Records Committee Utah Ornithological Society Web Site

Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society

Status & Comments
Year 2024 (records 1 through 40)

2024-01 Gyrfalcon

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	9 Jan 2024	Acc	I can't turn this into anything else - and a very good group of observers and decent write-up support Gyrfalcon.
2nd round:	19 Feb 2024	Acc	I think Bryant has done a good job for eliminating other NA raptor species, and I agree that the angle may be playing a factor with the shape of the wings and still fits best for Gyrfalcon. Thanks for Dennis following up with Steve Chindgren for the question of provenance. I still believe this record has enough to accept.
Keeli M.	26 Jan 2024	To 2nd
2nd round:	29 Feb 2024	Acc	I had a lot of hesitance on this one, but I appreciate Bryant's analysis and I couldn't turn it into anything else as well.
Bryant O.	3 Jan 2024	Acc	Photo supports ID, description seems OK too.
2nd round:	3 Feb 2024	Acc	I also understand the hesitation on this record, but photo does show the very unique pattern of a juvenile gray morph Gyrfalcon, uniform dark brown coverts contrasting with the pale silvery flight feathers. But lets eliminate all other similar raptors. Harrier-have a rectangular wing shape that are either heavily spotted with dark on the coverts and flight feathers(female/immature) or pure white underneath with a black trailing edge(male) Goshawk-have shorter more rounded wings that are either uniform gray underneath, palest on the coverts(adult) or have coverts heavily spotted with dark and flight feather heavily barred with dark(immature) Rough-legged Hawk-more rectangular wing with a dark carpal spot contrasting with white flight feathers and weakly spotted coverts Red-tailed Hawk-shorter more rectangular wings with a dark patagium, weakly barred coverts and pale but barred flight feathers, mid torso band(light morphs) or uniform dark coverts and belly contrasting with pale but barred flight feathers(dark morph) Ferruginous Hawk-uniform white torso, underwing-weakly spotted coverts, white flight feathers(light morph) or dark rusty brown torso, underwing-dark rusty brown coverts contrasting with white flight feathers(dark morph), broader more rounded wings. Prairie Falcon-narrower more pointed wings, contrasting dark greater coverts with white but heavily barred flight feathers. The coverts have a unique pattern of black being limited to the base of the coverts and the back edge, but are quite pale on the leading edge creating a very distinctive underwing pattern. Immatures and females have more black than adult males. Peregrine Falcon-narrower more pointed wings, adults have uniformly gray barred underwings and torso, flight feathers and coverts uniform. Immatures similar and also have heavily barred but dark brown flight feathers and coverts with no contrast in the wing The shape of the wings being broad based and long and with a rounded tip is perfect for a Gyr and doesn't match a Buteo, Accipiter, Harrier or other falcon species.
Kris P.	13 Jan 2024	Acc	How disappointing for the observers not to obtain photos with more info, but you get what you get, and the one-wing shot is actually quite helpful showing the expected color pattern, straight trailing edge, and farther upstream on the body, the deep chest. Absence of jesses noted.
2nd round:	24 Feb 2024	Acc	II'm comfortable with continuing to accept this record. Despite the small amount of evidence, the record includes enough to eliminate other species.
Mike S.	22 Jan 2024	Acc	I am near the edge of my comfort zone with this record. I am not certain about the wing shape being consistent with a Gyrfalcon, although the only photo we have may not be the best angle to assess that. The body and underwing color/pattern are consistent with this species, and I don't believe there is a better match among large falcons and Buteos. In totality, I believe documentation is strong enough to accept, but I am still curious to see how other committee members vote on this one.
2nd round:	21 Feb 2024	Acc	It would be nice to have a bit more documentation, but I agree with others that the lone photo does appear to be diagnostic. Bryant provides a nice analysis of other species.
Dennis S.	8 Jan 2024	To 2nd	Leaning towards acceptance. But would like to know how other committee members think. Were the observers unanimous in the Gyrfalcon identity? They were a group of active and "above average" birders, but that alone should not influence our voting opinions. With only a 30 second flying observation and no real usable photos I'm a little uncomfortable accepting without further discussions.
2nd round:	8 Feb 2024	No, ID	After reading several descriptions of Gyrfalcons and again looking at a fairly large number of photos I'm still not totally convinced the bird in question is a Gyrfalcon. The most informative publication I found was Kenn Kaufman's Advanced Birding, giving detailed comparisons with other birds of prey including especially Goshawk. He makes several relevant points: 1. Wing shape can be deceptive and use of this alone as a field mark requires consideration of flying conditions (length of observation time and observation distance). 2. Overall color can be indistinct due to tricky light effects and should never be used as a major point for identifications of Gyrfalcon. 3. "Gyrfalcon should always be identified with special caution, and with attention to as many field characters as possible." I'm not sure what the bird was, it could be a Gyrfalcon, but totaling up the question marks tips the scales to not accepting it as one. Again the short length of obervation, observation of only a flying bird at a moderate distance, and only a distant photo which was enlarged and could have been influenced by light and sky conditions, all have had a bearing in my decision.
Mark S.	13 Jan 2024	Acc	Good documentation; no indications of escaped falconry bird, and fits the behavioral pattern of previous winter Gyrfalcons.
2nd round:	30 Jan 2024	Acc	I can understand the reluctance of some committee members on this record, especially if we try to avoid relying on the expertise of the observers. However, even this poor photo is sufficient to establish the i.d. of this bird as a Gyrfalcon, even without the written description. Gyrfalcon often shows more rounded wingtips than other falcons (it's a point for separating them from Peregrines), and you can find many photos online of Gyrfalcon with the exact wing shape as this bird. Also, the underwing pattern, and body color, are perfect for a gray-type Gyrfalcon, and don't fit any other NA raptor. Provenance is always a question, but I asked Steve Chindgren, who is well connected with falconers in the west, and he doesn't know of anyone who has recently lost a Gyrfalcon.
David W.	4 Jan 2024	Acc	Combination of writeup and photo are convincing. As noted by the observer, since gyrfalcons are often used by falconers, provenance must be considered with this species in this part of the world. The observer did note that he saw no jesses and that the bird acted wild, which may be all. Has anyone on the Committee looked into whether the bird was an escapee (or even a bird being used by a falconer at the time)?
2nd round:	22 Feb 2024	Acc	For all the reasons noted by others on the Committee, I continue to vote to accept.
Kevin W.	17 Jan 2024	No, ID	I'm not sure that there's enough evidence here to conclude that it's a Gyrfalcon. The patterned belly and underwing seem good for it, but the wings do seem pretty rounded (for any falcon), and the tail just isn't visible enough to get an idea of how long it is.
2nd round:	23 Feb 2024	Acc	Changing my vote, although I've gone back and forth on this. I don't like accepting it as a Gyrfalcon based on a photo that shows little more than a wing - but I can't make it into anything else. I appreciate Bryant's analysis of other likely raptors.

