Records Committee Utah Ornithological Society Web Site

Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society

Status & Comments
Year 2023 (records 36 through 86)

2023-36 Rivioli's Hummingbird

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	29 Jul 2023	No, ID	I believe too much of this report is based on perceived size. Field judging size is a very unreliable field mark and one of the more popular causes for mis-ID.
2nd round:	25 Sep 2023	No, ID	Still no. Seems as though others have expressed similar concerns.
Max M.	9 Aug 2023	No, ID	Observer seems to be relying on size rather than field marks to eliminate other species. Looks fine for a female Black-chinned.
2nd round:	27 Sep 2023	No, ID	Female Black-chinned..
Keeli M..	21 Aug 2023	Acc	The bird seems really pale underneath for a RIHU, but based on description, assuming the size perception was accurate, not sure what else it could be.
2nd round:	10 Sep 2023	No, ID	Embarrassed to say I should have listened to my gut on this one when I thought it looked too pale, and that size is always hard to judge and deceptive. Changing my vote. Agree with others' comments that this is likely a BCHU
Bryant O.	30 Jul 2023	No, ID	Photos show a pretty standard Black-chinned Hummingbird female. Size is a very deceptive field mark with no frame of reference and the only one offered. Female/immature Rivoli's have a scaled gray and green torso and spotted throat and are never this clean and pale below.
2nd round:	30 Aug 2023	No, ID	Continue to think this is a Black-chinned
Kris P.	13 Aug 2023	No, ID	I believe this bird is a Black-chinned Hummingbird. Several Rivoli's features were neither mentioned in the narrative nor depicted in the photos. Size is so deceptive with the long proportions of a female Black-chinned, and the observer didn't mention if she was able to compare the size of the subject bird to any other hummingbird present. I have jokingly referred to some female Black-chins that come to my home feeders as "magnificent" hummingbirds because they look so large, but they're still Black-chins.
2nd round:	31 Aug 2023	No, ID	No change in opinion for reasons mentioned multiple times in the first round comments.
Mike S.	31 Jul 2023	No, ID	Photos appear to show a Black-chinned Hummingbird. Much of the ID is based on the size, but there is no indication that there were other hummingbirds nearby for comparison.
2nd round:	31 Aug 2023	No, ID	Continuing to agree with others that this is a Black-chinned Hummingbird.
Mark S.	1 Aug 2023	No, ID	I think we can add this to the long list of female Black-chinned Hummingbirds misidentified as Rivoli's/Magnificent in Utah. There is no point of reference for judging size other than the observer's impression, that is hard to trust. It's claimed to be much larger than Black-chinned, but apparently none were present for direct comparison. The bill length, in proportion to the head/body of the bird, is exactly the same for Black-chinned and Rivoli's. The same for the post-ocular spot. And the wings on this bird are clearly shorter than the tail, as they should be for Black-chinned, and not for Rivoli's, where the wingtips should reach the end of the tail. The white spots on the tail look small to me for Rivoli's, and the breast not dusky enough gray - most Rivoli's females I've seen have a darker gray breast. This looks like a standard Black-chinned Hummingbird in female-type plumage.
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	To my eyes, this bird is not scaly enough on the breast and the tail feathers are too sharp. Lots of hummingbirds have post ocular spots. And no mention of another hummingbird being present for size comparison (we all know how deceptive size can be in the absence of something to compare with).
2nd round:	29 Aug 2023	No, ID	Nothing to add.
Kevin W. 2nd:	12 Sep 2023	No, ID	Agree with others comments that this is Black-chinned Hummingbird.

2023-37 Curve-billed Thrasher

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	9 Aug 2023	Acc	Good documentation over the last couple weeks with photos and audio. Great record - wish I had time to get out and see it.
Keeli M..	20 Aug 2023	Acc	Also got to see this bird myself. Good supporting photos for this record. Interesting that it's been sticking around.
Bryant O.	6 Aug 2023	Acc	Excellent photos and recordings and OK write up. Bill too decurved to be Bendire's and orangey eye color vs yellow also favor CBTH. But the laser beam calls leave absolutely no doubt
Kris P.	10 Aug 2023	Acc	This is such a thoroughly-documented record of a very rare and easily-confused species. Excellent narrative descriptions, photos, audio, and reports by multiple observers, the first of which is experienced with Toxostoma sp. I like this record.
Mike S.	16 Aug 2023	Acc	Excellent documentation with great photos and audio, observed by many.
Mark S.	2 Aug 2023	Acc	Good documentation; photos clearly show a Curve-billed Thrasher of the expected western subspecies.
David W.	2 Aug 2023	Acc	Great photos and writeup.
Kevin W.	14 Aug 2023	Acc	I think the report has good documentation, including photos, and eliminates the other possibilities. Good bird!

2023-38 Worm-eating Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	9 Aug 2023	Acc	Description of field marks and behavior good for Worm-eating. Would be great to have supporting photos. Not sure what else this could be.
Keeli M..	20 Aug 2023	Acc	Good supportive description. I believe the observer adequately ruled out other species, even without supporting photos.
Bryant O.	6 Aug 2023	Acc	Very well written record eliminates all other similar species, but as observer note there really aren't any. Description checks all the boxes.
Kris P.	14 Aug 2023	Acc	A perfect written record, and combined with the distinctiveness of the species, make physical evidence superfluous.
Mike S.	16 Aug 2023	Acc	Nice written description establishes the ID of this a very rare species for Utah. The experience of the observer is helpful.
Mark S.	4 Aug 2023	Acc	Excellent description from a careful and detailed observation by an experienced observer.
David W.	2 Aug 2023	Acc	Excellent description of both physical and behavioral field marks.
Kevin W.	14 Aug 2023	Acc	I think the description of the striped head and orange-buff color, and especially the behavior of searching for insects in the bark and under the leaves indicate this to be a Worm-eating Warbler.

2023-39 Zone-tailed Hawk

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	5 Sep 2023	Acc	The amount of viewing time with the written description makes me believe they did observe a ZTHA.
Max M.	9 Aug 2023	Acc	Good description eliminating TUVU and expected in this area.
Keeli M..	20 Aug 2023	Acc	Excellent details in record and good description of how TUVU were ruled out.
Bryant O.	9 Aug 2023	Acc	Well written record. I believe one has been seen there a few times this year, some with photos. Known location and annual there, but sadly I didn't see one there last week.
Kris P.	17 Aug 2023	Acc	An excellent record in regard to the detailed observations, but not eliminating the dark-phase Buteos other than a brief treatment of a generic Red-tailed Hawk is an oversight, I think. Why make the records committee suss this out when you could have stated it and defended your ID more strongly? Tacit is not as good as stated. If you don't have a photo, 1,000 words is a worthy alternative.
Mike S.	17 Aug 2023	Acc	Although I have some concerns about the nearby Turkey Vultures having "nearly twice the wingspan," I believe the description is otherwise adequate for a Zone-tailed Hawk. This is a known location for this species.
Mark S.	9 Aug 2023	Acc	Excellent description eliminates similar species.
David W.	9 Aug 2023	Acc	A very-well written description, hitting all of the important field marks. Lack of photo almost makes me nostalgic for the old days.
Kevin W.	5 Sep 2023	Acc	The description seems good, and the observer has experience with the species. I hadn't realized that ZT Hawks had such a large wingspan compared to Turkey Vultures before the details in this record.

2023-40 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	5 Sep 2023	No, ID	The new normal. Inexperienced birders walking around with their phones held overhead, Merlin audio app open, and reporting every species that the app tells them they heard. I ve used the Merlin Audio App to check accuracy and I ve found that it has problems with similar calls, similar songs, and anything that is not clear. Type 5 Red Crossbill with Cassia Crossbill, Indigo with Lazuli Bunting, and Blue with Black-headed Grosbeak are just a few examples of the shortcomings with Merlin Audio. Many of the reported YBSA end up being a hybrid and without more details than Merlin said , I don t believe this record stands.
Max M.	20 Aug 2023	No, ID	Not sure the audio is even a sapsucker? Can barely hear squeal noise, maybe a mammal? I can't tell the difference between YBSA and RNSA mew calls, I haven't heard of anyone being able to tell the difference between the two. Time of year supports RNSA, not migrant YBSA.
Keeli M..	20 Aug 2023	No, ID	Audio record isn't clear enough to me to rule out similar species.
Bryant O.	9 Aug 2023	No, ID	There is no evidence or reason provided this is not a Red-napped Sapsucker. I hear foot steps, a junco and what sounds like a dog squeaky toy in the distant back ground which I presume is the sapsucker? Red-napped and Yellow-bellied are essentially identical audibly (and Red-breasted too), and it would be very odd for a Yellow-bellied to be here in summer in perfect Red-napped habitat (Aspen present). Sadly I think this is another example of a Merlin Sound ID problem with beginners having way too much confidence in Merlin, which has an eastern bias to begin with and often suggest out of range eastern birds here simply because there are more easterners uploading more recordings because there's more birders and people in the east, but I digress, I hate Merlin, or really how people use it. Additionally, hybrid not even considered. This is something the eBird reviewer should have just taken care of and sent them the standard Merlin error email. At least the observer is upfront with there lack of experience and would have probably been open to the correction.
Kris P.	17 Aug 2023	No, ID	I don't believe the S. varius complex is distinguishable by voice, meaning an audible call offers six possibilities of species and hybrids. The audio recording is almost, or maybe totally, irrelevant. The July timing is also highly unlikely for any species other the Red-naped Sapsucker. That being said, were I a bird identification instructor, I would want my students to be as motivated as this observer. He's interested and tried very hard, even if the conclusion is extremely unlikely.
Mike S.	31 Aug 2023	No, ID	I don't believe the ID of Yellow-bellied Sapsucker can be established based on this relatively faint/brief recording. The timing of late-July would be unprecedented for Utah and pretty much anywhere west of the Rockies.
Mark S.	9 Aug 2023	No, ID	The faint calls I could hear on the recording are indistinguishable from Red-naped Sapsucker to my ear. I don't think these two similar species are adequately separated in this record, and certainly not to the level of evidence required for such an unusual record. The time of year would seem to make this species even less likely.
David W.	22 Aug 2023	No, ID	I must admit, I almost felt pranked when I first read this record. It took me several times through the recording to even hear the call upon which the record is based (headphones would have helped). Furthermore, I didn't even know you could differentiate the calls of these two species, in the first place, so kudos for trying. When I look at spectrograms of the corresponding whiny calls on eBird, I don't see any difference in pitch (in kHz) between the two species. I would suggest that this recording falls within the range of the more affable (less harsh) Red-naped sapsuckers.
Kevin W.	5 Sep 2023	No, ID	I'm not sure that Red-naped Sapsuckers can be distinguished from Yellow-bellied from sound, and this observer's lack of experience with Yellow-bellied makes me question even further.

2023-41 Long-tailed Jaeger

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	20 Aug 2023	Acc	Nice photos of a Jaeger! This bird has characteristics that make me think subadult. I think the photos support the ID. Would have liked a little better description of how the other two species were ruled out since size is relative especially when you don't have all three species side by side to compare. (3 Sep 2023 - Great photos!
Max M.	20 Aug 2023	Acc	Good documentation over the last week or so.
Keeli M..	20 Aug 2023	Acc	Nice photos of a Jaeger! This bird has characteristics that make me think subadult. I think the photos support the ID. Would have liked a little better description of how the other two species were ruled out since size is relative especially when you don't have all three species side by side to compare.
Bryant O.	12 Aug 2023	Acc	Photos leave no doubt. Fairly well written description by original observer on eBird
Kris P.	25 Aug 2023	Acc	A nicely-documented bird between Nathaniel's very thorough written account and James' images. The barred under-wing coverts and spotty belly seem atypical. I wonder why this bird isn't solidly gray there given the otherwise adult alternate plumage. This has to be retained immature plumage given that adult basic doesn't occur until the wintering grounds and is also solidly gray, at least on the under-wing coverts. Hmm.
Mike S.	7 Sep 2023	Acc	Good photos by James Loveless show plumage and structural details that rule out similar species. Nathaniel Nye's sight record (2023-41a) also contains good written details that corroborate the ID. Nice record.
Mark S.	13 Aug 2023	Acc	Written description is non-existent, but the photos are unequivocal, and clearly show Long-tailed Jaeger.
David W.	22 Aug 2023	Acc	James's lovely photos combined with Nathaniel's detailed writeup are convincing.
Kevin W.	5 Sep 2023	Acc	Crazy, but well documented with photos. Oddly, one record submitted contained no details except the photo - but I guess that's good enough as they're definitive.

