a whole. We may need to take another look at the review list and bylaws to make them more consistent with each other.
Kris P.	15 Jun 2023	Acc
Mike S.	16 Jun 2023	Acc	Nice documentation establishes the ID.
Mark S.	16 Jun 2023	Acc	Excellent documentation; photos show a Ruddy Turnstone.
David W.	16 May 2023	Acc	Nice, complete record.
Kevin W.	30 May 2023	Acc	Photos show diagnostic pattern of Ruddy Turnstone.

2023-17 Baltimore Oriole

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	9 Jun 2023	Acc	Photo clearly shows a Baltimore Oriole.
Max M.	23 May 2023	Acc	Nice photo comparison with BUOR and WETA
Keeli M..	25 May 2023	Acc	Unmistakable in photos. Cool feeder bird.
Bryant O.	17 May 2023	Acc	Wow, nice looking bird!
Kris P.	15 Jun 2023	Acc	I'm voting to accept after sussing out the possibility of a Bullock's x Baltimore hybrid with this bird, which the observer didn't address and may not know is a possibility. The very irregular lower border of the black hood concerned me until I reviewed many images of adult males from an area far from the hybrid zone (Maryland) that also showed significant variation to the lower hood border. I can't see any other orange intrusion into the hood and the remaining Baltimore characters appear strong. Also, I think the bonus orange bar above the usual orange wing-bar is a matter of posture, which also appears in many images of adult male Baltimores far from the hybrid zone.
Mike S.	16 Jun 2023	Acc	Nice photos show a male Baltimore Oriole. Cool side-by-side with the male BUOR and WETA.
Mark S.	16 Jun 2023	Acc	Non-existent written documentation (other than sighting data), but the photos clearly show a Baltimore Oriole, with no obvious signs of hybridization.
David W.	16 May 2023	Acc	Photo says it all. Literally.
Kevin W.	30 May 2023	Acc	Very good photos. I appreciate that this is an adult male rather with distinctive field marks!

2023-18 Eastern Phoebe

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	9 Jun 2023	Acc	Well documented rarity, Observed by many.
Max M.	23 May 2023	Acc
Keeli M..	25 May 2023	Acc	Good photos, lack of eye ring and wing bars rules out a bunch of species. Description of behavior is supportive as well.
Bryant O.	19 May 2023	Acc	excellent photos and field notes
Kris P.	15 Jun 2023	Acc	An excellent record on all counts.
Mike S.	16 Jun 2023	Acc	Good photos back up the great written documentation.
Mark S.	16 Jun 2023	Acc	Excellent documentation; photos show an Eastern Phoebe.
David W.	17 May 2023	Acc	Despite a rambling writeup, the photos are convincing.
Kevin W.	30 May 2023	Acc	eBird photos are diagnostic.

2023-19 Wood Thrush

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	21 Jun 2023	Acc	A very unique bird when compared with our more likely thrush species. The Report, combined with the previous experience, leaves little doubt of the species.
Max M.	23 May 2023	Acc	With all of the beautiful photos Mark presented during his keynote speech at the bird festival - I would have expected to have a 5 star photo to go along with this record. . . Wish it would have stuck around!
Keeli M..	25 May 2023	Acc	Unfortunate you didn't get photos, but given the observers' wealth of experience, the bird's noted response to callback, and description of the bird, I am inclined to accept.
Bryant O.	19 May 2023	Acc	Excellent field notes leave little doubt.
Kris P.	15 Jun 2023	Acc	I nearly voted not to accept this record out of bitterness from never having logged a Wood Thrush as a yard bird. But I set that thought aside given that all the reported details are consistent with multiple references, including the very fine description of the cheek pattern as "pointillistic". It was truly the first observer's lucky day to run off to fetch the second and find the bird still present for another audience and more detail-gathering.
Mike S.	16 Jun 2023	Acc	Excellent written documentation. It would be nice to have a photo or audio recording for such a rarity. However, the bird was apparently seen well by experienced observers, and this is a relatively distinctive species.
Mark S.	16 Jun 2023	Acc	I also heard and had a brief view of the flying bird. The song given was clearly a Wood Thrush, a sound I am know very well from my youth, and reinforced just the past few weeks by a trip back east where I heard many. From the audible alone it was unmistakable, but the brief flight view, of a bird of small thrush shape, short tail, completely rusty upperparts and white underparts, confirmed the audible identification. David's excellent write-up adds important details of his sighting that I didn't have.
David W.	17 May 2023	Acc	If Mark put it on his list, it must be true.
Kevin W.	30 May 2023	Acc	I believe that the observer's description eliminates other possibilities, especially noting the bright rust color and the black spots.