2024-02 Lark Bunting

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	9 Jan 2024	Acc	Great find by one of our own.
Keeli M.	11 Jan 2024	Acc	Nice photos.
Bryant O.	10 Jan 2024	Acc	Excellent write up and photos
Kris P.	16 Jan 2024	Acc	Very nice find by Team Schijf.
Mike S.	17 Jan 2024	Acc
Dennis S.	8 Jan 2024	Acc	Good details concerning characteristics, comparisons with similar species and substantiating photos. No questions. A good winter State record, very few others.
Mark S.	13 Jan 2024	Acc
David W.	4 Jan 2024	Acc	Very thorough record with great photos.
Kevin W.	17 Jan 2024	Acc	I think the photos are definitive for Lark Bunting.

2024-03 American Black Duck

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	11 Jan 2024	No, ID	Photo is not sufficient to rule out more likely Mexican Duck or MEDUxMALL Hybrid.
Keeli M.	26 Jan 2024	No, ID	Not enough evidence to rule out MALL or MALL/MEDU hybrids. In the photo, it's really hard to tell the color of the bill, but it looks more olive orange than greenish-yellow to me.
Bryant O.	10 Jan 2024	No, ID	More likely a Mexican Duck, which overall color and bill look better for than ABDU. We cannot see the tail to assess hybridization, which would also be an issue with American Black Ducks.
Kris P.	16 Jan 2024	No, ID	Not enough information here to discern more than one of the closely-related Anas sp.
Mike S.	17 Jan 2024	No, ID	Not enough information/detail in the photos or description to ID to species. I believe we would have to rule out much more likely possibilities (Mexican Duck, hybrids) before even considering ABDU, which is extremely rare in the western states.
Dennis S.	22 Jan 2024	No, ID	Definitely too many questions for positive ID - Domestic bird?, hybrid mallard type?, bill color, unclear photo, incomplete report.
Mark S.	13 Jan 2024	No, ID	This may be an American Black Duck, but none of the features that could help distinguish it from Mexican Duck (or even other "Mallard complex" species) are visible in the photo or mentioned in the description. There's simply not enough evidence here to judge, or accept.
David W.	11 Jan 2024	No, ID	Not enough in the description or the blurry and dark photo to differentiate this from other species in the Mallard complex, especially Mexican and Mottled ducks.
Kevin W.	17 Jan 2024	No, ID	I think that the photos (and description) lack enough detail to discern this duck from similar species, including Mexican Duck (or Mallard x Mexican hybrid).