2023-42 Zone-tailed Hawk

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	5 Sep 2023	Acc	I doubt I m alone in wishing all records had quality photos.
Max M.	20 Aug 2023	Acc	Nice photo documentation.
Keeli M..	20 Aug 2023	Acc	Good supporting photos. Would have liked some discussion of how similar species (such as COBH) were ruled out, but photos support positive ID.
Bryant O.	12 Aug 2023	Acc	Likely same bird and location as 2023-39 (Lava point is on the Kolob Terrace)
Kris P.	17 Aug 2023	Acc
Mike S.	17 Aug 2023	Acc	Good photos establish the ID despite the limited written description. While this is a known location for this species, I do wish the observer included a slightly more specific location since the Kolob Terrace Road is roughly 25 miles long.
Mark S.	13 Aug 2023	Acc	Another record with no real written description, but again, the photos are unmistakable, and show Zone-tailed Hawk. Tail banding and wing shape eliminate Common Black-Hawk, the only reasonably similar species.
David W.	22 Aug 2023	Acc	Photos show a Zone-tailed hawk.
Kevin W.	5 Sep 2023	Acc	A record with few details but diagnostic photos showing the field marks well for Zone-tailed Hawk.

2023-43 White Ibis

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	5 Sep 2023	Acc	Looks good.
Max M.	23 Aug 2023	Acc	Photos and description look good for a Juvi White Ibis.
Keeli M..	21 Aug 2023	Acc	Looks like hatch year WHIB plumage.
Bryant O.	21 Aug 2023	Acc	Photos and description consistant with juvenile white Ibis
Kris P.	27 Aug 2023	Acc
Mike S.	7 Sep 2023	Acc	Nice written documentation and diagnostic photos (photo series 1) establish the ID of a juvenile White Ibis. Great record!
Mark S.	21 Aug 2023	Acc	Good documentation; photos unmistakably show an immature White Ibis.
David W.	22 Aug 2023	Acc	Convincing description and photos.
Kevin W.	5 Sep 2023	Acc	Good documentation of a hard-to-find bird. The photos, although distant, are diagnostic for a distinctively marked bird.

2023-44 Scarlet Tanager

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	5 Sep 2023	Acc	Beautiful photos, leaves no doubt. Wish the bird had stuck around!
Keeli M..	10 Sep 2023	Acc	Glad there's good photos. Wow this bird is neon red.
Bryant O.	24 Aug 2023	Acc	Great photos leave no doubt. Some who tried to re-find this bird expressed doubt it was actually seen and photographed in Utah, however it is in a Siberian Elm and a White Poplar, both of which are common trees along the Jordan River and uncommon in its usual range, so no reason to doubt the authenticity of this sighting.
Kris P.	27 Aug 2023	Acc
Mike S.	7 Sep 2023	Acc	As someone who has grown accustomed to "Scarlet Tanager" reports in Utah with only vague descriptions that easily could be describing a SUTA (or something else), it is a pleasant surprise to see a SCTA record with definitive photos! (I am sure I am not alone in that sentiment.)
Mark S.	24 Aug 2023	Acc	No doubts on this one.
David W.	24 Aug 2023	Acc	Wow. Great photos of stunning male leave no doubt. Nice record of a species we don't see very often in our state.
Kevin W.	5 Sep 2023	Acc	Photos show stunning male Scarlet Tanager.

2023-45 Elf Owl

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	5 Sep 2023	No, ID	I believe this is a juvenile Long-eared Owl. Here is a link to a recording I made of multiple LEOW s as they were calling out for foods- (see link above)
2nd round:	25 Sep 2023	No, ID	I still feel this is a juvenile LEOW.
Max M.	5 Sep 2023	To 2nd	In the recording I hear a WESO, and a "call" that I cannot find any similar calls to for Elf Owl in Macaulay Library. I defer to those on the committee who may have more experience with Elf Owl calls than I do or can provide additional resources or recordings, but with what I can find I do not feel confident in approving this record at this time.
2nd round:	27 Sep 2023	No, ID	Looks like others also spent a bunch of time listening to Elf Owl recordings and couldn't come up with a match. Continuing to reject.
Keeli M..	10 Sep 2023	No, ID	I wish there were better quality records without all the background noise. The calls that are pointed out don't sound sharp or squeaky toy enough to me to be Elf Owls.
2nd round:	26 Sep 2023	No, ID	No change of opionion. Listened to the LEOW calls and agree the calls most closely fit a juvenile LEOW.
Bryant O.	27 Aug 2023	To 2nd	I spent an hour listening to owl calls on Macaulay Library trying to find a match for this recording and couldn't. It seems to be a juvenile and often responding to WESO in recordings, so could be a WESO which are common there, but I couldn't find a WESO call that matches. Doesn't sound like a ELOW to me which are more tiny, but honestly don't know what it is. Anyone else find a match?
2nd round:	26 Sep 2023	No, ID	Agree call doesn't match ELOW and could be LEOW
Kris P.	5 Sep 2023	No, ID	None of the recordings match any Elf Owl sonogram in the Macaulay Library of Natural Sounds or Xeno-Canto, and I disagree with the listener's characterization of the call he recorded as "Peeu".
2nd round:	15 Sep 2023	No, ID	No change of opinion, and thanks to Mike H. and Mark for suggesting the most likely species. The submission form contains the Similar Species section to aid observers in avoiding the hoof prints-zebra trap. But not offering any information in that field is tantamount to jumping right into the trap.
Mike S.	13 Sep 2023	No, ID	I might be missing something, but I'm not hearing anything in these recordings that closely resembles a diagnostic Elf Owl call. The observer notes that he recorded the "peeu" call (also described as the "station call" in this xeno-canto recording, link below). I'm just not hearing something similar in this record, nor am I seeing a great sonogram match... https://xeno-canto.org/145027
2nd round:	27 Sep 2023	No, ID	No change of opinion... I am not confident in the ID, but I agree that a juvenile LEOW seems like a closer match.
Mark S.	27 Aug 2023	No, ID	I believe that the recordings match juvenile calls of Long-eared Owl more than any call of Elf Owl. This is confirmed by examination of the sonograms of both Elf Owl and Long-eared Owl. The "peeu" call of Elf Owl sounds slightly different, sharper, shorter, and with a more pronounced downward finish than is seen in the recordings in this record. A juvenile Long-eared Owl call has precisely the same sonogram form as these calls, and if heard at a distance, match well what is heard in these recordings. Given that Long-eared Owl is a known and common breeder in this location, I believe that is likely what we're hearing in this record.
2nd round:	15 Sep 2023	No, ID	Still sounds like a juvenile Long-eared Owl to me, and certainly not an Elf Owl.
David W.	27 Aug 2023	No, ID	I spent a lot of time clicking on calls on the Xeno-Canto website trying to find any call even remotely resembling these recordings. No luck. Also looked at the top recordings on eBird and found nothing. I even checked my "Voices of New World Owls" CD but nothing on there sounded close. Most examples of the Elf owl calls I managed to find were much more punctuated, less whining. The one whiny one I did find was inflected downward at the end, unlike these. The calls attached to this record sound pretty generic and I'm not even sure they are of a bird. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if provided some reference recordings that better match these, but until then I will vote NAY. Perhaps Von Welch might provide us with his reference recording ("Owl voices of north america disc 2 track 43") so that we might better evaluate his record. [By the way, "Owl voices of north america" comes up with no hits on my Google search, so I could not try checking it that way.] I'd love for this record to be accepted, but I'll need more resources to vote in the affirmative.
2nd round:	14 Sep 2023	No, ID	Nothing to add in the absence of additional reference info.
Kevin W.	5 Sep 2023	No, ID	The recordings provided as evidence don't hold much that I can hear. I can make out an owl call at 0:42 of the first recording (indicated that it is the "best one"), but I hear a short screech followed by a distant popping-trill that sounds more like a Western Screech-Owl to me.
2nd round:	2 Oct 2023	No, ID	Agree with others that the call sounds more like Long-eared Owl. Doesn't match Elf Owl.

2023-46 Painted Bunting

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	5 Sep 2023	To 2nd	Provenance?
2nd round:	12 Oct 2023	Acc	Bird is clearly identified correctly. Since no one else seems to be concerned with provenance (not saying they should be), I will vote to accept.
Max M.	5 Sep 2023	Acc	Nice record and supporting photos
2nd round:	27 Sep 2023	Acc	Agree with Kris - Mark and David covered provenance well, continuing to accept. Great record.
Keeli M..	10 Sep 2023	Acc	Cool bird to catch at Rio Mesa. Appreciate the thorough discussion of ID. Bird definitely looked stressed, so glad they released it prior to banding.
2nd round:	26 Sep 2023	Acc	Agree that natural occurrence is much more likely given the remote location of the banding station and the date captured and age of the bird. Very cool capture and great write-up.
Bryant O.	30 Aug 2023	Acc	Excellent documentation
2nd round:	26 Sep 2023	Acc	Timing, age and location unlikely for an escapee.
Kris P.	9 Sep 2023	Acc	Fascinating record, replete with interesting details. I'm glad the banders chose to release the bird without processing it given the extensive lack of feather cohesion and the signs of the bird's stress.
2nd round:	14 Sep 2023	Acc	I think Mark and David addressed the issue of provenance nicely, citing location, date, age and feather color. In addition, I think a bird confined to a cage would show a wear pattern on the tip of its tail that this bird doesn't show. The longest two retrices on the left side of the tail are intact at the tip and barely frayed, and a couple outer retrices on the right side show only minimal wear. It seems to me that especially the longest feathers would be beat up on a formerly caged bird. Caroline also mentioned the bird's "bitey" behavior multiple times. While we have no way of knowing this, I can rationalize that a wild bird might put up a greater defense than one that's used to being around humans.
Mike S.	31 Aug 2023	Acc	Great written documentation supplements the diagnostic photos.
2nd round:	27 Sep 2023	Acc	I agree with others that the probability is in favor of this being a wild bird.
Mark S.	13 Sep 2023	Acc	Excellent documentation (couldn't hardly be better). The identification not being in question, the only doubt is natural occurrence. But given the location, date, and age of the bird, an escaped captive would be extremely unlikely.
2nd round:	15 Sep 2023	Acc	For the reasons I stated in the first round, I think natural occurrence is much more likely than an escapee.
David W.	5 Sep 2023	Acc	One of the best-documented records I have ever had the pleasure to vote on. I think the possibility of an escaped cage bird is reduced by its age and lack of brilliant coloration.
2nd round:	14 Sep 2023	Acc	I agree with Mark that this is unlikely to be an escaped captive.
Kevin W.	5 Sep 2023	Acc	The greenish back and tail eliminates the other more likely buntings for me.
2nd round:	2 Oct 2023	Acc	ID doesn't seem to be in question, and it seems more likely that this was a wild bird given condition and location.

2023-47 Long-tailed Jaeger

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H. 2nd:	12 Oct 2023	Acc	Photos don t help a ton, but vote is based off of description of details provided.
Max M.	5 Sep 2023	Acc	Good write up - photos, while poor support the sighting.
2nd round:	23 Oct 2023	Acc	While I can see Kris's concern with the distance of the bird and how that can make ID challenging, especially with juvenile jaegers, I think there is a lot that can be done by an observer to address those concerns, and I feel that Bryant has done that with this record. I have been on a number of pelagics and have seen spotters and guides identify juvenile jaegers on a bouncy boat with binoculars at distances that I would not be comfortable doing so (later confirming their IDs as the birds get closer to the boat). Lots of that is due to experience, of course, but if you can adequately observe and document flight styles and behaviors, along with visible field marks I think an experienced enough observer can make the proper ID calls. I also agree with Mark, while the photos could be better, I think they support the structure, plumage and relative size compared to nearby species to eliminate Pomarine and Parasitic Jaeger.
Keeli M..	26 Sep 2023	Acc	Great spot at that distance away. Thank you for the excellent write-up.
2nd round:	17 Oct 2023	Acc	Appreciate the added discussion and still believe the details in the description support ID.
Bryant O.	5 Sep 2023	Acc
2nd round:	12 Oct 2023	Acc	Although I appreciated Kris's healthy skepticism, the premise of that skepticism, that juvenile Jaegers can't be ID at a distance, is not true. With field experience we learn what to look for when confronted with a difficult ID, and even at a distance can clue into the field marks necessary to make the ID. I was at this same location today and scoping gulls along the same shore line at the same distance this Jaeger was. I could tell not only what species of gull, but also what age each individual was (adult and 2nd cycle CAGU, adult RBGU, adult and 1st cycle HERG, adult LBBG) because I have observed all in the field and know what to look for. To many gulls are a complete mystery and they don't know what to look for and they are all "Seagulls", but subtle differences in mantle shade, color of legs, size, tertial crescent prominence, bill color, structure etc. can be used to ID them once you know what to look for. Jaegers are no different, with experience you learn what to look for. Many encounters with Jaeger at sea or on sea watches are distant flying birds, yet keen observers know what to look for. Honestly I find it easier to ID Jaegers in the field than from photos because they all have such distinctive flight style and behavior, akin to IDing falcons in flight. In this case I had a very cooperative bird that allowed a very long look in excellent light, unlike most looks at Jaegers which give quick fly through looks often at a distance. Important field marks: The undertail coverts, the amount of white on the upperside of the wings, the primary projection, the size of the bill, and overall color tone could all be seen even at this distance. Add to that the behavior and flight style. Some of these field marks, such as the bill size, primary projection and overall color tone can be seen in the photos, which add some evidence to verify the field evaluation of this Jaeger. Difficult-yes, but impossible? No.
Kris P.	15 Sep 2023	No, ID	Accepting this record is beyond my comfort level considering the inherent difficulty of juvenile jaeger ID and the distance to the bird. I'm thinking in terms of what belongs in the data base given that one of the committee's purposes is to "Establish standards of observation and reporting in order to improve our knowledge of Utah birds." I think ID'ing juvenile jaegers at 300-500 meters is a Pandora's Box of sorts that we shouldn't open. I hope my conclusion doesn't detract from the effort Bryant made to observe and photograph the bird. I think it was yeoman's work, just work that wasn't rewarded with definitive enough details to secure the ID in the state's record.
2nd round:	8 Nov 2023	No, ID	I understand this record will be accepted regardless of how I vote, however, I don't feel swayed enough to change mine to accept. This is specifically because the observed details don't eliminate a Parasitic Jaeger conclusively enough for me, and the photos don't relay enough information to be helpful. I especially appreciate all the second round statements of conviction as to why each committee member accepts this record; thank you for explaining more thoroughly and again.
Mike S.	27 Sep 2023	Acc	While it's difficult to discern much detail in these photos, the written documentation is excellent and establishes the ID of a Long-tailed Jaeger. I believe similar species have been adequately eliminated.
2nd round:	25 Oct 2023	Acc	I understand the cautious approach given the observation distance. However, the written documentation rules out similar species, and the photos are consistent with that description. [There is probably an interesting/useful discussion to be had about the reliability of fairly subtle field marks that are noted during long distance situations. However, I believe that this reliability improves with observer experience, likely along with other factors that are difficult to measure (lighting conditions, quality of optics, etc.)]
Mark S.	5 Sep 2023	Acc	Excellent description; structure, bill size visible in the photos supports the i.d.
2nd round:	14 Oct 2023	Acc	While I understand Kris's concerns about long-distance immature jaeger identifications, you can see a lot with a good scope, as Bryant's excellent description shows. Beyond that, I can see enough in terms of the structure, bill size and shape, and size relative to the other birds in the photos to eliminate the other species of jaegers. Yes, general caution is warranted, but isn't necessary in this case.
David W.	3 Oct 2023	Acc	Convincing writeup. Good job eliminating other jaegers.
2nd round:	26 Oct 2023	Acc	I have a lot of sympathy with Kris' concerns but still think Bryant is correct in his ID.
Kevin W.	5 Sep 2023	Acc	Photos aren't the best, but with the excellent effort put into the description, it seems sufficient to accept.
2nd round:	18 Oct 2023	Acc	I concur that the details provided in the description is enough for me to accept.