2023-20 Tennessee Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	7 Jun 2023	Acc
Keeli M..	22 Jun 2023	Acc	Song recording and description of observation supportive of ID to me.
Bryant O.	22 May 2023	Acc	Song matches, description seems mostly good although I'm a bit confused by the term "olive gray back"? Isn't that brown? But overall seems good for Tennessee.
Kris P.	18 Jun 2023	Acc	I have two concerns about this record despite the fact that I accept it: -I wish the observer had eliminated the Philadelphia Vireo by appearance. -It's curious that the two song sequences are jammed together. I don't think that's from editing, and it seems atypical singing behavior based on the many recordings I reviewed.
Mike S.	21 Jun 2023	Acc	Diagnostic audio recording.
Mark S.	19 Jun 2023	Acc	Recording is of a Tennessee Warbler, and written description of the bird fits that species as well.
David W.	22 Jun 2023	Acc	That's a nice recording.
Kevin W.	19 Jun 2023	Acc	Description is adequate, eliminating similar Orange-crowned Warbler, and the recorded song is a match for Tennessee Warbler.

2023-21 Winter Wren

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	7 Jun 2023	Acc
Keeli M..	22 Jun 2023	Acc	Tricky ID for me, but description and photos seem supportive.
Bryant O.	25 May 2023	Acc	Soft accept. I always like an audio recording for this species, but that is a very pale throated Wren
Kris P.	18 Jun 2023	Acc	This bird seems pale and patterned enough while lacking rich rufous and cinnamon tones to be safely in the range for a Winter Wren.
Mike S.	23 Jun 2023	Acc	Photos and detailed description contained within the first sight record establish the ID (David and Lauri's observation). I am not sure that we need to include a link to the secondary sight record (#2021-21a). While this may have been the same bird, there are no details included that would give us any indication that they also saw a Winter Wren.
Mark S.	19 Jun 2023	Acc	Good documentation - description of the calls fits Winter Wren better than Pacific, and the photos show an individual that appears outside of the range of variation for Pacific Wren, and solidly in the "only Winter Wren" range for general paleness.
David W.	23 May 2023	Acc	Well documented with fine photos. [ahem]
Kevin W.	19 Jun 2023	Acc	The photos look more rufous than I think Winter Wrens would be, but the lighter throat and barred undersides make me think that a Winter Wren is a better fit.

2023-22 Zone-tailed Hawk

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	7 Jun 2023	No, ID	I do not believe the observer adequately rules out Turkey Vultures.
Keeli M..	22 Jun 2023	No, ID	Not strong enough description to support positive ID to me nor to rule out similar species.
Bryant O.	25 May 2023	No, ID	If observer states "This is not a positive ID", then how can we be? Failed to consider common dark morph buteos like Red-tailed (which can be very dark below) as well as Golden Eagle.
Kris P.	18 Jun 2023	No, ID	Not enough detail in support of the ID, and the record doesn't rule out other possible species.
Mike S.	21 Jun 2023	No, ID	The observer may have seen a Zone-tailed Hawk, and this species is known to occur at nearby locations. However, the write-up is not very detailed, and the observer admits that he is not positive about the ID (and I appreciate his honesty). Based on what is written, I don't believe we can rule out other, more common species. In addition, the date is also a bit earlier than other springtime ZTHA records in Washington County.
Mark S.	19 Jun 2023	No, ID	There are several points in the description that cause me to question this i.d. - including the flat wings, the "big head," and the fact that two apparent immature birds were soaring together. I can't see how Golden Eagle is eliminated, that fits these aspects of the description better. Several other possibilities, such as dark Swainson's or Red-tailed Hawks aren't adequately eliminated, either. Although Zone-tailed Hawk is not unlikely in this location, I don't think this description sufficiently establishes the i.d.
David W.	23 May 2023	No, ID	This record seems a bit sparse on details for me to be certain of the ID. Without a mention of wing shape, I don't think the possibility of a dark morph buteo has been fully eliminated. Also, if the flat wings eliminate turkey vultures, then they might well equally exclude Zone-tailed hawks since both have similar flight postures (sometimes flat-winged, sometimes holding them in a dihedral). Furthermore, sometimes Turkey vultures can crane their heads to look bigger-headed than one might expect. Finally, early April seems a bit early for flying juveniles, though maybe that's just my northern Utah bias. So, in summation, maybe it was a Zone-tailed. There's nothing in the record that definitively excludes that possibility and they are certainly found in that part of the world. But maybe is not a yes.
Kevin W.	19 Jun 2023	No, ID	While the location makes this observation plausible, the description of the tail having "no noticeable markings" and the size of the head being the only differential feature from a Turkey Vulture makes me question the sighting.

2023-23 Chestnut-sided Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	9 Jun 2023	Acc	Good photo of a CSWA.
Max M.	7 Jun 2023	Acc
Keeli M..	25 May 2023	Acc	A bird in the hand and all that... Nice catch. Rio Mesa gets some awesome birds every year.
Bryant O.	25 May 2023	Acc	Nice pics!
Kris P.	18 Jun 2023	Acc
Mike S.	21 Jun 2023	Acc	Hard to argue with good photos of a bird in hand.
Mark S.	19 Jun 2023	Acc	No doubts about this one!
David W.	23 May 2023	Acc	To merge two idioms, a bird in the hand is worth a thousand words.
Kevin W.	19 Jun 2023	Acc	Excellent photos show distinct field marks.