2024-04 Gilded Flicker

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	11 Jan 2024	To 2nd	Well - I may have opened a can of worms with this one. I was scrolling through recent photos in Utah on eBird and noticed that the first 3 photos taken of this particular bird had some characteristics of Gilded Flicker, including a cinnamon cap going back into the nape and yellow shafts in a closed tail that appear to be 50/50 black (if not more). Based on those photos, I started to think that it may be a possible female Gilded Flicker, and shared with my dad to see what he thought. He said he agreed but we both thought it would be absolutely insane for this species to be so far out of range and habitat. I sent it along to Bryant to make sure I wasn't crazy, and he agreed that it looked pretty decent for Gilded Flicker. I texted Quinn and told him it was "possible that his flicker may be a Gilded, but we needed more photos" and he then posted it on facebook and went to refind it. More photos are available of this bird that I will assume will be reviewed by the rest of the committee (hopefully more to come), but I think this bird requires some committee discussion. Many of the observers photos appear to be a bit overexposed, which makes it difficult to tell if the shafts and underwings are actually just yellow, or if they may be more orange-y/red. My dad has a flight photo that gives the shafts a bit more orange-y appearance than the wings. This is also a color that is a bit tricky for me personally. My dad's flight shot shows the black tail tips are not as extensive when spread - much more like a Northern Flicker. Also - the bib shape seems to change quite a bit when the bird is in different postures. Some photos look good for GIFL, some look more like the shape of RSFL. Given how extralimital this sighting would be, so far out of range and habitat compared to any other documented GIFL record in North America, and the concerns with the possibility of it being a RSFL-GIFL hybrid, I would like to hear other committee members thoughts before leaning one way or the other. Quinn also posted in the Advanced Bird ID facebook group, so hopefully we will get some additional feedback outside the committee as well.
2nd round:	22 Apr 2024	Acc	Between our external expert opinions, well worded and thought out write-ups by some of our own committee members, and the much larger library of photos available for review after our first round votes, I am comfortable accepting this record.
Keeli M.	26 Jan 2024	Acc	Excellent write-up and strong support for this ID.
2nd round:	7 May 2024	Acc	Agree that our committee did due diligence, and voting to continue to accept based on expert support and supporting characteristics and documentation.
Bryant O.	11 Jan 2024	To 2nd	This record needs very careful consideration given the extreme location for this species and I'm eager the hear everyone's thoughts before I make a final decision. I observed this Flicker first found by Quinn on Jan. 6th on Jan 9th. I've looked at all the photos of this bird and done independent research on Flickers and this bird has a lot of Gilded Flicker traits: Cinnamon on crown extending down nape Odd shaped breast spots that are somewhat crescent shaped like they have a bite out of the top Deep chest shield with rounded corners (although shape varies with posture) Very narrow and broken bars on back Extensive black in tail, especially R5 which is half black The only strike may be the shaft color, which in some underexposed photos looks orangy, but in most photos, and in the field, looked very golden yellow with no hint of orange This Flicker seems to be outside what is expected for Northern Flicker Yellow x Red Shafted intergrades and must have some Gilded genes involved, moreover it does not match known examples of hybrid Gilded X Red-shafted Northern(Yellow shafted X Gilded are unknown), which typically have either some salmon colored shafts or a gray nape. Hybrids are quite rare in AZ, and although there may be a hybrid zone on the NW edge of Gilded range in CA/NV, most hybrids of that population seems to have very salmon colored shafts unlike this bird. The only really big strike against Gilded is it so far out of range and it would set a new record out of range for the species, however hybrid GIFL X RSFL do not have any higher tendency toward wandering out of range than pure Gilded do, or at least are unrecorded outside the contact zone. In my assessment, this bird does appear to be a Gilded, although why it is so far north is puzzling. My checklist: https://ebird.org/checklist/S158536014
2nd round:	20 Apr 2024	Acc	Although I was personally very skeptical about this record from the beginning, all the evidence seems to point towards a Gilded Flicker and I feel an Intergrade YSFL X RSFL and hybrid GIFL X NOFL have also been addressed and sufficiently ruled out. Add to that the opinions of 2 experienced birders with extensive experience with this species, all this points toward a solid Gilded for me.
Kris P.	23 Jan 2024	Acc	Gilded is the best fit after evaluating cinnamon and gray color and pattern of head, back and wing barring, black breast patch, breast spot shape, yellow under-wings and tail and black underside of tail. A few features aren't as pronounced as what field guides and other references show, but I found images in the Macaulay Library of Gildeds well within their range in Arizona with similar features, which helped satisfy my doubts (including shape of the breast patch--a tad pointy on the edges; shape of the breast spots--not as oblong, but somewhat oblong and crescent-shaped on the lower sides where they should be; and the back barring-- seems bolder, but within range). I don't think this bird has any salmon tinge to her primary feather shafts, a tinge that appears only in low light and not in bright light (something additional observers have said and I saw). I couldn't draw a conclusion about the brown base color of the back, supposedly sandy brown in Gildeds, so I let that one go. The cinnamon/gray face pattern conforms to Gilded rather than a hybrid or intergrade, and the thick black underside of the tail tip is the most compelling feature for me. I didn't see in person, nor have I seen anyone address the possible smaller size of this bird, perhaps because she selects such high or obstructed perches with the other flickers that the comparison can't be made. In truth, the only thing hard to accept about this bird is that her presence in Northern Utah doesn't match the range currently known, and that's not a basis to reject the record. This is likely the most scrutinized bird we've had in Utah in a long time, and that's good for pushing the skills of the entire birding community. Thanks very much to Max for spotting this bird in Quinn's original checklist and recognizing that Quinn had logged something special.
2nd round:	3 May 2024	Acc	I think the committee did our due diligence on this record. We evaluated all information that was available on this bird, which is not the same as all information, and sought informed opinions as well. So I'm voting to accept this record a second time although I can't say I'm entirely comfortable with doing so--there's just nothing more besides field ID and photos at our disposal. The option to re-visit this record in the future remains (something we discussed offline in case we chose not to act or not to accept rather than the way this is turning out in the second round of voting) if some other opinion or information comes to light. I'm very curious to see what this year's batch of baby flickers from the Salt Lake City Cemetery looks like.
Mike S.	22 Jan 2024	Acc	As the observer mentions, the only real question here is whether an 'intergrade' Northern Flicker can show traits that are nearly identical to a Gilded Flicker. Since this bird is way out of range/habitat, this is a possibility worth exploring. However, I looked at many intergrades in the Macaulay library and couldn't find any that closely resemble this bird... I do find it interesting that some photos of this individual on eBird appear to show conflicting traits (color of underwing/undertail, extent of cinnamon-brown extending down the nape, etc.), although the quality of many of those photos are not as good as the ones in this sight record. Unless someone can provide evidence that this bird may be an extreme NOFL outlier, I believe that Quinn's photos do show diagnostic features for a GIFL. The would be (by far) the best documentation for a GIFL in Utah.
2nd round:	2 May 2024	Acc	Continuing to accept. I believe the cautious approach has been warranted for all of the reasons that have been stated. However, the many photos by many observers appear to check all the boxes for a Gilded Flicker. The few photos that may seem slightly "off" (such as the underwing color) are likely within range of normal variation, even if these photos are not the product of over-exposure, lighting, etc. Although it would have been nice to have a more comprehensive explanation from Kenn Kaufman, his stamp of approval still helps to bolster my confidence in this record. Also, thanks to Bryant for reaching out to Ryan O'Donnell. His write-up was also very helpful. Lastly (and as I mentioned in my email to the committee), the quality of photo-documentation in this record is much better than any of the 3 GIFL records that have been previously accepted by the committee. Despite being further out of range, it would be difficult to justify rejecting this record if we care about consistency/precedent of acceptance.
Dennis S.	22 Jan 2024	To 2nd	This has been a real tough one for me . I've gone both ways and studied it from all angles. At first I deffinately leaned towards a Glided, but then the more I studied and reviewed other records and images the more confused I got. The head pattern- extent of brown/rufous on crown and nape is probably the number one characteristic that separates the Gilded from Yellow-bellied. But this is variable especially in YBFL.The smaller size, paler overall plumage, thinner barring on the back, and less spotting and more of a bar-like pattern on the lower belly/under tail area, are all characteristics of a GLFL. I'm not sure all of these traits are present in this bird. Additionally, it has a strict southwest desert range with no records anywhere close to the 250 mile distance of the closest know records.I hate to throw water on the fire, but even with the large number of observers (many of which simply get on the exciting observation train), I'm uncomfortable accepting this record without furture discussion by the committee.
2nd round:	6 May 2024	No, ID	I've never been comfortable with this record. From the beginning I'm still unconvinced the bird in question is not a varient NOFL. But since the committee has had more than 6 members vote to accept in the second round, it stands to be accepted as a GIFL record. I don't have a serious problem with this, its the committees decision. But my own concerns have changed little since the first round. I spent an afternoon with the bird in the cemetary a few months back and tried to carefully look at the distinquishing characters. one by one. It was hanging out with 4 Nothern Flickers and seemed to be right at home with them. It was deffinately different in plumage patterns. However, the GIFL characters were hard to clearly separate from other possible species, subspecies, hybrids, or just geographical differences. I once thought I wished I still had my Federal Collecting Permit so I could hold the bird in my hand. I'm not sure even then if the true identity could be determined. I also thought it would be fun to capture the bird, fly it back East , turn it loose and have birders there Id it. Would it then be a GIFL? The same if you took it to the Living Desert MUsuem area west of Tucson. Probably a GIFL then? What Fun! The noted GIFL abnormal range extention in SL County is probably just about as likely for an Eastern NOFL variation,subspecies/hybrid. I think the committee has done an excellant job evaluateing all avenues of this record and I think their opinions were just as valid as the "experts" that provided their input. Regardless, my overall belief is to be conservative in voting when theres unanswerable questions arise which can go either way. Luckily, we don't have many of these!
Mark S.	13 Jan 2024	To 2nd	This is an exceedingly difficult record, given this species's lack of known vagrancy and it's high degree of fidelity to both habitat and range. This occurrence would drastically violate both range and habitat, so the upmost care is called for in the identification. That identification is further complicated by the similarity of some of the much-more-expected intergrades between Red-shafted and Yellow-shafted Northern Flickers to Gilded Flicker. Given the level of mixing and back-crosses in these two forms of Northern Flicker, almost any combination of characters, or even novel ones not found in either parent form, could occur. I have seen photos of this individual posted online (including by Max Malmquist) that are not included in this record, but that may be useful for evaluation. Perhaps these photos could be solicited for inclusion in this record. In particular, a flight shot by Max shows a much more orange tail, with black tips of well less than 50% of the tail, and closer to 25%. Even some of the submitted photos show orange tones to the tail, and less extensive black tail tips. It's enough to raise my level of skepticism to the point of at the very least sending this record to a second round, if not reject it outright in the first round.
2nd round:	30 Apr 2024	Acc	Copying from my e-mail, to place this in the record: Here are my current thoughts on this: 1) I do think, given the capricious nature of gene mixing and phenotypic expression, that it s entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that this bird could be an intergrade between Red-shafted and Yellow-shafted, or even a hybrid Red-shafted/Gilded. The idea that an offspring, perhaps generations removed, of a RSFL X YSFL could produce a phenotypical GIFL is completely plausible. 2) Accepting this record would stretch the envelope of what is considered potential behavior/occurrence of Gilded Flicker. 3) However, we have already crossed that Rubicon with the previous records, even if not to this extreme. Therefore we re in a situation analogous to that of Mexican Duck. Is this a pure Gilded Flicker, or something else that just looks like it? We have no way to know, since we have no data on this individual s genetic profile. All we have is a phenotype, and much like the Mexican Duck, where perhaps none in Utah are genetically pure. Our general policy there is to accept those which overwhelmingly present as phenotypically Mexican Duck. There is no reason to act any differently here. 4) Because this individual overwhelmingly presents as a pure Gilded Flicker, subtle anomalies at the edges notwithstanding, I will be voting to accept this record.
David W.	11 Jan 2024	Acc	Even if the gold color in the undertail is debased with a hint of copper overtones, this bird is clearly phenotypically mostly Gilded. We have come to accept some gene flow in other species in recent years, and this seems to fall well within that standard. Furthermore, in many photos on the internet, the amount of salmon tone to the underwings and tail is highly dependent (often on the same bird) on the amount and angle of the sun. So a bird with an outstretched wing will grade from red-gold to yellow-gold depending on how the sun is hitting that wing. This is consistent with what the observer claims in the record.
2nd round:	22 Apr 2024	Acc	This bird appears phenotypically to be a Gilded flicker. Two experts have weighed in to support the ID, none against. Since we did not harvest this woodpecker for its genetic material, this will have to suffice. I feel good about my vote to accept this extraordinary record.
Kevin W.	1 Feb 2024	Acc	I've been skeptical of this bird being so out-of-range for a bird that "doesn't vagrate"; but it seems to check all the boxes for a true Gilded Flicker. The brown cap (with distinct separation of color below the cap) with brown extending down the back of the nape, the bolder breast spots, and the greater amount of black on the tailfeather tips all seem good for Gilded. Other field marks that should be good; ie the oval shape of the breast patch and bold vs fainter back barring, seem so variable in photos of both Gilded and Yellow-shafted that I'm not sure if the photos help.
2nd round:	25 Apr 2024	Acc	I believe most concerns have been resolved. Although an incredible record, I have no reason to not accept it.