2023-48 Tennessee Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	27 Sep 2023	Acc	Well written record and documentation from one of our own. Good fall bird!
Keeli M..	26 Sep 2023	Acc	Photos showing the face including the dark eye line and pale supercilium, lower belly, and white under tail feathers and observer's description support ID to me.
Bryant O.	6 Sep 2023	Acc	Classic fall TEWA, good description and pics
Kris P.	15 Sep 2023	Acc
Mike S.	27 Sep 2023	Acc	Nice photos and written documentation. I agree that the combination of field marks rules out an OCWA. I commend the observer for waiting before confidently calling the ID, as I think we set ourselves up for problems when we rely too heavily on any one field mark for OCWA/TEWA ID (same logic could apply to a number of different ID situations).
Mark S.	6 Sep 2023	Acc	Excellent written documentation; photos show a Tennessee Warbler.
David W.	13 Sep 2023	Acc	Good and thorough writeup. I especially find the structure of this bird convincing.
Kevin W.	12 Sep 2023	Acc	Photos show distinct characteristics of Tennessee Warbler, particularly the white undertail coverts.

2023-49 Parasitic Jaeger

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	12 Oct 2023	Acc	Great photos!
Max M.	27 Sep 2023	Acc	Nice photos, seems to be a good year for jaegers in Utah
Keeli M..	26 Sep 2023	Acc	Good supporting photos. Bird shows warmer toned plumage consistent with PAJAs, longer slender bill with less black, shorter central tail feathers than a LTJA, underwing coverts same color as flanks. Has that mean angry bird look.
Bryant O.	11 Sep 2023	Acc	Bill, plumage and R1 tail feathers consistent with Parasitic. I also observed this bird on 9/10 a few hundred meters west of the initial report later in the evening, chasing gulls. I'm confident by behavior, flight style and plumage it is not the same Jaeger I observed on the AIC on 9/4. Reminds me of 2014 when we had 3 PAJA and 1 LTJA all seen on the causeway within a few days of each other, which begs the question, how many Jaegers migrate through the GSL every year?
Kris P.	25 Sep 2023	Acc	45 minutes with a juvenile jaeger in great light at a pretty close range, and terrific photos. This doesn't happen nearly as often as we'd like. Excellent record.
Mike S.	10 Oct 2023	Acc	Nice photos show a Parasitic Jaeger.
Mark S.	11 Sep 2023	Acc	Checks all the boxes for Parasitic Jaeger.
David W.	3 Oct 2023	Acc	Excellent photos.
Kevin W.	12 Sep 2023	Acc	I think that the photos show all the traits necessary to distinguish this from other juvenile jaegers, ie. pointed tail, buff-colored feather edges, white in the underwings.

2023-50 Parasitic Jaeger

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	12 Oct 2023	Acc	Description fits.
Max M.	27 Sep 2023	Acc	Hard to tell for sure from photos, but I agree it does appear to be darker than the other individual a few days prior.
Keeli M..	26 Sep 2023	Acc	Good find. Combination of photos and description support the ID and rule out LTJA and POJA for me.
Bryant O.	15 Sep 2023	Acc	Initially I assumed this was the same PAJA seen on 9/10(which I also saw later that evening), however once I uploaded the photos and compared them to Quinn's it was apparent this was a different darker morph and therefore a different individual. My 3 Jaeger at this location in a week!
Kris P.	25 Sep 2023	Acc	Here's a typically difficult juvenile jaeger sighting in low light at a long but acceptable distance with enough impressions and traits of the species observed and captured in words and photos so I can get behind accepting this record.
Mike S.	15 Oct 2023	Acc	This is not a strong vote of acceptance. However, the totality of field marks combined with details of flight style points to a Parasitic Jaeger over similar species.
Mark S.	15 Sep 2023	Acc	Excellent documentation; photos support the written description; wing markings and bill structure eliminate other jaegers.
David W.	11 Oct 2023	Acc	Convincing Similar Species section.
Kevin W.	2 Oct 2023	Acc	I appreciate the details noted by the observer, eliminating other possibilities and making acceptance of the record easier.

2023-51 Blackburnean Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	12 Oct 2023	Acc	Nice photos!
Max M.	27 Sep 2023	Acc	Lovely photos of a beautiful bird!
Keeli M..	26 Sep 2023	Acc	Great photos, great find.
Bryant O.	20 Sep 2023	Acc	Photos leave no doubt
Kris P.	25 Sep 2023	Acc	What an excellent and very thorough record. I appreciate the extent the observers went to to rule out other species even though James captured outstanding photos with all the diagnostic field marks.
Mike S.	2 Oct 2023	Acc	Excellent documentation. Photos leave no doubt.
Mark S.	20 Sep 2023	Acc	Excellent documentation, photos are definitive.
David W.	11 Oct 2023	Acc	It is unfortunate that both photos of the side of the head obscure the same portion of the face. But the tail pattern, back color, shape of cheek patch, and white under-eye crescent are convincing.
Kevin W.	2 Oct 2023	Acc	Good photos with diagnostic light stripes on back, partial eye-ring, and dark cheek patch.

2023-52 Parasitic Jaeger

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H. 2nd:	14 Nov 2023	Acc
Max M.	27 Sep 2023	Acc	Another nice find by our own. Jaeger year!
2nd round:	23 Oct 2023	Acc	Continuing to accept, especially given that it appears Kris's vote occurred before her 4th (?) observation of the bird where she independently identified it as a Parasitic: https://ebird.org/checklist/S150968060. Hopefully she can clarify as her first vote occurred on the 25th of September and her latest sighting occurred on September 28th.
Keeli M..	27 Sep 2023	Acc	Behavior, shape, and description support ID
2nd round:	19 Nov 2023	Acc	Been very interesting following this discussion. Appreciate everyone's comments, especially Bryant's analysis. Continuing to accept based on the details provided.
Bryant O.	27 Sep 2023	Acc	I think Kris's photos look better for a PAJA, note the long pale bill and overall shape and structure better for PAJA than LTJA, and very likely that is the same Jaeger I saw.
2nd round:	31 Oct 2023	Acc	Kris's photo shows a Parasitic, note the long thin bill mostly gray with a small black tip. LTJA have a shorter bill with only half gray, black nail makes up half the length of the bill. POJA have a thicker stouter bill with a bigger black nail. I and Kris both got a good look at this Jaeger as it chased a RBGU, which gave a direct size comparison consistent with a PAJA. I watch this Jaeger in the scope in pursuit of a RBGU, at one point it banked and dove on the RBGU, flaring the spread tail and I got an excellent in scope view of the R1 tail feathers, which were slightly longer than the other tail feathers and very pointed. Only PAJA juveniles have pointed R1 tail feathers, juvenile LTJA and POJA have blunt rounded R1.An additional plumage note, all juvenile intermediate morph LTJA I have seen show a contrasting dark cap with a pale nape, all PAJA intermediate morph juveniles I have seen have a solid dark head with the crown and nape being the same shade. Kris's photo shows a juvenile intermediate morph Jaeger with a solid dark head consistent with a PAJA
Kris P.	25 Sep 2023	Acc	This may be the weirdest Accept vote I've filed since I saw this bird three times and got a couple distant pics, but still have declined to name it myself because the bird remained unreasonably far out in the reservoir floating placidly for most of my observation time. It yielded neither field marks nor impressions strong enough to eliminate a Long-tailed. I'm comfortable with it not being a Pomarine based on what I saw and Bryant's record, and I think just enough is contained here to accept as a Parasitic including size in comparison to a Ring-billed Gull; fast and agile in flight when chasing; and single primary flash. I probably need to understand better the note regarding seeing the shape of the central tail feathers well give the bird was in flight at 200 meters or more. That seems too far to me to gain any meaningful impression in flight of feathers that must not project more than an inch beyond the other tail feathers. I'm also concerned about the word 'memory' in the References Consulted field; I think that field is intended to cite field guides/apps/videos/other skilled opinions, etc. and given the difficulties of juvenile jaeger ID, consulting references is always a good thing.
2nd round:	27 Oct 2023	Acc	I'm continuing to accept and appreciate Mike S.'s conservative approach. Max is correct; I ID'd the jaeger as a Parasitic the fourth time I saw it, which was after I had voted to accept the record without yet seeing enough myself to name the bird. Seeing this bird each time was like putting together a jigsaw puzzle. Other puzzle pieces that helped form the whole were what Quinn Diaz (first person to see it, I believe) reported originally as a bird sp. starting on Sep 15, and of course, Bryant's sighting that resulted in this record. The new puzzle pieces for me on Sep 28 were seeing the bird in powered flight and attacking gulls several times, characteristic of Parasitic Jaegers, and the size comparison with at least one Ring-billed Gull. And I do believe the six total sightings Sep 15-Sep 28 were of the same bird given its habits of remaining far out on the water and also angling northwest to the open water of Willard Spur.
Mike S.	20 Oct 2023	To 2nd	I would like to see some discussion on this record. A compelling case is made for Parasitic based on the the shape of the central tail feathers and flight style. However, I m a bit concerned about the lack of an upper-wing view, no bill description, no description of the markings on under and upper-tail coverts, etc.
2nd round:	20 Nov2023	Acc	I appreciate the discussion on this record, including Bryant and Kris's supplemental comments... I agree that the body of evidence points in favor of Parasitic Jaeger for reasons that have been mentioned (particularly behavior, size, and shape of R1 tail feathers).
Mark S.	20 Sep 2023	Acc	Excellent documentation, photos support the i.d.
2nd round:	27 Oct 2023	Acc	I still think there's enough evidence here to accept this record. The description eliminates Pomarine Jaeger in particular, and the structure visible in the photos eliminates Long-tailed.
David W.	17 Oct 2023	Acc	The description does not eliminate the possibility of a Long-tailed jaeger as strongly as I would like, but the preponderance of evidence does seem to point to a Parasitic when the photos are incorporated into the equation.
2nd round:	15 Nov 2023	Acc	Nice discussion by Bryant.
Kevin W.	2 Oct 2023	Acc	Detailed description nails key points and eliminates similar species.
2nd round:	13 Nov 2023	Acc	I think the documentation given is enough for me to accept.