2023-24 Yellow-throated Vireo

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H. 2nd:
2nd round:	16 Jul 2023	No, ID
Max M.	7 Jun 2023	No, ID	YTVI and solitary vireos are very difficult to ID by sound, and without actually seeing the bird and the quality of the recording I am not sure if we can rule out other vireo species. It has been a long time since I have heard these birds sing, I would like to know what others think.
2nd round:	13 Jul 2023	No, ID	Seems like we are all on the same page.
Keeli M..	22 Jun 2023	No, ID	Audio recording does not convince me it's not a PLVI. Without photos, I don't think the evidence of one audio recording is compelling enough to rule out PLVI.
2nd round:	10 Jul 2023	No, ID	Still a no vote for the reasons everyone has stated - Can't rule out PLVI or CAVI based on call alone.
Bryant O.	25 May 2023	To 2nd	Without a look at the vireo, I have a hard time swallowing this one. The songs of this species are so similar to PLVI that I can't confidently tell them apart, and observer failed to even consider Cassin's Vireo which is a common migrant there. Exactly how is the song different from a PLVI or CAVI? Personally I will not confidently call a CAVI from PLVI audibly, there are minor differences but so much overlap that I always want to confirm visually during migration. To my ear YTVI sounds so close to these that I would never call one audibly, but I'd like to hear from others with more experience with telling BHVI from YTVI back east.
2nd round:	30 Jun 2023	No, ID	I originally had a no vote, but gave the observe the benefit of my lack of experience with this species. So I sent to 2nd to hear others thoughts. It seems everyone had the same reservation I had, unconvinced this was not a more likely PLVI/CAVI.
Kris P.	20 Jun 2023	No, ID	Given that the Yellow-throated and Solitary-complex vireos may learn and sing each other's songs, it's imperative that observers actually see a suspected Yellow-throated singing because it's so far out of range in Utah. In addition, the audio file is too brief and faint to draw any meaningful conclusions.
2nd round:	1 Jul 2023	No, ID	I think this party strove to capture the evidence to support their conclusion, but without a visual, the results support only the genus of multiple vireos. I would not have accepted it even with a high-quality audio file due to reasons all of us gave in the first round. This one should have been left unidentified in the field. We all hate doing that and have a list of the unsubstantiated sightings/audibles that will haunt us for the rest of our lives, but allow for it, we must.
Mike S.	26 Jun 2023	No, ID	After listening to this recording several times, I don't believe a (much more likely) Plumbeous Vireo can be ruled out. The subtle song differences described in the write-up can likely be attributed to normal PLVI variation.
2nd round:	30 Jun 2023	No, ID	Looks like we are all on the same page. As noted by others, these vireo songs are very similar, and I still don't believe that a PLVI or possibly CAVI can be ruled out based on the recording.
Mark S.	19 Jun 2023	No, ID	This is a soft "no" vote, as the call in the recording could be a YTVI, but it's too short for me to conclude that it's not a "Solitary" vireo species, the songs of all three of those species being similar to YTVI. This may have been a Yellow-throated Vireo, but I don't think the evidence is sufficient to establish that.
2nd round:	10 Jul 2023	No, ID	Not enough clear evidence to accept this one.
David W.	13 Jun 2023	No, ID	As the (non-African) saying goes, If you hear hoof beats, think horses, not zebras. To my ears, this sounds well within the range of the Plumbeous vireo repertoire, and the spectrogram looks a whole lot (if more blurred) like one of the top Plumbeous vireo spectrograms on eBird. Going to need a bit more on this one before I vote to accept.
2nd round:	29 Jun 2023	No, ID	Nothing to add.
Kevin W.	19 Jun 2023	No, ID	There was no observation, and the call that the observation is based off is only described as being closer to a Yellow-throated than a Plumbeous. To me, the recorded call sounds like a Plumbeous.
2nd round:	17 Jul 2023	No, ID	I still think there's to little evidence here to accept as a Yellow-throated Vireo.

2023-25 Scissor-tailed Flycatcher

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	11 Jun 2023	Acc	Good documentation of a potentially significant record.
Max M.	26 Jun 2023	Acc	Great documentation, it appears these birds are expanding their range, it would be great to further document the nesting success of this pair.
Keeli M..	10 Jun 2023	Acc	Wild! Great photos.
Bryant O.	10 Jun 2023	Acc	Nice record with great documentation. I hope someone is able to check up on the nest and see if successful.
Kris P.	20 Jun 2023	Acc
Mike S.	30 Jun 2023	Acc	Remarkable nesting record with diagnostic photos. Makes me wonder what else is nesting in this state and going undetected.
Mark S.	22 Jun 2023	Acc	Excellent documentation.
David W.	11 Jun 2023	Acc	No doubt on this one. (27Jun - Great photos. Unfortunate that this nest apparently was taken over by kingbirds).
Kevin W.	19 Jun 2023	Acc	Cool first documentation of breeding Scissor-tailed Flycatchers in Utah!