2024-05 Yellow-throated Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	19 Jan 2024	Acc	Beautiful bird, excellent photos. Too bad it wasn't chaseable, this would be a Utah lifer for me!
Keeli M.	26 Jan 2024	Acc	Excellent photos support ID.
Bryant O.	18 Jan 2024	Acc	Diagnostic photos and description
Kris P.	23 Jan 2024	Acc
Mike S.	22 Jan 2024	Acc	Nice photos and written documentation. Great record.
Dennis S.	22 Jan 2024	Acc	No question about this bird! Surberb photos and thorough report leaves no room for discussion.
Mark S.	25 Jan 2024	Acc	Diagnostic photos.
David W.	23 Jan 2024	Acc	Photos and description leave no doubt.
Kevin W.	2 Feb 2024	Acc	Photos show distinctive field marks for Yellow-throated Warbler.

2024-06 Thick-billed Longspur

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	19 Feb 2024	Acc	Good write-up, and although photos are poor support TBLO. I think these birds are more regular than we think, there are just a very small group of birders who know when and where to look for them, with ideal snow conditions.
Keeli M.	26 Jan 2024	Acc	Pictures are pretty blurry, but the tail pattern does look good for Thick-billed Longspur, and description supports ID.
Bryant O.	22 Jan 2024	Acc
Kris P.	22 Feb 2024	Acc
Mike S.	21 Feb 2024	Acc	Nice written documentation establishes the ID. Heavily cropped photos also give the impression of this species.
Dennis S.	22 Jan 2024	Acc	Good thorough report along with comparisons of other Longspurs. I'm sure spotting scope images were much more useful and clear than photos. But still were of value.
Mark S.	25 Jan 2024	Acc	Good documentation, though the photos aren't sufficient in themselves.
David W.	31 Jan 2024	Acc	Good writeup and adequate photos.
Kevin W.	1 Feb 2024	Acc	I wish the photos were better to study, but with the field marks noted in the report, I can accept this record.

2024-07 Gray Hawk

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	19 Feb 2024	Acc	Well documented bird with wonderful photos. Great record for Utah, and finally one with photo documentation.
Keeli M.	26 Jan 2024	Acc	Excellent photos. Wish there was a little more detail in the write-up of the circumstances and specifics regarding the location of observation, but the photos support ID.
Bryant O.	25 Jan 2024	Acc	Wow!
Kris P.	24 Feb 2024	Acc
Mike S.	21 Feb 2024	Acc	Seen and photographed by many... There appears to be a pattern of increasing northern Gray Hawk records in recent years (see recent records from Lytle Ranch, Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, AZ, Walnut Creek, AZ, etc.).
Dennis S.	29 Jan 2024	Acc	Great photos. No question about ID.
Mark S.	25 Jan 2024	Acc	I see lots of Gray Hawks; that's a Gray Hawk.
David W.	31 Jan 2024	Acc	Excellent photos clearly show a Gray hawk.
Kevin W.	1 Feb 2024	Acc	Great bird now seen and photographed by several people.