2023-53 White-winged Crossbill

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	26 Oct 2023	Acc
Max M.	27 Sep 2023	Acc	Good year for WWCR in the Wasatch
Keeli M..	27 Sep 2023	Acc	Nice supporting photos. Wonder if it's one of the same birds from BCC.
Bryant O.	23 Sep 2023	Acc	We seem to have a mini invasion in the Cottonwood Canyons this year, but no reports elsewhere which is odd
Kris P.	26 Sep 2023	Acc	Excellent detection of the audible call, and good work to capture a photo that backs up the narrative.
Mike S.	10 Oct 2023	Acc	Nice record.
Mark S.	23 Sep 2023	Acc	Good documentation; diagnostic photos.
David W.	3 Oct 2023	Acc	It has been quite the invasion year for both species of North American crossbills.
Kevin W.	3 Oct 2023	Acc	Photos show crossbill with white wing-bars.

2023-54 Bell's Sparrow

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	26 Oct 2023	No, ID	I wrestled with this record for longer than it deserved. Biased vote.
Max M.	27 Sep 2023	No, ID	I don't think this write-up does enough to eliminate Sagebrush Sparrow, no mention of back streaking or lack there of?
Keeli M..	27 Sep 2023	No, ID	Given the observer's own uncertainty at the validity of his ID (or at least his recognition that the possibility exists that he mis-ID'd it), and the lack of photos, I'm inclined to say there's not enough evidence to me to rule out a dark, curious SABS.
Bryant O.	23 Sep 2023	No, ID	No mention of how dark the malar was or back streaking, it seems their ID is based on it perching in response to calls being played, which means nothings since birds will react to many different noises in different ways. The only thing this record has going for it is the date, a bit early for Sagebrush to be moving into their winter range, but some failed nesters or immatures could move south early, and the same could also be said of Bell's since they are only known in winter here.
Kris P.	26 Sep 2023	No, ID	This is a very tricky ID not supported in this record by an assessment of the malar and the streaking across the back, the two most important features to distinguish the Bell's from the Sagebrush Sparrow. I don't think a case for Bell's can be made without excellent photos showing both areas. The two species are also known to respond to each other's songs, so the behavior of Sagebrush Sparrow responding to a Bell's Sparrow call or vice-versa is not conclusive.
Mike S.	10 Oct 2023	No, ID	I don't believe that a juvenile Black-throated Sparrow has been ruled out, which are very common in this location/habitat in August. Neither Bell's NOR Sagebrush Sparrows would be expected occur in the Beaver Dam Slope area this time of year... I suppose that a BESP wouldn't be completely out of the realm of possibility given that there are some August eBird records in/around Las Vegas (Corn Creek, etc.). However, better evidence would be needed to accept than what is presented here.
Mark S.	23 Sep 2023	No, ID	It's possible that this was a Bell's Sparrow, but I don't think that the evidence presented reaches the level required for such a rare record. I place little importance on the response to playback as evidence. The description doesn't rule out Sagebrush Sparrow, that can be very similar to Bell's Sparrow in the interior SE CA/S NV/SW UT area, such that many individuals can't be distinguished even in hand. There's not enough detail here to make a judgement.
David W.	17 Oct 2023	No, ID	It is quite possible that the observer saw a Bell's sparrow. There have been quite a few reports of that species in the SW corner of the state. However, without photos, recordings of the song, or at least a more detailed description of the field marks, I am hesitant to vote to accept this record. Differentiating between the various taxa within the "Sage sparrow" complex is notoriously difficult. The description of the bird as darker than a Sagebrush sparrow is compelling, but there is no mention of a Sagebrush sparrow in the vicinity for direct comparison. As such, one must consider whether the shade of gray wasn't due to the angle/nature of light. As for the responsiveness to a taped song, that is also suggestive but not conclusive. Many birds respond to the calls of other birds (play a Sora call in a marsh and see what answers). I would have liked to have seen a discussion of the extent of white in the lores/supercilium, extent of streaking on the breast and back, etc.
Kevin W.	3 Oct 2023	No, ID	I'm not sure that a "darker back," and responding to a Bell's sparrow recording is enough information to accept a record for this species. I'd like to see detailed comparison of streaking on back and throat stripes to eliminate Sagebrush Sparrow in description.

2023-55 Wandering Tattler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	25 Sep 2023	Acc
Max M.	27 Sep 2023	Acc	Another amazing find by Renee. It is great to have someone regularly submitting lists from the refuge, hopefully she will come back next year.
Keeli M..	27 Sep 2023	Acc	Nice find and great photos! Would have liked a little more discussion in the write-up of how similar species were ruled out, but I guess the photos kind of speak for themselves.
Bryant O.	26 Sep 2023	Acc	Great photos and description.
Kris P.	28 Sep 2023	Acc	Clear and concise; everything critical is here.
Mike S.	10 Oct 2023	Acc	Great photos clearly show a Wandering Tattler.
Mark S.	24 Sep 2023	Acc	Photos clearly show Wandering Tattler; gray crown extends to bill, eliminating Gray-tailed Tattler.
David W.	3 Oct 2023	Acc	Lovely photos. Much like a Willet with bright yellow legs. Renee has been busy out there this summer finding great rarities!
Kevin W.	3 Oct 2023	Acc	Photos show short yellow legs, long wings - perfect for Wandering Tattler.

2023-56 Buff-breasted Sandpiper

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	26 Oct 2023	Acc	I took the approach of trying to ID this as something else, but have had no luck.
2nd round:	14 Nov 2023	Acc	No change.
Max M.	27 Sep 2023	Acc	Nice write-up and photos, although distant, support BBSA.
2nd round:	6 Nov 2023	Acc	Continuing to accept
Keeli M..	17 Oct 2023	To 2nd	Pictures are hard to tell detail or color on but description supports ID. Size comparison with KILL rules out RUFF and lack of white rump edges rules out PESA.
2nd round:	19 Nov 2023	Acc	Photo was tough for me, but agree based on description this is the best ID and other similar species are adequately ruled out.
Bryant O.	26 Sep 2023	Acc	Photos poor but conclusive, too small for juvy RUFF.
2nd round:	31 Oct 2023	Acc	Continue to believe thats this is a Buff-breasted Sandpiper, which photos show.
Kris P.	29 Sep 2023	Acc	Quinn has turned up some great things over the past few months. I think he also eliminated a juvenile Ruff with the size listed as smaller than a Killdeer even though Ruff wasn't specifically mentioned.
2nd round:	11 Nov 2023	Acc	I think Quinn did a good job with his description and his photos support the ID without any conflicts.
Mike S.	25 Oct 2023	Acc	This is another very distant observation (~450 meters) that causes me some concern. However, I believe the ID is established based on the combination of the written description and the heavily cropped photos. I have a difficult time turning this into something else, but I am interested to see what others think of this record.
2nd round:	6 Nov 2023	Acc	I still believe that this record provides adequate documentation for a Buff-breasted Sandpiper.
Mark S.	26 Sep 2023	Acc	Good description eliminates similar species; photos, though poor, support the description.
2nd round:	27 Oct 2023	Acc	I appreciate Keeli's uncertainty, but she makes a strong case for acceptance in her comments - similar species are adequately eliminated.
David W.	3 Oct 2023	Acc	Nice. Good job identifying this bird at distance.
2nd round:	15 Nov 2023	Acc	Nothing to add.
Kevin W.	3 Oct 2023	Acc	I wish the photos were better, but they do show a sandpiper with upright posture. The description of the observer is detailed enough and eliminates other possibilities for me to accept.
2nd round:	13 Nov 2023	Acc	Continuing to accept. I can't turn the photos into anything else, and the description fits.

2023-57 Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	26 Oct 2023	Acc
Max M.	27 Sep 2023	Acc	Another good record from the Rio Mesa crew and Mr. Kittelberger
Keeli M..	27 Sep 2023	Acc	Another cool catch by the banding crew at Rio Mesa. Not surprised there might still be a few along the Dolores or Colorado River in that area.
Bryant O.	26 Sep 2023	Acc	Well documented
Kris P.	29 Sep 2023	Acc
Mike S.	25 Oct 2023	Acc	Definitive photo of a bird in hand.
Mark S.	26 Sep 2023	Acc	Breast is too white for Mangrove Cuckoo. ;-)
David W.	3 Oct 2023	Acc	What a photo!
Kevin W.	3 Oct 2023	Acc	Good in-hand photos are distinctive.

2023-58 Tennessee Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	26 Oct 2023	Acc
Max M.	27 Sep 2023	Acc	Good documentation of a new species for Liberty Park.
Keeli M..	17 Oct 2023	Acc	Photos and description support TEWA and rule out similar species. Nice to have a direct comparison with OCWA.
Bryant O.	27 Sep 2023	Acc
Kris P.	30 Sep 2023	Acc	Sufficiently documented in words and pictures. Bryant's picture in his eBird checklist (not one of the record photos) is valuable, I think, because despite the low light, it shows the combination of dark eye-line and long whitish under-tail coverts, and that's helpful in addition to being mentioned in the record.
Mike S.	25 Oct 2023	Acc	Written documentation and photos establish the ID.
Mark S.	27 Sep 2023	Acc	Good documentation; diagnostic photos.
David W.	3 Oct 2023	Acc	A good find. Seen by several birders.
Kevin W.	18 Oct 2023	Acc	Photos show field marks consistent with Tennessee Warbler, particularly the white undertail coverts.

2023-59 Ruddy Turnstone

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	26 Oct 2023	Acc	Still can t understand why there is a need to review a species that is an annual visitor to our State.
Max M.	23 Oct 2023	Acc	I think I already voted on this record but perhaps it did not go through. Good photo documentation and elimination of similar species.
Keeli M..	17 Oct 2023	Acc	Nice find, good supporting photos.
Bryant O.	1 Oct 2023	Acc	Great looks!
Kris P.	1 Oct 2023	Acc
Mike S.	27 Sep 2023	Acc	Nice documentation.
Mark S.	28 Sep 2023	Acc	Good documentation and photos.
David W.	3 Oct 2023	Acc	Another fine record from one of the state's premier rarities finders. Record was complete and even had an educational tidbit thrown in for good measure.
Kevin W.	18 Oct 2023	Acc	Photos eliminate any similar species.

2023-60 Ruddy Turnstone

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	26 Oct 2023	Acc	Still can t understand why there is a need to review a species that is an annual visitor to our State.
Max M.	23 Oct 2023	Acc	Same thing as the other RUTU record - I think my initial vote did not come through but I believe my photos and description eliminate other species.
Keeli M..	17 Oct 2023	Acc	Another great find with excellent photos.
Bryant O.	1 Oct 2023	Acc	Great photos
Kris P.	1 Oct 2023	Acc
Mike S.	25 Oct 2023	Acc	Definitive photos, nice record.
Mark S.	29 Sep 2023	Acc	Love these easy records - good description, excellent photos.
David W.	3 Oct 2023	Acc	Charming and thorough report. I would expect nothing less from one of the coordinators of the Sageland Collaborative Intermountain West Shorebird Survey.
Kevin W.	18 Oct 2023	Acc	Again, good photos eliminate any similar species.

2023-61 Lark Bunting

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	26 Oct 2023	Acc
Max M.	23 Oct 2023	Acc	Photos and description look good for Lark Bunting.
Keeli M..	17 Oct 2023	Acc	Nice photos showing white on the underside of the tail. Description and photos support ID.
Bryant O.	1 Oct 2023	Acc	Excellent photos leave no doubt
Kris P.	1 Oct 2023	Acc	I'll accept Colin's assurance that the diagnostic white wing-patch is present because I can't see it in Photo C possibly due to over-exposure in the area of the patch. Photo D also shows the distinctive under-tail pattern.
Mike S.	25 Oct 2023	Acc	Nice photos show a Lark Bunting.
Mark S.	29 Sep 2023	Acc	Another easy one with diagnostic photos - unlike the last batch of photos we had for this species.
David W.	3 Oct 2023	Acc	Convincing photos and writeup.
Kevin W.	18 Oct 2023	Acc	Very good evaluation, and supporting photos show the field marks of Lark Bunting (white wing patch, thick silver bill, thick breast streaking).

2023-62 Boreal Owl

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	26 Oct 2023	Acc	Photos + the fact that this is a breeding species in Utah
Max M.	23 Oct 2023	Acc	Great documentation. I am growing a bit concerned every fall that eBird flags these as rare and we inevitably have a bunch of subsequent reports of BOOW after the initial sightings, and we may be inadvertently leading to disturbance of these birds. Maybe not something for the records committee, and rather the eBird reviewers for the relevant counties, but I would like to see this removed from rare bird alerts to prevent too much disturbance, or for the observers to hide the lists for a week to prevent too much attention.
Keeli M..	17 Oct 2023	Acc	Excellent photos support ID.
Bryant O.	9 Oct 2023	Acc	Great photos and documentation.
Kris P.	8 Oct 2023	Acc	I'm glad to see records on this species continue to come in.
Mike S.	28 Oct 2023	Acc	Great photos, nice record.
Mark S.	4 Oct 2023	Acc	Beautiful photos, excellent documentation.
David W.	11 Oct 2023	Acc	Hard to argue with amazing photos like this.
Kevin W.	23 Oct 2023	Acc	Photo shows a Boreal Owl

2023-63 Boreal Owl

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	26 Oct 2023	Acc	Photos + the fact that this is a breeding species in Utah
Max M.	23 Oct 2023	Acc	Same comments on this report as the other BOOW report in Wasatch County.
Keeli M..	17 Oct 2023	Acc	Excellent photos support ID.
Bryant O.	9 Oct 2023	Acc	Great photos and documentation.
Kris P.	8 Oct 2023	Acc	Boreal Owl records are something of a formality to continue to add the data points, but I think they're important as we don't have that many years of data.
Mike S.	28 Oct 2023	Acc	Another great record with excellent photos.
Mark S.	4 Oct 2023	Acc	Excellent documentation.
David W.	11 Oct 2023	Acc	Hard to argue with amazing photos like this. I'm continually amazed at the remarkable photos Jeff manages to snap.
Kevin W.	23 Oct 2023	Acc	Photo shows a Boreal Owl. It's nice to get this species and distribution better documented within the State!