2023-26 Red-headed Woodpecker

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	66 Jul 2023	Acc	Seen by nearly every birder in the State (except for me).
Max M.	26 Jun 2023	Acc	Seen by many. There was concern that this bird was being pushed around by photographers, but I was there for a good hour + with KRPU and this bird was constantly on the move regardless of how close people were (with the exception of its favorite spot where it finally settled down for a few minutes towards the end of my visit).
Keeli M..	22 Jun 2023	Acc	Great photos to support ID.
Bryant O.	15 Jun 2023	Acc	Seen by many including myself, beautiful bird!
Kris P.	20 Jun 2023	Acc
Mike S.	30 Jun 2023	Acc	Another great record of a distinctive species.
Mark S.	22 Jun 2023	Acc	Another easy one . . .
David W.	15 Jun 2023	Acc	Photos irrefutable.
Kevin W.	19 Jun 2023	Acc	Photos show distinctive red head.

2023-27 Wood Thrush

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	16 Jul 2023	No, ID	I don t feel there is enough detail in this report to rule out other species.
2nd round:	1 Aug 2023	No, ID	It seems as though others have the same concerns as me and with even more details it only strengthens my thoughts.
Max M.	26 Jun 2023	No, ID	I could be swayed otherwise, but I don't think there is necessarily enough here to rule out Swainson's Thrush which seems much more likely.
2nd round:	18 Jul 2023	No, ID	I was unaware that the bird was originally ID'd as a Hermit Thrush and later changed, which further adds to my skepticism. Continuing to vote no.
Keeli M..	10 Jul 2023	Acc	Hard to decide without photos or recordings, but I think the observer makes a good case for WOTH ID.
2nd round:	28 Jul 2023	No, ID	Given the additional details, I agree with the concerns raised by the rest of the board.
Bryant O.	17 Jun 2023	No, ID	Thanks for separating this record Milt. There are circumstance of this record that were left out of the written record that cast considerable doubt in my mind. I read the original report on eBird, and this bird was initially identified as a Hermit Thrush, but after the observer saw Mark and David's report of a Wood Thrush, a week after the fact, he went back and changed his ID to Wood Thrush. He took no notes at the time, no photos or recordings, but changed his ID from memory a week later. See https://ebird.org/checklist/S136988219 We all know the frailty of human memory, add to that the influence of wishful thinking and power of suggestion, plus considering the time frame between initial sighting and change of ID, this record does not meet the criteria for a scientifically valid sight record. If you see a bird that does not look like a typical individual of the expected species, that should peak your interest and cause one to examine further and take careful notes and get documentation to investigate, rather than just write it off as an expected bird and then change your mind a week later when someone reports a rarity. Given the extreme rarity of this species, and the unlikelihood that 2 would be seen in the same county within a week, typically years or decades go between sightings of this species in Utah, this record do meet my level of expectation for documentation of this species in Utah.
2nd round:	31 Jul 2023	No, ID	None of the yes vote comments were strong enough to alleviate my concerns about the circumstances of this record.
Kris P.	23 Jun 2023	Acc	I'm voting to accept while feeling mildly unsettled about this sighting. I think logging an accidental species in the state that also happens to be your lifer would come with more documentary "oomph". There's a certain je ne sais quoi about this record that's lacking. I understand the observer originally ID'd this bird as a Hermit Thrush (his words; eBird checklist) and later changed it. I wondered if he was influenced to consider Wood Thrush after the report of the Sugarhouse bird around the same time. But barely adequate is the same as adequate, so I'm voting to accept while maintaining an open mind if this goes to a second round.
2nd round:	31 Jul 2023	No, ID	I'm changing my vote to No, ID, in deference to the sound reasoning supporting votes already cast. A record of such a rare species in Utah needs to have stronger documentation and less questionable circumstances to become part of the state's database of rare birds.
Mike S.	7 Jul 2023	No, ID	This record is lacking in detail, and the description is somewhat ambiguous. There is no mention of Brown Thrasher in the similar species section, and no description of the tail length or bill shape, so I don't believe that species can be ruled out. Although mentioned, I also wish there were additional details on the whiteness of underparts, extent of spotting, and specifics about the "bold" facial pattern, to help us rule out Catharus thrushes.
2nd round:	25 Jul 2023	No, ID	No change of opinion. Additional reasons for skepticism are noted by others.
Mark S.	22 Jun 2023	Acc	Description adequately eliminates similar species.
2nd round:	23 Jul 2023	No, ID	Given the background on this sighting reported by Bryant, enough doubts are raised that the threshold of evidence for such a rare sighting has not been met.
David W.	27 Jun 2023	To 2nd	I'm torn about this record. I wish I could interview the observer to get some more details. Reading it made me realize ways I could have improved my own submission for this species. One always tends to assume some things as given when submitting these records. I wish the submission was more descriptive regarding the face, which was repeatedly referred to as "bold" (what does that mean?). Also bill shape & size, tail length, eye color. I am not initially convinced that the possibility of a Brown thrasher was eliminated (though hinted at with the shape being "classic thrush"). I'm on the fence on this, like a thrasher or thrush.
2nd round:	25 Jul 2023	No, ID	I've not seen anything in the rest of the Committee members comments to allay my doubts.
Kevin W.	19 Jun 2023	Acc	The rusty-brown color on the head and back, as well as the boldly patterned face eliminate other possibilities.
2nd round:	17 Jul 2023	No, ID	Finding that the observer first identified and entered the bird as a Hermit in eBird, and then later ruled it out raises my suspicions. I think I'd like more details to be sure of the id.