2024-08 White-winged Crossbill

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	19 Feb 2024	2nd	The background noise in this recording makes it tricky, and the spectrogram is a bit fuzzy. It could be a WWCR, it also sounds similar to this HOFI call: https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/132801631. Without seeing the bird and the quality of the recording and write-up, I am a bit on the fence and would like to see other committee members thoughts.
2nd round:	6 Mar 2024	No, ID	Apologies for maybe being a little too cautious with my first round vote. Seems like everyone is on the same page for this record. Sorry to make everyone vote again!
Keeli M.	29 Feb 2024	No, ID	While it does sound like the recordings for a crossbill, I also found House Finch recordings that sounded extremely similar. I don't know that there's enough difference there to make a positive ID without there still being some doubt.
2nd round:	17 Mar 2024	No, ID	No change from first vote. Call sounds too much like it could be HOFI to support ID without any additional evidence.
Bryant O.	26 Jan 2024	No, ID	Sounds more like a House Finch, Merlin got it wrong, big surprise.
2nd round:	29 Feb 2024	No, ID	Curios, there was a post in the Finches Facebook Group today about a finch call either being a HOFI or WWCR, and apparently some HOFI calls can have a WWCR like quality, but a different slur. It was discussed and consensus was HOFI. This seems to be a near identical call that Merlin got wrong. Link to the recording below(but not the facebook discussion because you have to have facebook and be a member of that group to see it) https://ebird.org/atlaspa/checklist/S163093545
Kris P.	24 Feb 2024	No, ID	A call lasting three seconds is not enough evidence to support a record especially when a more common bird makes a similar call. This bird should have been left unidentified in the field.
2nd round:	3 Mar 2024	No, ID	No change in opinion from the first round. All of our conclusions being so similar despite not being able to confer in the first round strongly validates the records committee process, in my opinion.
Mike S.	26 Feb 2024	No, ID	In my opinion, the very brief recording does not provide definitive evidence for a While-winged Crossbill. I listened to a number of Macaulay WWCR recordings and I found some spectrograms somewhat similar to this one. However, I think a better quality (and preferably longer) recording would be needed to establish the ID for an audio-only record.
2nd round:	5 Mar 2024	No, ID	No change of opinion; looks like we are mostly on the same page.
Dennis S.	29 Jan 2024	No, ID	May have been but not convincing based on brief call. If it was any type of crossbill(s) there most likely would have been a flock and fairly easy to get an observation.
2nd round:	1 Mar 2024	No, ID	No changes from first vote.
Mark S.	26 Jan 2024	No, ID	I don't think there's enough evidence for accepting this record, especially since the location would be somewhat unusual for this species relative to most Utah records. For my part, the call sounds a bit off for White-winged Crossbill, and perhaps better for House Finch. It seems to lack the nasal tone that the crossbill has in this type of call note.
2nd round:	6 Mar 2024	No, ID	Still think it sounds more like House Finch.
David W.	21 Feb 2024	No, ID	I am in the middle on this one and could be convinced to change my vote. This one is very close. I am therefore not claiming this is NOT a WW crossbill, but I am just not 100% convinced this is NOT some other finch either. To my ears, this sounds much like a WW crossbill. The spectrogram, however, looks a bit different than my recordings of this species and the ones I see in eBird (though there is more overlap with the latter). The call is at the correct frequency but my spectrograms show two smooth curves ("hats") where this seems to show the upper curve squiggling and then ending on an upslur. The last two notes sound more like a House finch, so I am ignoring those. That's a fairly weak argument against, but since this call is all I have to go on in this record other than the intriguing proclivity of House finches to ignore this particular spruce, I will amplify this small concern in the first round.
2nd round:	7 Mar 2024	No, ID	Nothing to add.
Kevin W.	23 Feb 2024	No, ID	Given that the observer did not see the bird, we're left with only a short part of the song. I can't differentiate the short chips in this song from some Red Crossbill calls provided online.
2nd round:	29 Mar 2024	No, ID	Continue with the same reasoning; it's interesting to note that others found House Finch calls that also sounded similar.