2023-64 Connecticut Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	23 Oct 2023	Acc	Great documentation and a much overdue record for Utah. I wonder how many of these skulky warblers move through undocumented.
Keeli M..	17 Oct 2023	Acc
Bryant O.	10 Oct 2023	Acc	Great documentation leaves no doubt
Kris P.	8 Nov 2023	Acc	Really a phenomenal capture. It's a nice addition to the Utah Birds database finally to have such a well-documented record of this species so rarely seen in the state. Thanks to the Rio Mesa Field Station crew that consistently files records with the committee.
Mike S.	6 Nov 2023	Acc	Great record of a very rare species for west of the Rockies (especially for anywhere outside of California). This banding station has compiled some great records this year.
Mark S.	10 Oct 2023	Acc	Wow. Exceptional documentation. I was prepared for a much harder review decision, but this one leaves no doubt.
David W.	11 Oct 2023	Acc	Laudably thorough and well-documented record with excellent photos to boot.
Kevin W.	23 Oct 2023	Acc	Well written documentation and photos. The complete eyering and long undertail coverts seem to eliminate similar species. Cool record!

2023-65 Purple Finch

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H. 2nd:	8 Dec 2023	No, ID	This could very well be a Purple Finch, but I don t feel there is enough documentation here to eliminate other, more likely, species.
Max M.	23 Oct 2023	Acc	I am glad that Colby followed up on this and asked for the original recordings. Renee had sent me one of the two recordings via text, and the quality was decreased to the point I could not tell for sure what I was hearing. The recordings uploaded to eBird give a much better indication that they support Purple Finch.
2nd round:	22 Dec 2023	Acc	I used to have Purple Finches nesting in my backyard in Wisconsin, and they regularly come to our bird feeder at our cabin in Northern Minnesota. I am very familiar with PUFI's making the single call note in the second recording. Here is another Macaulay Library recording that perfectly matches the recording from Fish Springs: https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/81497411. I have never heard a Cassin's make this type of call, and can't find anything close to it for CAFI on eBird. Continuing to accept.
Keeli M..	1 Oct 2023	No, ID	Call/chip notes rule out HOFI for me, but I don't think there's quite enough evidence in both the call recording and the description of the observation to rule out CAFI. Chip note is spot on for PUFI, but comparing the calls in Merlin to the recording, it matches some of the CAFI recordings. I don't think I'm confident enough in the ID to rule out CAFI.
2nd round:	10 Nov 2023	Acc	Changing my vote. Also read the article Kevin mentioned and listened to the calls again, and the first call does match the Purple Finch call. If the single note flight call is distinct to PUFI, as Jaramillo and Beadle assert in their article, then the single call in the first recording should be a definitive ID.
Bryant O.	18 Oct 2023	To 2nd	Please redact by previous comments as they are no longer relevant, however since I have little field experience with this species and the description doesn't rule out a CAFI, and ID rest only on the recording, which does sound OK for PUFI, I just want to hear others thoughts on this record before I accept since I'm unfamiliar with their calls. Especially since this is a very unusual date and location for this species..
2nd round:	12 Dec 2023	Acc	This is a soft accept, and I could be talked out of it, but I've never heard a CAFI make that pik in the 2nd recording, a call I have heard PUFI do. If someone can produce and example of a CAFI call like this I would love to hear it, but without such evidence PUFI seems the best match
Kris P.	10 Nov 2023	Acc	Wow, not much to go on here. But I think the audio eliminates Cassin's Finch and the sonogram particularly of audio file #2 matches several Macaulay Library recordings of an eastern Purple Finch.
2nd round:	7 Dec 2023	Acc	I found several Macaulay recordings that were confirming, and I noted the most compelling one in case this came up in a second round: ML 455652351. I also let Kaufman advise me in Advanced Birding regarding the distinctiveness of the sharp "pik" call note of the Purple Finch rather than the more musical call note of the Cassin's Finch. His analysis offers information similar to the Jaramillo-Beadle article Kevin cited. I can't say I feel more comforted about the volume of information in this record given most of you have that same sense. But I do think Purple Finch is the best fit.
Mike S.	13 Nov 2023	Acc	While Merlin's sound ID can be unreliable, I do believe that the ID is established based on the recordings and eBird spectrograms. I also agree with Colby's assessment that this is the eastern ssp.
2nd round:	14 Dec 2023	Acc	Continuing to accept as a Purple Finch after listening to numerous calls and viewing spectrograms on the Macauley library. The flight call provided seems to be a near-perfect match with other examples I found (see links below). I am less confident about the other call recording, but I think I would also lean towards a Purple Finch (over Cassin's) for that one. The Macaulay recording that Kris mentioned appears to be a really good match. https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/81497411 https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/487334281 https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/48724811
Mark S.	14 Oct 2023	No, ID	I don't think there's enough here to accept a record of this rarity,and the calls in the second recording, at least, sound more Cassin's Finch-like to me.
2nd round:	4 Dec 2023	No, ID	I still don't think that there's enough here to rule out Cassin's Finch, in spite of the assertions giving in certain publications, and certainly not enough evidence to accept a record of this rarity and difficulty.
David W.	14 Nov 2023	To 2nd	Not a whole lot to go on here other than the recordings. But the physical description does indeed appear to indicate either a Cassin's or Purple finch. I am curious to which recording others on the Committee matched the call. I listened to recordings on eBird and looked at their corresponding spectrograms, but I have yet to encounter a convincing match. If anything, the spectrogram matches I have looked at seem to suggest this is more like Cassin's, what with the cursive V shape. I bumped this to the second round out of deference to our regional eBird reviewer.
2nd round:	19 Dec 2023	No, ID	This is a soft No to mirror Bryant. I'm with Mark on this, based on my perusals.
Kevin W.	23 Oct 2023	Acc	Although the record has a lack of any good written detail, the "flight call" provided seems to be definitive enough to prove it as a Purple Finch. I listened to lots of recordings of Cassin's Finches, and couldn't find any where it had the simple "pik" call provided in this record. Alvaro Jaramillo and David Beadle in Identification of Female Cassin's and Purple Finches (Birder's Journal, Volume 8, No. 6; December 1999 and January 2000 p288-295) indicate that "The most reliable way to identify a Cassin's or Purple finch is by call... Purple Finches give a single "tuuk", "pit" or "pik." If the flight call is indeed definitive, then I'll accept this record.
2nd round:	1 Dec 2023	Acc	Continuing to accept based on the unique flight call.

2023-66 Common Ground-Dove

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	14 Nov 2023	Acc
Max M.	23 Oct 2023	Acc	Photos and Description support Common Ground-Dove.
Keeli M..	17 Oct 2023	Acc	Excellent photos and description support ID.
Bryant O.	18 Oct 2023	Acc	Great photos
Kris P.	10 Nov 2023	Acc
Mike S.	6 Nov 2023	Acc	Great photos clearly show a Common Ground Dove. Nice record!
Mark S.	17 Oct 2023	Acc	Good documentation; photos leave no doubt.
David W.	17 Oct 2023	Acc	Excellent photos confirm the ID. The scaling on the head and breast and the bicolored bill are both great field marks.
Kevin W.	23 Oct 2023	Acc	Photos show distinctive characteristics of common Ground-Dove, including the scaled pattern on the breast and nape and the lack of dark spots on the scapulars.

2023-67 Tri-colored Heron

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	14 Nov 2023	Acc	Gotta love good photos.
2nd round:	8 Dec 2023	Acc	It seems we all have some degree of issue with the written report, BUT THERE IS A PHOTO! To expect a teenager that has recently began birding to submit a well written, descriptive sight record seems a little elitist. If this were the only documentation, then the written report would not be enough. Did I mention there is a photo? And that this photo is of a TRHE that is in a species of tree that is found exactly where they said they photographed the bird?
Max M.	25 Oct 2023	Acc	Nice find by some high school students, glad they finally submitted a record. Too bad this bird wasn't relocated.
2nd round:	12 Dec 2023	Acc	After the hard work and diligence of a few of our committee members, seems like we can accept the record of the (1) photographed TRHE! Thanks to Kris, Bryant, Milt and others for trying to straighten out the mess of these young birders.
Keeli M..	17 Oct 2023	To 2nd	Observer reported seeing two birds the size and shape of GBHE flying, not perched. Photo from other student confirms tri-colored heron was present at some point, but I'm not convinced from the narration that the person reporting the TCHE actually saw it...
2nd round:	21 Dec 2023	Acc	Thank you for the extra effort put in to clarify this record. Photo clearly shows TRHE, and concerns regarding the record itself have been resolved.
Bryant O.	18 Oct 2023	To 2nd	The observers notes don't rule out a GBHE, however the photos, not taken by the observer, are of a juvenile TRHE, so I do indeed believe there was one there, but not necessarily seen by this observer. Not sure how to reconcile this?
2nd round:	12 Dec 2023	Acc	Please redact my previous 2nd round comment. The issues I had with this record are rectified by having eyewitness accounts from observers who were with the person who took the photos. The 2 new sight records only list 1 TRHE present, which is a significant detail. Photos do show a juvenile TRHE, and the new sight records description match that in plumage and size. I do not believe the observer in the original sight record saw 2 TRHE.
Kris P.	11 Nov 2023	Acc	I'm voting to accept due to the photo depicting a juvenile Tricolored Heron. As the submitter implies, someone else took the photos at another time earlier in the day, possibly during these visits: https://ebird.org/checklist/S149486269 https://ebird.org/checklist/S149278927 I'm not convinced that the submitter actually saw the bird. Her description is off in several ways, especially in not reporting the striking two-toned under-parts that would be highly visible in flight. But bylaw IV.C.8. requires us to take all information into account, and the photo clearly documents a juvenile TRHE. I'm willing to change my vote on procedural grounds if I've misinterpreted this voting rule since it seems kind of important to believe the submitter saw the bird (which I don't believe). But maybe even more important is the evidence documenting that the bird was present. The photo shows the species and I believe the submitter's tale of where the picture came from.
2nd round:	12 Dec 2023	Acc	The concerns I had during the first vote have been answered through supplemental records since received, so I'll continue to accept but now without reservation.
Mike S.	13 Nov 2023	Acc	Diagnostic photos
2nd round:	14 Dec 2023	Acc	Thanks again to those who put in the extra work on this record. I believe the additional sight records help to "connect the dots" and provide some clarity on the origin of the photos that were attached to the original record. Despite the initial concerns I expressed in the group thread, I believe this record now rises to a level of documentation that is acceptable. Having said that, I am surprised that no one has mentioned that there is a photo! (just kidding, Mike H.)
Mark S.	17 Oct 2023	Acc	Photos show a Tricolored Heron.
2nd round:	4 Dec 2023	Acc	This is definitely a strange, and perhaps unprecedented situation for this committee. The latter is suggested by the lack of a "No, IRR" (for irregularities in the submission) option on the voting selections. I can't vote "No, ID," because the i.d. is correct. Nor are there questions of its natural occurrence or introduced status. So if I vote "no," on what grounds do I make that vote? While it is, indeed, irregular to have a submission from someone who was not the observer, nor the photographer, I don't see anything in the bylaws that prohibits such third-party submissions. In fact, it would appear that such submissions are specifically permitted under IV.A.3 of the bylaws: "3. Any record, whether published or not, old or new, may be submitted by a Voting Member or other person, whether or not an observer, if he has first attempted to obtain details from the observer(s)." Inasmuch as no one has raised any doubts as to the provenance (date or location) of the photos, and that the photos clearly show a Tricolored Heron, I see no grounds for rejecting this record, in spite of the irregularities. If any committee member thinks this is an error, perhaps the proper place to address it is in the bylaws, since such submissions would appear to be fully sanctioned there.
David W.	24 Oct 2023	Acc	Amusing writeup, convincing photos. The lores and length of bill are especially noteworthy.
2nd round:	5 Dec 2023	Acc	I think most or all of us agree the bird shown in the photograph is a Tri-colored heron. It also seems to be sitting on the Staghorn sumac-like trees found on Egg/Goose Egg Island (I've heard it called both). The fact that the original observer who reported this species in eBird has so far failed to provide a report is very regrettable and has resulted in a bizarre situation where we are voting on a half-hearted proxy submittal by a student of "Professor Blundell" who may or may not have actually seen this bird. However, as Mark Stackhouse points out in the Committee's email discussions regarding this record, our bylaws specifically allow for this situation under IV.A.3, which reads: "3. Any record, whether published or not, old or new, may be submitted by a Voting Member or other person, whether or not an observer, if he has first attempted to obtain details from the observer(s)." Therefore, since the bird shown in the photo is, in my opinion, a Tri-colored heron, and since the photo appears to be genuine based on evidence before us, and since it was submitted to us as part of a record (albeit by someone who may or may not have been an observer), it seems like we should not veto this record based on procedure. Therefore, I remain bemused but convinced the record accurately represents a sighting of a Tri-colored heron at Goosegg Island at Farmington Bay WMA on the date in the record. It is my hope that in the future "Professor Blundell" has a change of conscience/opportunity and will find the time to submit a supplementary record to bolster/clarify this record as has been requested.
Kevin W.	13 Nov 2023	Acc	The photos are pretty distinctive; showing the red and white neck.
2nd round:	1 Dec 2023	Acc	Weird situation. Yes, the photo shows a Tricolored Heron, but the photo wasn't taken by the submitter who probably didn't see that bird (at least it's not obvious in the write-up). So if we're just voting on a photo that indicates the bird was in Utah, that would be acceptable; but I don't think it's right to accept a record from someone who didn't see the bird.