2023-28 Ovenbird

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	16 Jul 2023	Acc
Max M.	26 Jun 2023	Acc	Good recording of an audibly distinctive species.
Keeli M..	10 Jul 2023	Acc	Call recording sounds pretty spot on to me for an Ovenbird.
Bryant O.	18 Jun 2023	Acc	Distinctive song and good documentation. Those bags know how to hide!
Kris P.	23 Jun 2023	Acc
Mike S.	20 Jul 2023	Acc	Two good audio recordings are accompanied by excellent written documentation.
Mark S.	22 Jun 2023	Acc	Recordings are clearly of an Ovenbird.
David W.	29 Jun 2023	Acc	Looks, I mean sounds, good to me. Sonogram on Kris's eBird report looks correct for this species too.
Kevin W.	19 Jun 2023	Acc	The call sounds like the distinctive call of the ovenbird.

2023-29 Ovenbird

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	16 Jul 2023	Acc
Max M.	13 Jul 2023	Acc	Good documentation, seen by many.
Keeli M..	10 Jul 2023	Acc	Good diagnostic photos.
Bryant O.	27 Jun 2023	Acc
Kris P.	29 Jun 2023	Acc
Mike S.	20 Jul 2023	Acc	Another great Ovenbird record. Nice job getting a couple of photos to accompany the audio recording.
Mark S.	28 Jun 2023	Acc	Good documentation.
David W.	27 Jun 2023	Acc	Seen by many, photographed by few. Nice writeup.
Kevin W.	17 Jul 2023	Acc	Photos clearly show an Ovenbird.

2023-30 Lark Bunting

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H. 2nd:	1 Aug 2023	Acc	I wrestled with my thoughts on this record for longer than I should have. I do believe the bird in the photo is a Lark Bunting, but I still had my reservations. I do agree that the additional observer has helped in my decision.
Max M.	18 Jul 2023	Acc	While the photo quality is poor, I think there is enough here to accept. Not sure what else this bird could be.
2nd round:	9 Aug 2023	Acc	II still think there is enough in the photo to rule out other species.
Keeli M..	10 Jul 2023	No, ID	I don't believe there's enough detail in the photos to definitively call this a LARB and to rule out other species.
2nd round:	20 Aug 2023	Acc	Still don't love the photos, but others comments have convinced me there's enough there to support ID and not sure what else it could be.
Bryant O.	7 Jul 2023	Acc	Despite poor written record lacked considering House Sparrow, photos do seem to be a Lark Bunting
2nd round:	21 Aug 2023	Acc	I wish there were better photos and a better write up, but never the less I can't make this bird into anything but a weird plumage Lark Bunting
Kris P.	13 Jul 2023	Acc	Points in favor of this record include photo evidence and a sighting by an additional birder.
2nd round:	7 Aug 2023	Acc	Immature male Lark Bunting jizz features and field marks show strongly enough in the photos for me to believe the ID and not in a similar species, particularly a Fox Sparrow. The second birder's corroboration is important, but less so, and the descriptive words not backed up by a photo view are least important in my assessment. I needed to see this one well enough in the physical evidence to agree, and I do.
Mike S.	26 Jul 2023	Acc	I believe the poor photos appear to show a female Lark Bunting. I am not confident based on photos A & B (thought Fox Sparrow was a possibility). However, photos D/D1 appear to show the broad white edges on the greater coverts, which would seem to rule out Fox Sparrow and other similar species. The dark streaking on the sides and head pattern in the profile view also appear to be consistent with LARB. I wish we had better quality/unobstructed photos. However, as presented, I think there is just enough here to establish the ID as a Lark Bunting.
2nd round:	4 Aug 2023	Acc	Nothing more to add.
Mark S.	8 Jul 2023	Acc	This is a very soft vote to accept. The photos are unclear, but don't contradict the written description, and I'm inclined to see a Lark Bunting here. My biggest concern would be in having a male at this stage of molt this late in the year - they should be completely or almost completely in alternative plumage by May 15. However, I'm having trouble coming up with a plausible (or at least better) identification for these photos.
2nd round:	8 Jul 2023	Acc	Despite problems, and the poor photo quality, I'm still having trouble making this anything different.
David W.	30 Jun 2023	Acc	Photos, albeit not the stuff of Pulitzers, and the write-up appear good for a Lark bunting.
2nd round:	3 Aug 2023	Acc	Black malars, white wing edging, black spot on breast, paler (silvery) lower mandible. Looks like a lark bunting to me.
Kevin W.	17 Jul 2023	No, ID	I'm not sure what the bird in the photos is, but something doesn't quite sit right for it to be a Lark Bunting. You can't tell much, but the stripes on the edge of the breast seem too wide, and that black spot on the upper chest seems too high and bold for that of a female or juvenile male Lark Bunting (not to mention that I think Juv male should have some black on the head?)
2nd round:	14 Aug 2023	Acc	I'll switch my vote. I wish the photos were better, but I can't make the photos out into something else, and the description is adequate.