2024-09 Bell's Sparrow

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	19 Feb 2024	No, ID	Given the difficulty of separating these species, I'm very hesitant based on the lack of detail in this write-up, just based on these photos and "because three birds responded to Bell's song" especially at this time of year. The amount of black in the malar and the lack of streaking on the back of the first bird/photo is interesting, but I believe it is within variation for Sagebrush Sparrow. Unless someone has a convincing argument or I am missing something, I am going to have to reject.
2nd round:	11 Apr 2024	No, ID	Continuing to reject, seems like we are all on the same page here.
Keeli M. 2nd:	17 Mar 2024	No, ID	Great photos, but variation still falls within range of Sagebrush Sparrow to me. Appreciate the in depth analysis provided by others in the group and concur. As others have noted, response to playback does not confirm ID.
Bryant O.	3 Feb 2024	No, ID	Looks fine for a Sagebrush Sparrow with the weak malar and mantle steaking to me. Just because a bird reacts to a playback of a species does not make it that species, birds react to other species calls all the time.
2nd round:	8 Mar 2024	No, ID	1st, lets start by defining the problem, from BOW "Species limits within Artemisiospiza are controversial. Although initially classified as a species, A. nevadensis was lumped with A. belli long ago (e.g., Ridgway 1901), with the combined species called the Sage Sparrow. A key distinction between A. b. canescens and A. nevadensis is body size, which varies clinally across the w. Great Basin (Patten and Unitt 2002); moreover, many individual specimens collected in southeastern California in winter cannot be diagnosed to taxon (Patten et al. 2003). Song differs to an extent (Cicero and Koo 2012), but it is broadly similar and varies geographically no more than does song in, say, Melospiza melodia (the Song Sparrow) or Troglodytes aedon (the House Wren), meaning only that one can recognize quickly the song as that of a Sage Sparrow (sensu lato). Likewise, difference in mitochondrial DNA and allozyme frequency (Johnson and Cicero 1991, Johnson and Marten 1992, Cicero and Johnson 2007, Cicero and Koo 2012) suggest limited gene flow ac ross the contact zone of A. b. canescens and A. nevadensis, but interbreeding nonetheless occurs and may be at no lower an incidence rate than across the contact zone of any two valid subspecies whose ranges meet across an ecocline. This is not to say that the two Artemisiospiza sparrows are not biological species; rather, differences are slight, and if they are species they are near the low end of the continuum of what we recognize as a species versus as a subspecies or as a variable population." This is one of the most difficult IDes out there, specifically differentiating between Sagebrush Sparrow and the "Mojave" Bell's A. b. canescens. They appear to be clinal and it is recommended that most birds on their winter ranges in the Sonoran and Mojave desert where they overlap should not be ID to species unless in hand. The non-migratory Coastal Bell's are quite distinct, but the Mojave form approach Sagebrush in almost every way. The idea that some people seem to have that they can play a Bell's call and then call any bird that reacts to that a Bell's is preposterous. We are on the very edge of the Mojave Bell's potential winter range, but that area is within the main range of Sagebrush Sparrow. It would be great if an actually research grade banding projects was done on the Beaver-dam slope to see if we truly are in Mojave Bell's winter range, until such work is done reports of Bell's in Utah need to be heavily scrutinized. For what its worth, when the 1st Bell's was accepted in Utah, I sent that record to Michael Lester, one of the authors of the paper that proposed the split, to get his take, and he said it was probably not IDable to species from what was provided and was a marginal record at best. I therefore remain unconvinced we even get them at all in Utah, and have yet to see proof we do. All this considered, the weak malar on all the birds in these photos provided do not look like Bell's to me
Kris P.	28 Feb 2024	No, ID	This record is very muddled and the beautiful photos don't clear up the problems. - The narrative section contains almost no identifying characteristics for this very tricky ID; each bird needs to be itemized. - Call response is not conclusive and so claiming three Bell's Sparrows because three birds responded relies on a false assumption - It's not clear if the one smaller and darker bird is also the bird with the especially darker malar, and it's not clear if a photo depicts that bird - It's not clear which of the three birds are depicted in the photos, or if all of them are depicted. Labeling the photos would be helpful. - Depiction of the back streaking is so critical with this species and given the weaknesses of the rest of the documentation, more than profile views are needed so the center of the backs can be seen clearly to assess the streaking. The streaking depicted looks fairly week, but it's not enough. - The boldness of the malars looks consistent with some Sagebrush Sparrows. There are just too many problems with this record to accept it.
2nd round:	6 Apr 2024	No, ID	No change of opinion from first round. In 2021, a group of seven Sagebrush Sparrows spent the winter, or at least January, at the north end of Antelope Island. Given the known range of the Bell's Sparrow, it's extremely unlikely that any of those birds were Bell's, and yet, the boldness of the malar in this individual might make you do a double-take: https://search.macaulaylibrary.org/catalog?taxonCode=sagspa1&view=grid&assetId=301434271 I think any record claiming a Bell's must be detailed, clearly organized and include excellent photos of a bird on the bolder end of the cline given that the characteristics of the two species approach each other. This record doesn't meet those requirements.
Mike S.	5 Mar 2024	No, ID	In my opinion, none of the individuals in this sight record are outside the range of variation for Sagebrush Sparrows, as I don't believe these birds show thick/bold enough lateral throat stripes to be definitive Bell's Sparrows. From what we can see of the upper-parts, only the bird in photo A may be a decent candidate for BESP, although I don't believe that field mark alone is diagnostic, and may still overlap with some percentage of SABS. To elaborate on my general thoughts on this record: Separating interior Bell's from Sagebrush Sparrows is a challenging ID, which should be approached with caution. This is particularly the case in the desert habitats of Washington County, where the presence of BESP is largely unknown, and birders may (understandably) be seeking them out. The concern becomes the tendency to try turning the 5-10% of darker/less streaky SABS into BESP, even if the ID may be based on less than definitive features. Additionally, since SABS is the clear default elsewhere in Utah, there may be a tendency to only assess the subtle SABS variations when visiting Washington County (particularly on the Beaver Dam Slope). Based on that, it is not surprising to see reports of BESP that may actually be SABS on the darker/less streaky end of the spectrum (individuals which may be overlooked in other parts of the state). I wouldn't be surprised if we have a small population of wintering Bell's Sparrows in Washington county, but I would be very reluctant to accept any individuals that show overlapping SABS features, which I feel is the case in this record.
2nd round:	18 Mar 2024	No, ID	I still don't believe that any of the individuals in this record are Bell's Sparrows. Bryant makes a good case for why all Bell's Sparrow reports in the state should be approached with caution.
Dennis S.	6 Feb 2024	To 2nd	I;m not very familiar with the Bell's Sparrow and it's subspecies, but it appears that several of the separating characters tend more towards a Sage Sparrow. How much streaking on the back, white on the tip of the undertail, thickness of the black throat stripe, and darkness of the gray head/neck is necessary for a Bell's vs Sage Sparrow? I've reviewed a number of descriptions and photos and it looks to me to be a toss-up. What do you'll think?
2nd round:	25 Mar 2024	No, ID	Thanks Bryan for your detailed examination of the Sagebrush/Bell's Sparrow identification problems. I totally agree that the bird(s) in question doesn't appear to be Bell's. I'm not convinced we've ever had a Bell's in the State.
Mark S.	6 Feb 2024	To 2nd	I think this record should be split, as there are clearly several individuals in the photos, and how "Bell's-like" they are varies. But I'm not entirely convinced that any are clearly Bell's, and at best perhaps fall in to the unidentifiable-in-winter category. Without sound recordings, it may be safest to leave these as Bell's/Sagebrush Sparrows. Specific comments on each of the images: A: This may be the best candidate for a Bell's, with faint back streaks, a small bill, and dark malar, but even this one shows a rather weak malar with white streaks that isn't great for Bell's. B: This one has awfully dark and prominent back streaks for Bell's, though the malar and bill could suggest that species. But I think the back streaking puts this one beyond the range of variation for Bell's. C: This one may fail all three - back streaking (hard to see, though), malar, and bill length. D: Can't see the back, but the bill looks long and the malar weak and streaked with white for a Bell's.
David W.	7 Mar 2024	No, ID	First, let me say the photos provided by Jeff are up to his usual excellent standard. They show beautiful Amphispiza sparrows. This is a notoriously difficult ID in this part of the world, especially between the canescens ssp of Bell's and the Sagebrush. Sources I read noted that most of the field marks are variable and overlap. Peter Pyle's photos of museum skins show this variation quite well. When I look at these birds, the back looks pretty good for a canescens because the streaks are fairly light and brown in tone, though well within the range of a sagebrush as well. The malar color is good, being black which contrasts with the paler gray of the head, but the malars are not very thick, striking me as falling more within range of the Sagebrush sparrow than the Bell's. So, overall, I don't think this is a clear and definitive example of a Bell's sparrow. I would be interested in what others thought. Without having a bird at the phenotypic extreme in the Bell's end of the spectrum, one would hope for a song to help in the ID. Sadly, none was described for this little group other than that it was too soft for Merlin. Therefore, I am voting "maybe," and that is not the same as an accept.
2nd round:	20 Mar 2024	No, ID	I've nothing to add other than to note that I've had birds pop up for all sorts of sounds, including, most famously, pishing. If you play a rail call in a marsh, all sorts of birds may react. Response to a recording is not irrelevant, but the degree and manner of response should also be taken into account. Is the bird just curious or is it acting like it is defending a territory? Anyway, the fact that these birds popped up is interesting but not very strong evidence.
Kevin W.	23 Feb 2024	No, ID	I think the bird in the photographs shows too many traits of a Sagebrush Sparrow to be a Bell's (canescen's would be the likely suspect). First, there is pretty prominent streaking on the back. The bird has a pretty strong malar stripe, which is usually weaker in Sagebrush, but the stripe is about as light-colored as the gray on the head; Bell's is usually darker. The back is distinctly brown, making a distinct line between the gray head, where a Bell's should have a grayer back, not as distinctly different.
2nd round:	23 Feb 2024	No, ID	I agree with others that the photos show bird(s) that is not a clear-cut Bell's.