2023-68 Gray Hawk

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	14 Nov 2023	No, ID
Max M.	6 Nov 2023	No, ID	Photos are poor - but behavior, location and photos support Cooper's Hawk.
Keeli M..	19 Nov 2023	No, ID	I'm getting goshawk (AGOS now I guess) from these photos and description, not Gray Hawk. The dark mask and the description of behavior all point to that ID as more likely, and there's no evidence provided that rules AGOS ID out.
Bryant O.	30 Oct 2023	No, ID	No need for a video, looks fine for an Accipiter rather than a Buteo, particularly an exceptionally rare one way out of season, range and habitat and Accipiter wasn't even considered? There are a number of ID help forums available for beginners, I don't think submitting a record to a BRC is a very efficient or informative method for beginners to request bird ID help, nor is it the intended use of the BRC vetting process. Is there a better way we can deal with these type of records other than the standard review process?
Kris P.	11 Nov 2023	No, ID	This bird looks like a Cooper's Hawk. I think witnessing this hawk tearing up prey right in her front yard with her daughter was an amazing nature experience and may inspire both of them to become birders. I hope so, anyway.
Mike S.	6 Nov 2023	No, ID	Clearly not a Gray Hawk, and appears to be a Cooper's based on structure, dark cap, and wide white terminal tail band. The blank Similar Species section is almost always a red flag.
Mark S.	27 Oct 2023	No, ID	Note to Milt: I know the record says (unfinished) though I'm not sure what that means, but this is clearly an Accipiter, probably Sharp-shinned (though the photos aren't entirely definitive to species). In any event, it's NOT a Gray Hawk - structure is wrong (tail too long, bird too skinny), and the tail banding is wrong. Anyway, if it comes to a vote as is, this will be mine.
David W.	7 Nov 2023	No, ID	The cap, the very long tail (with primary projections coming only a short way down its length), and the width and color of the banding on the tail all argue against this being a Gray hawk.
Kevin W.	13 Nov 2023	No, ID	The photos aren't great, but I get the general impression of a Cooper's Hawk with them; the dark cap and long tail with an apparent light tail-band lead me to this.

2023-69 Blackpoll Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	6 Nov 2023	Acc	Good photos and elimination of similar species. Thanks again to our eBird liaison for flagging this bird.
Keeli M..	19 Nov 2023	Acc	Good photos and discussion of ID and elimination of similar species.
Bryant O.	30 Oct 2023	Acc	Looks good for Blackpoll with streaking on back and flanks.
Kris P.	13 Nov 2023	Acc	Thorough documentation and elimination of similar species, particularly Bay-breasted and Pine Warblers. I like the fact that the observer has 250 more photos in case we need them.
Mike S.	13 Nov 2023	Acc	Nice photos and great overall documentation.
Mark S.	27 Oct 2023	Acc	Good documentation, and photos eliminate other possibilities - got to love those orange feet for making this i.d. in rather generic, non-breeding plumage.
David W.	24 Nov 2023	Acc	I struggled mightily with this one, but finally convinced myself that this was a Blackpoll warbler. Great find.
Kevin W.	13 Nov 2023	Acc	I think the photos show all the definitive features: yellow feet, wing bars, streaky greenish back, faintly streaked breast. Looks good for a Blackpoll Warbler to me.

2023-70 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	16 Nov 2023	No, ID	I don't believe this record safely eliminates RNSA or RNSAxYBSA. No mention of lack of red on nape, the description of the throat and back leave too many questions.
Keeli M..	19 Nov 2023	No, ID	Record doesn't adequately rule out RNSA, which looks nearly identical and can hybridize with YBSA.
Bryant O.	31 Oct 2023	No, ID	No discussion of Red-napped Sapsucker, no description of nape. It may have simply not occurred to the observer that this was a Red-napped, which are common and expected there that time of year.
Kris P.	14 Nov 2023	No, ID	I'm mystified as to why there's no mention of the more likely similar species, the Red-naped Sapsucker, or hybrids with that species. The field marks section doesn't actually include characteristics unique to the Yellow-bellied Sapsucker.
Mike S.	21 Nov 2023	No, ID	I believe that Lucy is a very capable birder who has reported rarities in the past that have either been photographed or corroborated by others. However, I don't believe there is enough detail in this description to rule out a Red-naped Sapsucker, or potentially a RNSA X YBSA hybrid. The best feature I am seeing in the description that would favor YBSA would be the (apparent) lack of a red nape. However, the there is nothing written about the extent of red in the throat, which would be important detail (especially for an adult bird). I also wish there was more written about the head and back pattern (maybe "black and white mottling" implies the messier back pattern of a YBSA, but I'm not sure). While this may have been a YBSA, I don't believe there is enough detail in this record to be confident.
Mark S.	2 Nov 2023	No, ID	An otherwise good description is flawed by not considering the obvious similar species - Red-naped Sapsucker. And nowhere in her description are any details that might assist us in determining which of these species she saw. So maybe she saw a Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, but there just isn't enough here to know.
David W.	24 Nov 2023	No, ID	Seemingly no attempt to differentiate between the far more common Red-naped sapsucker.
Kevin W.	15 Nov 2023	No, ID	Not enough information is provided to rule out Red-naped Sapsucker, which would be more expected.

2023-71 Ovenbird

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	6 Nov 2023	Acc	Sad to see this beautiful bird be the victim of a window strike.
Keeli M..	19 Nov 2023	Acc	Bummer record, but photos support ID.
Bryant O.	5 Nov 2023	Acc
Kris P.	14 Nov 2023	Acc
Mike S.	13 Nov 2023	Acc	Photos clearly show an Ovenbird.
Mark S.	4 Nov 2023	Acc	Old school - specimen collected.
David W.	7 Nov 2023	Acc	Sad but true.
Kevin W.	15 Nov 2023	Acc	Photos show a (regretfully dead) Ovenbird.

2023-72 Winter Wren

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	8 Dec 2023	Acc	Audio documentation indicates this to be a WIWR.
Max M.	6 Nov 2023	Acc	Looks and sounds good for WIWR. Good find and documentation by one of our own.
Keeli M..	19 Nov 2023	Acc	Description, photos, and audio recordings support ID. Call sounds lower and similar to SOSP as you would expect with a WIWR.
Bryant O.	5 Nov 2023	Acc	Recording spot on for WIWR
Kris P.	15 Nov 2023	Acc	I agree that the audio is diagnostic, and plumage details are strong enough to support Winter Wren. Excellent effort to document this bird, Mike.
Mike S.	13 Nov 2023	Acc
Mark S.	5 Nov 2023	Acc	Excellent documentation - both the photos and especially the recordings support the i.d.
David W.	24 Nov 2023	Acc
Kevin W.	15 Nov 2023	Acc	The calls seem more Winter Wren-like to me, and the photos seem less rufous than Pacific wrens, with a tan (more pale) throat, and more robust eyebrow than Pacific.

2023-73 Palm Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	8 Dec 2023	Acc
Max M.	6 Nov 2023	Acc	Incredible photos! I was lucky enough to observe this bird on 11-6.
Keeli M..	19 Nov 2023	Acc	Photos and description of tail pumping behavior support ID as PAWA.
Bryant O.	6 Nov 2023	Acc	Great photos
Kris P.	18 Nov 2023	Acc
Mike S.	21 Nov 2023	Acc	Nice documentation, including excellent photos.
Mark S.	9 Nov 2023	Acc	Excellent documentation and photos.
David W.	7 Nov 2023	Acc	A well-documented record with excellent photos. The white tail spot noted by others and visible in some photos helps cinch the case against similar species like pipits.
Kevin W.	15 Nov 2023	Acc	Quality photos show distinctive yellow undertail coverts, tail pattern, and eyeline. The description also adds the distinctive tail-pumping.

2023-74 CanyonTowhee

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	6 Nov 2023	Acc	Photos support CATO. Great record for Utah.
2nd round:	9 Jan 2024	No, ID	I am having a really hard time with this bird - surprisingly, this is the first record where my colorblindness seems to be hindering my ability to see some of the green coloration. I asked multiple family members, and it appears that there is agreement among them (and some of the committee members) the green in the left wing is likely not an artifact of the photo because it is in the shade (which initially I wrote off the color in the right flank as an artifact. I am really struggling now with that, the contrasty cap, but also the tail that appears not to be green, or as green as it should be in GTTO. Given the information/photos that we have, without seeing the front of the bird, I don't know if I can say without a doubt this is in fact a GTTO, or a CATO. I therefore am changing my vote.
Keeli M..	19 Nov 2023	Acc	Can't tell if the yellow color on the right shoulder is a reflection or light effect or actual color. Could be an interesting hybrid CATO x GTTO if that's a thing if it actual has yellowish green on it. If not, I'd say CATO best fits ID based on the photos.
2nd round:	11 Jan 2024	No, ID	Changing my vote. Based on the degree of uncertainty within the board here and the lack of additional support for ID either way, I agree that there's not enough evidence to support acceptance.
Bryant O.	6 Nov 2023	Acc	Good Photos
2nd round:	12 Dec 2023	Acc	I've never seen a GTTO without a yellow tail, to me the back, wings and tail look brown, the tiny amount of yellowish on the shoulder and maybe in the left wing looks like an artifact of light filtering through vegetation. Usually the tail is the yellowist part of a GTTO, this bird has a brown tail. As far as hybrid, I don't think we see enough to assess that, but hybrids should only be considered if a more plausible full species cannot, 2 tiny yellow spots don't add up to a hybrid, especially since they appear to be lighting artifacts'.
Kris P.	18 Nov 2023	No, ID	I think this bird is a Green-tailed Towhee. The rusty and well-defined crown depicted in the photos is better for a Green-tailed rather than the weak and lower-contrasting crown of the Canyon. I don't think the green cast on the brightly lit scaps is an artifact given that the secondaries that are totally in low light also appear to have a green cast. Even if I resisted outright calling this a Green-tailed, my most liberal opinion is that there's not enough in words or pictures to accept this as a Canyon Towhee. The record would need to include more about the face pattern, upper breast necklace, breast spot, color of the under-tail coverts, or some combination of those field marks.
2nd round:	13 Dec 2023	No, ID	I think the observer was careful and I suspect this species occurs in Utah more often than we know due to the inaccessible habitats it occupies. BUT... I'm wary of records like this: A very rare bird with no observing or physical evidence of the diagnostic features to clinch the ID, but with analysis (or maybe rationalizations) by both the observer and us to explain features that don't quite fit. The details of this record amount to a stranglehold on strong and redundant evidence and circumstances: A brief and limited view; no view at all of some of the most compelling features (lower face and breast pattern) to eliminate other species; low light; limited photo evidence; in effect, one observer; no observer experience with the species or similar species; the bird having a feature (crown pattern) at the extreme for the species but a better fit for a more common one; and with features we have to explain away (green). The photos in the links Mike S. provided are very compelling and show that Green-tailed Towhees can look as drab as the bird in our record. The advantage in those links, however, is that they also show the diagnostic features and some of the lesser ones, all of which are obscured in this record by lighting, pose or vantage in both what the observer witnessed or photographed. So there's no reason to question the IDs in the photo links, while our record of such a significant rarity offers no views of the diagnostic features of either species. I hope not to see a record of such a significant rarity with such weak evidence become part of the UBRC data base.
Mike S.	21 Nov 2023	No, ID	Despite the limited angle, the photos appear to show a Green-tailed Towhee... This may be a drab individual appearing even more drab in the shade, but note the greenish edges to the primaries on the folded wing, and the greenish scapular area that is illuminated in the sun. In addition to those differences, I would expect a Canyon Towhee to show less of a distinct crown/nape contrast compared to this individual.
2nd round:	12 Dec 2023	No, ID	No change of opinion from the first round, and I agree with Kris and Kevin. When I first looked at this record, I was almost on board with the ID of CATO, but upon further review, I realized the starkly contrasting rufous crown combined with areas of greenish-yellow upper-parts make this a GTTO. It would be nice to have additional photos that showed a complete view of the bird, but besides being a bit drab, I am not seeing anything out of the ordinary for a GTTO. See links below for GTTO photos from the Macauley Library that show birds in similar plumages to this individual (also from similar dates). Some of these show greenish in the same areas as the submitted individual, and if photographed only from the back with a limited view of the face, I am envisioning something very similar to the bird in this record. As a side note, we have had an unusual number of late/lingering (possibly wintering?) GTTO in Washington County recently, and I actually saw one yesterday in Snow Canyon SP. https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/611479641 https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/493073881 https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/377191901 https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/504556761
Dennis S.2nd:	2 Jan 2024	No, ID	This was a tough call! I believe the bird in question is either the called CATO or a GTTO. After reviewing the record and everyones comments I'm not convinced either way. There are pluses and minuses both ways. Since the CATO is such a rarity for the State, and Snow's Canyon is so frequently birded, I'm overturning the call on the field!
Mark S.	9 Nov 2023	Acc	I'm a little concerned with the strength of the rusty cap, that is certainly at the extreme for Canyon Towhee. However, I can't see any other signs of it being a hybrid with Green-tailed Towhee or anything else. Reviewing photos of Canyon Towhee, I found a few that have similar rusty caps, so I guess it's within the range of variation for that species.
2nd round:	11 Jan 2024	No, ID	I really can't see nearly enough green or even yellowish in this bird to call it a Green-tailed Towhee, and still think it's most likely a Canyon Towhee. However, the fact that there is strong dissent on the committee signals to me that the evidence isn't sufficiently clear to accept a record of this rarity, so I'll change my vote.
David W.	7 Nov 2023	Acc	Photos are convincing, habitat is right. Not sure what else it could be. Nice find!
2nd round:	9 Jan 2024	No, ID	OK, I've waited until nearly the chimes of midnight on this one. The fact that I cannot decide whether this is a Canyon towhee or just mostly a Canyon towhee tells me that I haven't seen adequate evidence to accept this record in the second round. I will therefore change my vote. It doesn't phenotypically seem to be a pure example of either towhee, but rather a bit of both (though to my eyes mostly a Canyon). I don't know... Best guess is this may be a hybrid. I've not heard of these two species hybridizing, but towhees of different species certainly have done so, including across genera. So my vote is "I don't know."
Kevin W.	15 Nov 2023	No, ID	The photos show green in the wings. This is a Green-tailed Towhee.
2nd round:	28 Dec 2023	No, ID	I still believe the photo shows more distinguishing characteristics of a Green-tailed Towhee.