2023-31 Zone-tailed Hawk

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	1 Aug 2023	Acc
Max M.	18 Jul 2023	Acc
Keeli M..	10 Jul 2023	Acc	Nice photo.
Bryant O.	7 Jul 2023	Acc	Great photos and in expected habitat.
Kris P.	13 Jul 2023	Acc	In my dreams, all votes are this easy. Thanks, Mike.
Mike S.	25 Jul 2023	Acc
Mark S.	8 Jul 2023	Acc	Excellent documentation.
David W.	11 Jul 2023	Acc	Very nice writeup, great photo.
Kevin W.	25 Jul 2023	Acc	Photos show distinctive shape and tail bands of Zone-tailed Hawk.

2023-32 Red-headed Woodpecker

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	16 Jul 2023	To 2nd	Description sounds ok , and this has been a good year for RHWO in the West, but curious on other s thoughts.
2nd round:	29 Aug 2023	No, ID	My first round vote was from a perspective of the observer describing exactly what they saw. As I read other s comments, it made me realize how many times my eyes have been tricked when looking at a bird with my naked eyes. Combine this with some of the field marks that were left out, I feel there may not be enough to accept this record.
3rd round:	2 Oct 2023	No, ID	This might have been a RHWO, but the concerns I have with the observation are still present and I don t feel this is a strong enough report to warrant acceptance.
Max M.	18 Jul 2023	To 2nd	Struggling with this record and could go either way. The fact that the observer saw this bird on horseback (I can't tell if he actually used his binoculars, just observed with his naked eye or both) leaves me somewhat questioning the ID, although RHWO are very distinctive. What else could it be? LEWO? I would like to hear others thoughts.
2nd round:	9 Aug 2023	No, ID	I think I am in agreement with Mike S. and Bryant on this one. Between the method of observation, lack of experience with this species, lack of eliminating other species of woodpeckers, and lack of detail in reference to the white rump and secondaries, I am left with too much uncertainty. For me, the description comes up just short of what I would be comfortable with to accept.
3rd round:	27 Sep 2023	No, ID	I also appreciate Kris's efforts in reaching out to the observer to ask more detailed questions, but even with the responses I still don't feel there is quite enough detail to leave no doubt that it was in fact a RHWO. I think Mike S. summarized the concerns I have with this record.
Keeli M..	10 Jul 2023	Acc	Wish observer had supporting photos, but based on description, it's plausible. It's hard to confuse this species with others.
2nd round:	20 Aug 2023	Acc	Continuing to accept because I believe this species would be hard to mis-ID and I still think it's believable. I agree with others' statements that the description is a little lacking.
3rd round:	26 Sep 2023	Acc	I appreciate Kris's comments and I believe that regardless of the observer's lack of experience and the shortfalls in her description and documentation, I still think this is a plausible record, for the reasons stated by other committee members. Continuing to accept.
Bryant O.	7 Jul 2023	No, ID	Not sure what they saw, but very unlikely in this habitat (dense mixed conifer forest) since these woodpeckers like open area with a few scattered deciduous trees. Original eBird report stated he only saw it naked eye and didn't have binos, a detail he left out of the record and changed on eBird, which casts considerable doubt. Also RHWO don't have a solid black back.
2nd round:	1 Aug 2023	No, ID	I agree with Mike S., the description for this level of rarity needs to be spot on perfect to accept, and it isn't. Add to that the method of observation, on horseback naked eye in a wooded area, even at close range observations of birds are tricky (I've tried birding on horseback and even with Binos it doesn't work). Weird lighting can effect perception of black and white and red is commonly over emphasized by our brains and little bit can be blown up into a lot by the combination of movement during observation, lighting and inexperience. There are a number of woodpeckers that show a black, white and red pattern which could be distorted into a Red-headed Woodpecker by a poor view, weird lighting and inexperience. They may have seen a Red-headed Woodpecker, but nothing offered here proves that beyond a reasonable doubt.
3rd round:	27 Sep 2023	No, ID	Although I may have misremembered observers initial report about this being a naked eye only observation, and do appreciated Kris reaching out to the observer, I continue to believe this is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Kris P.	14 Jul 2023	Acc	This is such a distinctive species not likely to be confused with another. The observer's description rules out the slim possibility of the Red-breasted Sapsucker, even though she didn't specifically mention that species. While the perception of size is off since Red-headed and Hairies are the same size, that may be nit-picking; my unresolved concern is that the big block of white formed by folded secondaries, rump and upper-tail coverts should have at least garnered a mention, but she described only the black back and tail.
2nd round:	30 Jul 2023	Acc	That the Red-headed Woodpecker is a distinctive, easily-identified species is the elephant in the room. The several issues that are a little off for me to log nice comfortable Accept vote don't total to take down the elephant. In addition, Casey eliminated the only other possibility with her description including color blocks-no pattern and white belly, she was pretty close and she was closer to eye-level with the bird because she was horseback riding. The term 'unmistakable' gets thrown around far too often, even by field guide authors, when lots of distinctive species can be mistaken for others. But I think this is one species where the word is a darn good fit.