2024-10 Mexican Duck

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	6 Mar 2024	Acc	I believe this is potentially the same individual from previous years . . . seems sufficient for a Utah MEDU.
Bryant O.	4 Feb 2024	Acc	Tail looks good for Mexican
Kris P.	3 Mar 2024	Acc	Oh, no. A (The?) dreaded Powell Lake Mexican Duck with unsettlingly pale retrices, again. Actually, I'm at peace with the paleness of this bird's retrices following last year's research and viewing many photos of supposed Mexican Ducks with similar pale edges to their tail feathers. All of the other signs of introgression appear not to be present, and so I consider this a reasonably good record. The only curiosity is what is that small black feather peaking out from under the scapular in Photo B?
Mike S.	5 Mar 2024	Acc	Photos appear to show a Mexican Duck. This individual is consistent with other individuals that have been accepted by this committee.
Dennis S.	6 Feb 2024	Acc	Appears to have all the distinguishing characters that separates it from MALL, MODU, and ABDU. Good photos comparing the paired-up female mallard help with decision. Several MEDU(5) have been observed in Utah Country and at Powell Lake(3) in the last few years.
Mark S.	6 Mar 2024	Acc	Pretty classic Mexican Duck in every respect.
David W.	7 Mar 2024	Acc	This seems to be much closer to the Mexican end of the hybrid swarm than most of the birds we review for this species.
Kevin W.	23 Feb 2024	Acc	Looks good for a Mexican Duck to me. Is this bird a resident of Powell Lake? We've accepted two other records for Mexican Duck on Powell Lake in the last couple years - is this the same one?

2024-11 Brambling

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	6 Mar 2024	Acc	Very well documented, seen and photographed by many. I've always wondered when the next BRAM would show up in the state. Nice male and excellent record for Utah.
Keeli M.	17 Mar 2024	Acc	Well documented. Lucky to have it show up in the yard of a birder who was able to ID and willing to share.
Bryant O.	5 Mar 2024	Acc	Seen and documented by many, including myself.
Kris P.	6 Mar 2024	Acc	The most amazing achievement yet for Wes and his incredible yard.
Mike S.	8 Mar 2024	Acc	Great record and amazing yard bird! First Brambling to show up in the state during my lifetime.
Dennis S.	6 Mar 2024	Acc	It looks to be the same bird I saw at a feeder in Logan in Dec, 1983. Most likely it isn't though. It would be a little old!
Mark S.	6 Mar 2024	Acc	Amazing record, well-documented. Wish I was there to see it.
David W.	7 Mar 2024	Acc	A very well documented bird thanks to the generosity of the Smith family in allowing birders into their home.
Kevin W.	29 Mar 2024	Acc	Photos show a pretty distinctive bird. Awesome record for Utah.

2024-12 Yellow-belled Sapsucker

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	11 Apr 2024	Acc	Looks like a good pure YBSA
Keeli M.	20 Apr 2024	Acc	Appreciate all the details in the write-up and agree for the reasons stated in the record that YBSA seems to be the logical ID for this bird. Wish it had stuck around a couple of extra days.
Bryant O.	21 Mar 2024	Acc	No sign of any hybridization in this one
Kris P.	2 May 2024	Acc
Mike S.	17 Apr 2024	Acc	Extent of juvenile plumage in mid-March makes this record fairly straightforward. Nice photos and written documentation.
Dennis S.	25 Mar 2024	Acc	If all reports would be this detailed and have such good photos our job would be much easier (sometimes), even on a borderline species such as this one. The late (March) retention of the juvenile plumage is among the deciding factors.
Mark S.	30 Apr 2024	Acc	Pretty clearly a Yellow-bellied Sapsucker - non-adult plumage this late in the year, plus "messy" back markings, etc. - checks all the boxes for YBSA.
David W.	1 Apr 2024	Acc	Convincing. We [with Lauri Taylor] saw it on the 16th, for the record, so it stuck around for at least two days. Our photos, from a slightly different angle, show a bit more red in the crown than do the ones included for the record from the 15th. It might be useful for other Committee members to see those less oblique photos before they vote. In my opinion, the pattern of the crown molt is consistent with a Yellow-bellied sapsucker.
Kevin W.	25 Apr 2024	Acc	Messy back barring, dark bordering the throat, no red on the nape - all point to Yellow-belled to me.

2024-13 Brown-capped Rosy-Finch

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	11 Apr 2024	Acc	Lifer! I am wondering if we split these records, different individuals not seen together.
Keeli M.	20 Apr 2024	Acc	Agree with the ID for both of these birds as described. It was an absolute treat to be able to participate in banding a BCRF, and the difference between the BCRF and the GCRF was fairly obvious in hand. Glad another one showed up.
Bryant O.	25 Mar 2024	Acc
Kris P.	2 May 2024	Acc	I've speculated that the leading edge of the weather system that brought high easterly winds in this particular week also brought these Brown-capped here. I wonder how many more there were in that flock of 350 Bryant noted.
Mike S.	1 Apr 2024	Acc	Great record with good photos and written documentation. I agree that the original (banded) individual is clearly a different bird than the one found later by Bryant, Max, and company.
Dennis S.	25 Mar 2024	Acc	No need to take extra time to study this record. Nicely written report and substantiating photos.
Mark S.	30 Apr 2024	Acc	Good documentation.
David W.	1 Apr 2024	Acc	Hard to argue with a bird in expert hands. The combination of pink undersides (indicating adult) and lack of clearly defined gray cap/stripe are good for this species.
Kevin W.	25 Apr 2024	Acc	Good bird with no real gray to confuse with other species. Looks good to me.

2024-14 Mexican Duck

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	11 Apr 2024	Acc	Appears to be a MEDU
Keeli M.	20 Apr 2024	Acc	White edging in tail could be from wear or could indicate a small degree of hybridization. I believe there's enough other characteristics to support ID as Mexican Duck.
Bryant O.	12 Apr 2024	Acc	Tail looks good for a Mexican
Kris P.	2 May 2024	Acc	The original observer/submitter did a good job on documenting the features and eliminating the confusers. A very clean candidate with no sign of introgression. I don't think the slight white in the tail is a strong enough feature even to call it introgression. Photos B1 and F are excellent for analysis and I was happy to view them.
Mike S.	6 Apr 2024	Acc	Photos appear to show a Mexican Duck. I believe this individual meets the standard that has been established based on past accepted records.
Dennis S.	6 Apr 2024	Acc
Mark S.	30 Apr 2024	Acc	Photos show Mexican Duck - no potential hybrid characters visible.
David W.	17 Apr 2024	Acc	Looks like one within our range of acceptance.
Kevin W.	25 Apr 2024	Acc	This seems to be a good candidate for Mexican Duck: No real curl in the tail feathers, dark undertail coverts, distinct line between head and neck, bright yellow bill. Also, there's been a Mexican Duck around- I wouldn't be surprised if this was the same bird that has been observed at Tonaquint before.