2023-75 Ruff

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	8 Dec 2023	Acc
Max M.	21 Nov 2023	Acc	Good documentation photos. The entrance pond at Farmington Bay seems to be a magnet for this species.
Keeli M..	19 Nov 2023	Acc	Photos support ID, and observer is correct in that very few other birds look like this. Short bill, orange legs, size comparison to the yellowlegs all support ID as RUFF.
Bryant O.	8 Nov 2023	Acc	I agree with Ruff but size compared to Yellowlegs and all black bill looks like a female, adult by the bright yellow/orange legs. Maybe we can add that to the record to clarify since record says male?
Kris P.	19 Nov 2023	Acc
Mike S.	4 Dec 2023	Acc	Photos show a Ruff, and a nice side by side comparison with Lesser and Greater Yellowlegs.
Mark S.	9 Nov 2023	Acc	Good documentation and photos.
David W.	24 Nov 2023	Acc	Sparse but convincing. Saved by the photos.
Kevin W.	1 Dec 2023	Acc	Short down-turned bill, scaly back pattern, yellow-orange legs all good marks for Ruff. It seems that Ruff is being seen more regularly in Utah lately, with most records after 2016.

2023-76 Red Phalarope

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	8 Dec 2023	Acc	As the initial report indicates, there mayve been more than one individual present. Especially considering the number of days between the original report and other observations. The photos from 11/24 clearly show a REPH.
Max M.	21 Nov 2023	Acc	This bird was just at the right distance that we had excellent views through my dad's Kowa scope, but a little too distant for good photos. Very confident in my independent ID of this individual.
Keeli M..	11 Dec 2023	Acc	Wishing for better photos, but enough between that and the description to support ID.
Bryant O.	16 Nov 2023	Acc	Max's checklist with additional photos https://ebird.org/checklist/S154338818
Kris P.	19 Nov 2023	Acc
Mike S.	4 Dec 2023	Acc	Great photos and documentation by multiple observers.
Mark S.	4 Dec 2023	Acc	Excellent documentation with ample and convincing photographic evidence.
David W.	24 Nov 2023	Acc	I think we saw the same bird yesterday. Lauri got some better photos. Kenny Frisch got some excellent photos earlier in the week that most likely also correspond to this bird.
Kevin W.	1 Dec 2023	Acc	I'm not sure the photos are good enough to be definitive (although the bill looks plenty thick), but the description fits Red Phalarope well.

2023-77 Magnolia Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	19 Dec 2023	Acc
Max M.	21 Nov 2023	Acc	Excellent find, write-up and photos by this birding duo. Wish it was a bit closer to SLC!
Keeli M..	16 Nov 2023	Acc	Good photos and writeup!
Bryant O.	20 Nov 2023	Acc	Excellent photos and description leave no doubt
Kris P.	20 Nov 2023	Acc	A very thoroughly documented sighting with words and excellent photos and recordings.
Mike S.	4 Dec 2023	Acc	Great documentation with nice photos, audio recordings, and a comprehensive write-up. I observed this bird during my lunch break on 10/31, but wasn't able to track it down when I returned with my camera later that evening (and I don't believe it was seen again).
Mark S.	4 Dec 2023	Acc	Excellent documentation - heard that call from many "Maggies" on my just-completed trip to Oaxaca, Mexico.
David W.	20 Nov 2023	Acc	My comments are in the record.
Kevin W.	1 Dec 2023	Acc	Several traits in combination show good for Magnoia Warbler: Black tipped and white tail pattern, yellow belly with white undertail coverts, lightly streaked breast, wingbars, gray head and "necklace."

2023-78 Red Phalarope

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	19 Dec 2023	Acc
Max M.	21 Nov 2023	Acc	Another excellent write-up and supporting photos.
Keeli M..	16 Nov 2023	Acc	Excellent photos! Shorter thicker bill supports ID.
Bryant O.	20 Nov 2023	Acc	Excellent photos and description leave no doubt
Kris P.	20 Dec 2023	Acc	I've struggled mightily with this record because as David notes, the important structural character (the bill) is atypical in shape and color and not a strong endorsement for the species. The molt status doesn't help much because this bird hasn't fully attained basic plumage. But it's possible that's because the molt is suspended during migration, which is also the reason the subject still shows traces of the red neck. To the best of my research, Red Phalaropes may suspend their molts and complete them on their wintering waters while Red-necked are more likely to complete their molts before migration. That status, along with what appears to be clean gray back feathers, pushes me to a 50.1% surety that this bird is a Red Phalarope.
Mike S.	4 Dec 2023	Acc	Nice photos and written documentation.
Mark S.	4 Dec 2023	Acc	Photos show a Red Phalarope.
David W.	20 Nov 2023	Acc	My comments are in the record.
Kevin W.	11 Dec 2023	Acc	The photos show distinguishing characteristics including the thick bill with pale base and plain back.

2023-79 Tennessee Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	19 Dec 2023	Acc	Going off the written description, I m not sure what else it could be.
Max M.	21 Nov 2023	Acc	Love these easy records!
Keeli M..	21 Dec 2023	Acc	Photo doesn't give much to go on, but description supports ID.
Bryant O.	20 Nov 2023	Acc	All the boxes were checked by the description, photo does show the UTC
Kris P.	25 Nov 2023	Acc	I'm accepting based on the written description, all of which suits a Tennessee Warbler and not an Orange-crowned Warbler. The bill description eliminates Philadelphia Vireo. I take the photo with the grain of salt offered since it doesn't show either the reported bright yellow wash to the breast or the strong contrast between pale under-parts and white under-tail coverts that both observers saw.
Mike S.	21 Dec 2023	Acc	The excellent written documentation eliminates similar species. Although the head is obstructed, I do believe the photo shows features that are consistent with the ID.
Mark S.	8 Dec 2023	Acc	Description is good, and the photo, while poor and incomplete, does show the useful bits to eliminate Orange-crowned.
David W.	20 Nov 2023	Acc	My comments are in the record.
Kevin W.	11 Dec 2023	Acc	The description is good, and covers the expected points for Tennessee Warbler. The photo is less convincing, but I can be convinced of the points that the observer makes.

2023-80 Hepatic Tanager

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	8 Dec 2023	Acc	A DNA sample might be the only way that this individual could ve been documented any better.
Max M.	12 Dec 2023	Acc	Extremely well documented, long-staying first state record. Hopefully it sticks around for the CBC!
Keeli M..	21 Dec 2023	Acc	Such a rad bird. Glad it stuck around for awhile so lots of people could get a chance to see it!
Bryant O.	29 Nov 2023	Acc	Excellent photos and good description eliminate other Tanagers
Kris P.	5 Dec 2023	Acc	It's very interesting to me that Carel was riding her bike and carrying a camera that could take the fine shots she achieved. Why hasn't this species shown up in the orchard at Lytle Ranch before now?
Mike S.	21 Dec 2023	Acc	The photos clearly show a Hepatic Tanager. The contrasting gray face, dark lores, gray flanks that contrast with bright yellow undertail coverts, and details of bill shape/color, are all features that rule out a Summer Tanager (especially in combination). Great record, observed by many, with tons of photos on eBird. A bit more commentary on this species: I have often wondered if these are wandering into Utah and going undetected. Given that there are HETA records from Jacob Lake, Mount Trumbull, and Black Rock Mountain, AZ, and more recently, from the Virgin Mountains just south of Mesquite, NV (potential breeding pair), I am surprised that it has taken this long to get our first Utah record. I am also quite surprised that our state first is from the Salt Lake area rather than Washington/Kane/Iron Counties, although this may be (at least partially) explained by birding coverage. Even so, Michigan had two HETA records before one was documented here in Utah, and both were from the sparsely populated Upper Peninsula (plus, there are additional records from Quebec, Saskatchewan, and Ontario). I find all of this to be both perplexing and fascinating.
Mark S.	8 Dec 2023	Acc	Excellent documentation for this long over-due species for Utah.
David W.	39 Nov 2023	Acc	Good writeup. Almost unbelievably excellent photo shows all the key field marks to differentiate this bird from other Piranga "tanagers."
Kevin W.	11 Dec 2023	Acc	Great photos. Great first state record (although I'd always hoped it would show up in southern Utah first).

2023-81 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	8 Dec 2023	No, ID
Max M.	12 Dec 2023	No, ID	No mention of lack of red on nape, other descriptors don't rule out much more likely RNSA. Very unlikely to have a pair of these birds together.
2nd round:	2 Jan 2024	No, ID	Seems like we are aligned on this one. Continuing to reject.
Keeli M..	21 Dec 2023	Acc	Tentative acceptance based on description of female lacking red on throat, but concerned that observer missed some other supporting details (like thickness of black border on throat) that would support ID, and did not describe how they accounted for possible hybrids as well. Could not access/find the referenced eBird checklist.
2nd round:	11 Jan 2024	No, ID	Changing my vote here. Given my lack of experience with these suite of species and the thorough discussion of the board members, I agree that there's not enough evidence to support ID on this one.
Bryant O.	3 Dec 2023	No, ID	Each individual should be considered separately,2 would be exceptional. No discussion ruling out hybrids or even any good reason for Red-naped. Calls cannot be used to separate them, much less if they react to them, which seems to be the basis of their ID.
2nd round:	3 Jan 2024	No, ID	Incomplete description of each bird, too much assumption based on calls and drumming and responding to playback and why exactly would a pair be together at this date? No discussion of hybrids.
Kris P.	5 Dec 2023	No, ID	Virtually no Yellow-bellied field marks are included in this record -- Call response is not conclusive in the S. varius complex -- Female's lack of red on throat is not enough alone -- Yellow on breast and lighter-sounding drumming are not distinguishing factors - No treatment of hybrids - Expression of certainty (Additional comments) is an opinion and not a substitute for observing and reporting actual field marks
2nd round:	28 Dec 2023	No, ID	No change in opinion from first round.
Mike S.	27 Dec 2023	No, ID	Unfortunately, there is basically no description here, and no mention of presence/absence of red on nape, back pattern, or details of the head pattern. The female "lacking red on throat" is quite compelling for a YBSA, but more details would be needed to accept this record.
2nd round:	28 Dec 2023	No, ID	I still don't believe there are enough details provided to accept this record.
Dennis 2nd::	2 Jan 2024	No, ID	Not a complete enough elimination of RNSA characteristics.
Mark S.	8 Dec 2023	No, ID	I can't see the eBird list, but the evidence presented here isn't sufficient to eliminate Red-naped Sapsucker.
2nd round:	11 Jan 2024	No, ID	Insufficient evidence.
David W.	27 Dec 2023	No, ID	I was very torn about this record and could be enticed to change my vote with some convincing argument. I wish there had been more evidence presented to make a stronger case. There may well have been at least one YB sapsucker present, but I have some concerns/thoughts. First, there was a male and female present (an unusual event for sure) but it is not exactly clear to which bird the field marks were ascribed other than the throat. Second, there were almost no field marks noted for the birds other than saying that they looked like Red-naped sapsuckers (which does not help the argument). Third, the responses to calls and quieter drumming are not definitive distinguishing behaviors. Fourth: Yellower belly? How much yellower? Was there a Red-naped there for comparison? And finally, the truly good field mark presented, which only applies to the female, is the white throat. This is the one that I am willing to be convinced on. The only reason I am not entirely convinced is that the paucity of key field marks in this record makes it hard for me to know whether this was a hybrid or possibly (due to date) partially immature (although the latter tend to have pink throats).
2nd round:	28 Dec 2023	No, ID	I remain unconvinced. A strong "Maybe.". (3 Jan 04 - I remain unconvinced.)
Kevin W.	11 Dec 2023	No, ID	I don't think the observer gives enough details to confirm that he saw two adult Yellow-bellied Sapsuckers, which would be quite unusual. The lack of red on the throat of the female is interesting, but I don't think would eliminate a hybrid. No mention is made of back pattern, or even the napes.
2nd round:	28 Dec 2023	No, ID	Not enough details are provided to eliminate more probable Red-naped Saspsuckers or hybrid.