3rd round:	31 Aug 2023	Acc	I think Casey saw a Red-headed Woodpecker and her description of solid red head (three times), color-blocking with no pattern, and white belly eliminates the extremely slim possibility of another species (Red-breasted Sapsucker). Her answers to the questions I asked outside of the sight record information (Milt--link to the file of supplemental info here) added a little information including side view, use of both binos and unaided eye, and no flight views. Her not noting the white block of the wing tips/rump remained unchanged, and so I have the same opinion--in favor--that I had before I contacted her. I think she didn't notice that feature because she was distracted by that fabulous red head, something I can relate to after seeing the Salt Lake IC Red-headed Woodpecker in June. That feature drew my attention until the bird flew, and then the flashing white wing-patch and rump contrasting strongly with the black back and wings took over the view. When the SL bird perched, the red head took over the view again. But Casey didn't see her bird's flashy flight pattern with head minimized; she saw it in a profile view which allows the head to be the dominant feature and minimizes the size of the white patch on the lower back. I'm reminded of a human behavior pattern illustrated by a viral YouTube video of a few years ago called the Awareness Test. Here's a version of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M3QNrNHzDE Casey's mentioning the solid red head three times is the equivalent of the passes the basketball team in white made. She was very aware of it. But a block of white on the lower back, minimized by a profile view? She wasn't looking for that even if we think it's really obvious when you look right at it. I evaluate in every record what the possible features a bird would have against what's reported, which is usually not the same. So the judgement call becomes what is enough. What's enough for me, more than enough even, is an unobstructed view from 20 feet with and without binoculars, a solid red head mentioned three times, a clean white belly, and color blocking no pattern. This bird can only be a Red-headed Woodpecker.
Mike S.	27 Jul 2023	No, ID	Although the description mostly sounds good for a Red-headed Woodpecker, I am concerned about a few omissions. Perhaps most importantly there is no mention of the white rump or secondaries. These areas should show such obvious contrast from the "solid black back" that such an omission is worrisome for this species. I am also concerned about the lack of mention of a few similar species, particularly Lewis's Woodpecker and Red-breasted Sapsucker (particularly the ruber ssp.). Although the description isn't great for either of those, it is important to know if the observer is at least aware of those possibilities. All things considered, I believe there is too much uncertainly to accept.
2nd round:	31 Jul 2023	No, ID	I still find the documentation in this record to fall just short of what I am comfortable accepting. I have difficulty overlooking the omissions I mentioned in my first round comment, and I find their choice of similar species to be a bit odd. My interpretation of the somewhat ambiguous "solid black back" description reads as if it was meant to apply to the entirety of the upper-parts, which is not a good match for a RHWO. The other interpretation (applying only to the mantle area) omits all of the other "upper-parts" (secondaries, rump, upper-tail coverts) that should be white. Although this species should be distinctive, this is a very rare species for the state, and the quality of documentation here would fall short of other accepted records (at least those in recent history).
3rd round:	5 Sep 2023	No, ID	To summarize my concerns: No mention of contrasting black and white upper-parts, incomplete similar species section, and lesser overall quality of documentation compared with previous records, for a species with only 4 vetted records in Utah over the past 55 years. I appreciate Kris reaching out to the observer for additional details (something we could probably do more often as a committee). Unfortunately, their replies didn't bolster my confidence in the ID. Based on the totality of the documentation, I wouldn't be surprised if they saw a Red-headed Woodpecker, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they didn't see one.
Mark S.	8 Jul 2023	Acc	Would have liked to have the white wing-patches described, but the solid blocks of color only fit this species. This species is so distinctive that it would be hard to mistake. It seems to be a good year for them in the west.
2nd round:	1 Aug 2023	Acc	Although the description is imperfect, it adequately eliminates other species, as all sapsuckers, Lewis's Woodpecker, Three-toed, and even Black-backed fail to fit the observed features. While the habitat isn't exactly typical, it's not outside the preferred habitat for the species, given that there are mixed woodlands and open meadows in the area. It's not too dissimilar from where they are found in the Pine Ridge area of NW Nebraska. I can easily imagine a vagrant Red-headed Woodpecker stopping in that location. It would be even worse habitat for Lewis's Woodpecker.
3rd round:	29 Aug 2023	Acc	I understand the reluctance of some members to accept this record due to the imperfection of the written description, but I imagine that it has more to do with the inexperience of the observer in writing descriptions of their sightings than features not observed. This isn't an Empid i.d., and I can't come up with a plausible alternative to explain what was noted in the description. While I recognize that this is a rare bird (by definition, aren't they all?), it's not THAT rare for Utah, with 9 vetted records, including, I might note, one from 2002 just a few miles away from this one, also in the high country of Logan Canyon (even higher elevation, actually). Given the numerous reports of Red-headed Woodpecker in the west this year, it seems even less unusual. I don't see why we would be justified in enforcing such a high standard of write-up for this record, as it adequately eliminates similar species, fits with a known pattern of occurrence, and can't be thought of as a possible corruption of the data. I say let it stand.
David W.	11 Jul 2023	Acc	I'm a bit hesitant to accept a record from horseback by a beginner birder (so I surmise from the eBird info), but the description is solid and the species unmistakable.
2nd round:	3 Aug 2023	Acc	Oh that's funny. Just this weekend I heard about Bryant's aversion to birding on horseback. I suspect that the experience is a lot more satisfying/accurate when you learn how to do it right. If people can shoot from horseback, they can bird. I still think the description warrants a soft Accept.
3rd round:	13 Sep 2023	Acc	I appreciate Kris's efforts to obtain more information for us. I continue to believe there is enough here to vote to accept despite the sparse record.
Kevin W.	25 Jul 2023	Acc	The description of the solid red head and black back and tail eliminates other likely species.
2nd round:	14 Aug 2023	Acc	I agree with others that the record is not as solid as it could be. I'd like to see white wing patches and rump described, but at the same time, the distinctive red head and solid patterns of red, black, and white leave me thinking that this bird could be nothing else.
3rd round:	29 Aug 2023	Acc	My thoughts continue as before; I would like the record to be more detailed, but the description given provides details enough for me to accept.

2023-33 White-winged Crossbill

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	16 Jul 2023	Acc
Max M.	18 Jul 2023	Acc
Keeli M..	29 Jul 2023	Acc	Finally got up there and saw/heard this bird myself today. Heard and saw one of the males still singing in the campground.
Bryant O.	10 Jul 2023	Acc	Clear photos
Kris P.	26 Jul 2023	Acc	Very nice find by Quinn. I've been surprised this species hasn't been reported at any other location. Heaven knows I've been looking, and I'm sure other birders have been as well.
Mike S.	25 Jul 2023	Acc	Great record, nice documentation.
Mark S.	14 Jul 2023	Acc	Good documentation, photos.
David W.	11 Jul 2023	Acc	Photos, recording, and writeup leave no doubt. Nice find by one of the state's very talented birders. I wonder if the fires up north are driving them south.
Kevin W.	25 Jul 2023	Acc	Photos clearly show white wing bars on a crossbill.

2023-34 Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	1 Aug 2023	Acc	Description eliminates all other possible species including BBCU. Audio recording helps confirm.
Max M.	9 Aug 2023	Acc	Good description and supporting audio. Sounds like an interesting place to visit.
Keeli M..	29 Jul 2023	Acc	Thorough description. I'm surprised he didn't mention the spots on the tail, and the orange under the wings doesn't strike me as flaming, but I think it's a plausible record.
Bryant O.	20 Jul 2023	Acc	Recording of a YBCU (but not the one described in the record?), description is spot on too
Kris P.	28 Jul 2023	Acc	Well-observed and documented; a strong record.
Mike S.	4 Aug 2023	Acc	Good written documentation with diagnostic audio.
Mark S.	23 Jul 2023	Acc	The recording is clearly Yellow-billed Cuckoo, confirming the written description, that also eliminates similar species.
David W.	25 Jul 2023	Acc	Thanks to the excellent documentation of the observer, this would seem to fall into the "easy record" category that Milt was talking about. I will therefore try to vote in a timely manner in the affirmative.
Kevin W.	25 Jul 2023	Acc	The description seems to eliminate other possibilities, and the recording fits.

2023-35 Bendire's Thrasher

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	1 Aug 2023	No, ID	Nearly zero details in the report to differentiate between other more likely species.
Max M.	1 Aug 2023	No, ID	The overall description/report is very minimal in detail, and the description of field marks and identifying characteristics is unsatisfactory. Could it have been a juvenile of another thrasher species? No mention of pattern on the chest, undertail, behavior, vocalizations, etc. Not enough here for me to accept.
Keeli M..	20 Aug 2023	No, ID	The sighting might be valid, but I don't think the observer provided enough detail to validate the sighting and rule out similar species.
Bryant O.	28 Jul 2023	No, ID	All we know is it had a shorter bill than a Curved-billed Thrasher, no actual description of the bird or field marks listed? Experience of the observers are not field marks. Sage Thrasher, Mockingbird, thrushes not discussed or considered. There is really nothing to go on here even if the species is expected in the area
Kris P.	10 Aug 2023	No, ID	Not enough information in any category to accept as a Bendire's Thrasher.
Mike S.	31 Jul 2023	No, ID	The very limited description does not rule out other possibilities.
Mark S.	1 Aug 2023	No, ID	Not enough to go on here to evaluate this record. We have no actual description of the bird. Also, the location "Lytle Ranch" is either too imprecise, or simply not good habitat - Bendire's are more likely on the road to Lytle than in the riparian habitat of the ranch itself.
2nd round:	29 Aug 2023	No, ID	As per my first round comments - this is a female Black-chinned Hummingbird.
David W.	3 Aug 2023	No, ID	"Seen by 3 experienced birders." I don't vote to accept based on reputation alone. Why not a Sage thrasher? Also, impressive they managed to get a scope on this species.
Kevin W.	28 Jul 2023	No, ID	There are no details! Other than they didn't think it was a Curve-billed Thrasher. Why did they even bother to submit it?