2023-82 Purple Finch

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Mike H.	8 Dec 2023	No, ID
Max M.	12 Dec 2023	No, ID	Description does not rule out much more likely CAFI.
Keeli M..	21 Dec 2023	No, ID	CAFI not sufficiently ruled out to me without photos to support ID.
Bryant O.	3 Dec 2023	No, ID	Nothing really rules out HOFI or CAFI, no discussion of bill shape, calls or head shape etc. PUFI do have red crowns like CAFI.PUFI songs very different from HOFI.
Kris P.	7 Dec 2023	No, ID	The description is too scant to ID this bird to species.
Mike S.	27 Dec 2023	No, ID	This is a confusing description, which I believe describes some features consistent with a male Purple Finch, but others that are contradictory (such as "no red crown"). Without a more thorough description of the upper-parts, undertail coverts, etc., I don't believe Cassin's Finch can be ruled out (and I also wonder about a brightly-colored House Finch, given how common they are at the reported location).
Mark S.	8 Dec 2023	No, ID	Description doesn't eliminate an extra-bright House Finch, that are more frequent in southern, more desert areas. A singing male Purple Finch would be very odd in that location/habitat, and the threshold for evidence required to accept such a record isn't met here.
David W.	5 Dec 2023	No, ID	I am not saying that this record is not a Purple finch. In fact, the evidence presented supports that ID better than it does for its cogeners. However, I think the description falls just shy of the finish line for a fairly challenging ID such as this. I could be convinced otherwise, but I would like a more vigorous, detailed defense in the Similar Species portion of the report form.
Kevin W.	11 Dec 2023	No, ID	The field marks provided are confusing and don't follow those of Purple Finch. The observer indicates that it has a rosy red head, but not the crown like a Cassin's. I would like to have some description of lack of eye ring, and maybe general shape of the bill - or photos that show those traits.

2023-83 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	12 Dec 2023	Acc	I have a hard time with the red on these species, but from what I can see, looks good for YBSA.
2nd round:	12 Jan 2024	No, ID	Thanks to Bryant and Mark for thinking more critically about the molt pattern and timing for this individual. Based on their evaluations I - like Mr. DW - am changing my vote.
Keeli M..	21 Dec 2023	Acc	Looks and sounds good for a not quite adult male YBSA.
2nd round:	26 Jan 2024	No, ID	Also appreciated the additional information provided regarding timing and patterns of molt in this suite of species, and agree that this bird seems to show signs of hybridization. Changing my vote to no.
Bryant O.	4 Dec 2023	To 2nd	The main problem with this sapsucker, which is not an adult, is that it is in an advanced plumage, I would expect a pure YBSA to still be in mostly juvenile plumage, this one has mostly competed its 1st formative molt which favors RNSA and may indicate some RNSA genes involved. It also has a red and white throat like a female RNSA and the back striping is fairly narrow. Not a slam dunk YBSA, but I want to hear others thoughts.
2nd round:	3 Jan 2024	No, ID	I suspect this bird is a hybrid as it has an intermediate molt pattern, fully molted wings and back, incomplete head and torso. Doesn't appear to be a pure RNSA, but hybrid cannot be ruled out.
Kris P.	5 Dec 2023	Acc	I'm accepting based on a combination of factors including the extent of juvenal plumage on the date, lack of red nape, reported black border to throat (not particularly visible in photos) and extensive pale back spotting. A couple factors the observer noted that don't support (or refute) the ID include the call match and the yellow belly.
2nd round:	15 Jan 2024	No, ID	Thanks to all for the compelling analyses. I'm also changing my vote to 'no' agreeing that this bird is a hybrid. One issue I'm really hung up on is the observer's statement about the unbroken black line around the throat that doesn't show in any photo. I deferred to the observer's word description in the first round and shouldn't have, because especially Photo E should show it. All the photos show only a black malar and not the lower border that would enclose the red throat on the lower edge. Whether it's not present because it's not molted in yet or it's covered by red due to RNSA features, who knows. But this feature in addition to juvenal-but-advanced molt in November better support hybrid than pure.
Mike S.	28 Dec 2023	Acc	Nice photos show a juvenile Yellow-bellied Sapsucker.
2nd round:	17 Jan 2024	No, ID	I appreciate everyone's comments (especially as it applies to molt timing/details), and I can see that this bird isn't a "straightforward" YBSA. I am still not sure this bird is outside of range of variation for that species, even though its molt is clearly at a more advanced stage than most hatch-year YBSA would show on this date. I do agree that the possibility of hybridization cannot be ruled out due to this "tweener" (to steal Mark's term) molt timing. I still think this bird may be a YBSA, but there is enough uncertainty that I am willing to change my vote.
Dennis S.	2 Jan 2024	Acc	A very thorough report and good photos eliminates most questions.
2nd round:	22 Jan 2024	No, ID	I really did wonder about a couple of unclear traits when voting on the first round. But with the excellent comparison discussions of molt timing and sequences and hybrid characteristics I'm changing my vote.
Mark S..	8 Dec 2023	No, ID	This is an intriguing record, that I ran across while searching for eBird record of submission 2023-81. I was tempted to report this record as misidentified on eBird, but then saw it was here, and I'll let my vote speak in this forum, instead of risking the aroused the passions of my fellow eBird police. Anyway, we have a fall immature Red-naped/Yellow-bellied Sapsucker. Normally this date would be late for a Red-naped Sapsucker to retain much juvenile plumage, but it's farther along in its molt than most Yellow-bellied should be at this time. So it's something of a "tweener" in molt timing - a late RNSA, or an early YBSA. I think the calls are too similar to inspire confidence, even with using the sonograms - the profiles are almost identical for the "mew" calls. I also can't place much confidence on the black border to the red throat, since it's not fully molted. Ditto the lack of a red-nape, that isn't diagnostic in any event. The white gular stripe is wide, as I'd expect for a YBSA, but again, that's not particularly diagnostic. However, there are two things I see that point more strongly to RNSA for this bird. One is the back appears to be well divided into two white areas, as in RNSA. The other is the red on the crown, that appears to be molting from the front (forehead) towards the back, as does the RNSA. The red crown comes in more diffused across the entire crown in YBSA. I have too many doubts about this record to give it a pass, at least in the first round.
2nd round:	11 Jan 2024	No, ID	As per my first round comments. This might be a hybrid, but I have a hard time making this into a pure Yellow-bellied.
David W.	28 Dec 2023	Acc	Non-adult plumage in November, thick black outline to throat, lack of red on nape.
2nd round:	11 Jan 2024	No, ID	The personally aggravating thing is that I noted the crown molt pattern and misremembered which species molted the red in the scalp in a progressive front-to-back pattern and which one did so in a uniform, all at once pattern. So I am changing my vote to align with Bryant and Mark in believing this bird to be a solid hybrid. I especially appreciate the systematic treatment of field marks provided by those two.
Kevin W.	28 Dec 2023	Acc	I've gone back and forth on this one, as the bird doesn't show the traits as strongly as I wish for a non-hybrid, but - Plumage is mostly juvenile, which in November, would mean some YB, although it's more advanced that some YB in November. No red in nape, which isn't definitive, but good. Somewhat messy pattern on back - this is what I'd like to be more definitive, as some yellow-bellieds don't show the bars very much, but some (like this one) do. The throat pattern is still in coming in, so it's hard to see that the black surrounds the red and white throat patch. So, I think all of this is still within regular variation of pure Yellow-bellied juveniles. I'd appreciate thoughts from others.
2nd round:	17 Jan 2024	No, ID	I concur with others that this bird shows more traits that may indicate hybridization rather than a pure Yellow-bellied.

2023-84 Acorn Woodpecker

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	23 Dec 2023	Acc	Paul had ACWO during this CBC last year but didn't take photos, document the sighting, or submit a record so I couldn't include them in the CBC data. I asked him to make sure to at least submit a record in the future. Looks like he went out of his way to get some excellent photos this year! Well done Paul!
Keeli M.	21 Dec 2023	Acc	Excellent photos!
Bryant O.	19 Dec 2023	Acc	(originally misattributed to Mike H.) Great documentation! This species is well known, albeit somewhat hard to find, in Zion NP. However records away from Zion are much more erratic. I wish we had some tools to exclude a review species from a sub-region they are known from, but we still need to track their populations in other regions. (12 Jan 2024 - second review) Good documentation. This species is well Known from Zion, but its status elsewhere is spotty and unpredictable. I'd be fine not reviewing ACWO records from Zion, but elsewhere their status is more questionable. Not sure how to accomplish that.
Kris P.	26 Dec 2023	Acc	I'm glad to see this record. It seems like the low numbers of this species have declined even further since about 2018. Perhaps that's associated with the mast cycle and this past year's high acorn production will help boost the population.
Mike S.	28 Dec 2023	Acc	Nice record, with good photos of a distinctive species. This would apparently be the highest count total for this species ever in Utah (at least as far as I can find on eBird). I am glad that each separate observation is described, which helps to alleviate concerns about double-counting individuals.
Mark S.	11 Jan 2024	Acc	Unmistakable.
David W.	19 Dec 2023	Acc	Unlike some of the trickier records of late, this one leaves no doubt. This is truly a unique species.
Kevin W.	28 Dec 2023	Acc	Photos show distinctive Acorn Woodpecker.

2023-85 Purple Finch

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	23 Dec 2023	Acc	Good photo documentation, write-up and a great CBC bird!
Keeli M.	11 Jan 2023	Acc	Bold body streaks and facial pattern, shorter bill support ID.
Bryant O.	20 Dec 2023	Acc	Diagnostic photos and description.
Kris P.	26 Dec 2023	Acc
Mike S.	28 Dec 2023	Acc	Nice record and a great find for the CBC. Props to our committee members who contributed to this record.
Dennis S.	2 Jan 2024	Acc	Nice documenting photos and all areas of concern addressed.
Mark S.	11 Jan 2024	Acc	Photos help eliminate Cassin's Finch - distinctness of facial markings, bill shape, and undertail coverts all support the i.d.
David W.	25 Dec 2023	Acc	Excellent find by Taylor and Mike of a fairly subtle bird. Eyebrow, unstreaked undertail coverts, breast streaking, etc.
Kevin W.	28 Dec 2023	Acc	Broad, blurry chest streaking, lack of eyering, bold eyebrow - all good for Purple Finch.

2023-86 Yellow-breasted Sapsucker

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	2 Jan 2024	Acc	Good documentation and write-up, nice find by one of our own!
Keeli M.	26 Jan 2024	Acc	Interesting variation. A quick google search also pulled up a handful of anecdotal observations from the expected range of YBSA of female YBSAs lacking the red crown.
Bryant O.	27 Dec 2023	Acc	Very solid adult female YBSA. Exceptional record because most YBSA in Utah are juveniles, and may be the 1st Utah record of the so called black-crowned morph female. Great find!
Kris P.	28 Dec 2023	Acc	What an interesting variant!
Mike S.	28 Dec 2023	Acc
Dennis S.	2 Jan 2024	Acc	Interesting variant.
Mark S.	13 Jan 2024	Acc	Very unusual individual, but well-documented.
David W.	28 Dec 2023	Acc	Excellent writeup complete with good photo.
Kevin W.	17 Jan 2024	Acc	Photos seem good for Yellow-bellied Sapsucker. Very interesting black crown.