2024-15 Sprague's Pipit

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	22 Apr 2024	Acc	Understanding that without physical evidence this would at most support adding the species to the provisional list, I feel like this is a very thorough write-up and does a good job eliminating similar, more likely species. I also investigated the location of the sighting multiple times and the habitat is perfect for SPPI. I went out to the location with Quinn and he explained in more detail that he plays "Zelda" where the background includes a number of bird recordings of North America, including the flight song of Sprague's Pipit, which he immediately recognized in the field. I could be convinced otherwise, but based on the write-up I am accepting.
2nd round:	6 Jun 2024	Acc	I still think that this record is worthy of accepting to support adding to the provisional list.
Keeli M.	7 May 2024	To 2nd
2nd round:	23 Jun 2024	Acc	Difficult call to make, but the thoroughness of the write-up and the behavior and description of the song and recognition of the song support ID for me as SPPI, supportive of adding to the provisional list. I'm hopeful more sightings with more supportive evidence will occur in the future.
Bryant O.	20 Apr 2024	Acc	This is a difficult record, especially without physical evidence. But due to the great field noted obtained by the observer I think all other birds are ruled out. I did search this area on the day of the sighting trying to relocate, but only saw several American Pipits, however this species is notoriously difficult to detect in migration and non-breeding range and we could have easily missed it. I will add the habitat was perfect for this species, an extensive area of thick dense saltgrass mixed with some taller bunch grasses. Honestly this species is long overdue in Utah and probably migrates through Utah every year undetected, based on its winter and summer range.
2nd round:	1 Jun 2024	Acc	Understanding this will go to the provisional list, I do believe the field notes of the song and seeing it doing its classic flight song behavior, matches a SPPI, and given the observers experience with the species I think this record has value in adding to the provisional list, as mush as I wish there was some evidence to evaluate.
Kris P.	21 May 2024	No, ID	Not enough information here to accept. This sighting must have been very brief and I don't think the volume of information reported warrants accepting even as provisional. The nature of the bird means documenting it is more challenging than most. The record is well-written and I think Quinn documented what was available to him, but that's not the same as strong enough to include in the UBRC data base.
2nd round:	21 Jun 2024	No, ID	I'm continuing to vote not to accept after waiting to read most everyone's conclusions, and a lot of deliberation. My concerns for how brief the sighting and song were and how little information was available remain. Quinn's omitting Length of Time Observed means we have to assume, and I assume the sighting lasted seconds. That short audience paired with only one song sequence, and only one observer, is not enough. I'm not as concerned about not having physical evidence because, of course, it happens, and we have a process to deal with anecdotal first state records. I also believe this species occurs in the state. I just need ... more.
Mike S.	20 May 2024	To 2nd	I m not quite sure what to make of this record. I am open to the possibility of accepting this as a provisional state first record, but would like to see some discussion before making a final decision. I would have liked to see more written about plumage details, which makes me a bit concerned that this bird may not have been seen especially well (would have been nice to have the Length of Time Observed portion completed). Having said that, there are some good details on shape/structure/behavior relative to similar species. The call description may be the most intriguing part of this record, and apparent observer familiarity with that call is helpful. While I wish components of this record were stronger (and physical documentation would be most ideal), in totality I think there is a decent case made for a Sprague s Pipit. Looking forward to seeing others opinions.
2nd round:	20 Jun 2024	Acc	After reading everyone's comments and re-assessing this record, I believe this does make the cut as a 'provisional' state first record. In my opinion, similar species have been adequately eliminated based on the field marks, although I may still be reluctant to accept if not for the description of the call as well. In combination, I'm having a difficult time rationalizing the ID of something more common/expected. Even an aberrant individual of another species would be unlikely to show the structural details or behavior described here. I admit, it's not an entirely satisfying record without physical evidence, but this seems to check the boxes for a provisional state first based on what is written in our bylaws.
Dennis S.	1 May 2024	No, ID	I can understand the confidence the observer portrayed. We've all had similar experiences with rarities. However, where the record would be a confirmed First-of-State bird and no physical evidence exists I feel like it should not be accepted. Four sight-only-records have been listed for the State but none have been accepted.
2nd round:	7 Jun 2024	No, ID	The writeup is very good, but I still think we need either more physical evidence beyond a voice record or quick fly-by observation, before a record of this significance should be accepted.
Mark S.	30 Apr 2024	To 2nd	Excellent written description by a careful observer, and the vocalizations clinch the i.d. The only outstanding question on this is accepting a state-first record from a single observer with no physical evidence. We should discuss this.
2nd round:	30 May 2024	Acc	I see that my concerns regarding the state-first status of this record are shared by others on the committee. I'm voting to accept, with the understanding that this record would go to the provisional list, for lack of physical evidence or multiple observers. Like Bryant, I suspect that these are regular migrants through Utah that are simply undetected. Because they are so difficult to photograph, it may be some time before a record with physical evidence is submitted.
David W.	22 May 2024	Acc	I wish there had been a photo or recording, but the description does sound like a Sprague's pipit.
2nd round:	13 Jun 2024	Acc	Continue to accept, of course with the understanding of provisional list status.
Kevin W.	25 Apr 2024	No, ID	Excellent write-up, and certainly intriguing details. I tend to think he is likely correct based on his study of the calls. I just think that we'd need more detail (photographic evidence or recordings) to accept a bird this rare for the state.
2nd round:	13 Jun 2024	No, ID	I continue to think we need more evidence than what is given to accept this record.

2024-16 Western Gull

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	29 Apr 2024	Acc	Looks good for WEGU
Keeli M.	7 May 2024	Acc	Vagrancy is so uncommon for WEGUs but given the description and photos, the pink legs, description of large size, light iris, and heavy bill with red spot, I'm voting to accept.
Bryant O.	23 Apr 2024	Acc	Great photos leave no doubt
Kris P.	21 May 2024	Acc	Thank goodness this record includes decent profile photos given how poorly the similar species are addressed. The observer's failing to address Glaucous-winged x Western hybrids at all, or even that hybrids exist at a high level of occurrence in the white-headed gulls, is very concerning and leaves it to the committee to suss out the bird's ID. I don't see signs especially of Glaucous-winged genes in these photos and suspect that the gray at the base of the primaries is caused by bright light since this bird is clearly in full sunlight. The color, size and shape of the bill is particularly good for a pure Western.
Mike S.	21 May 2024	Acc	Good photos show an adult Western Gull. Great find by the Sommerfelds! A quick correction on the note about this being a first for the county... There is one previous WEGU record from Washington County (also from Sand Hollow). See record # 2011-43
Dennis S.	1 May 2024	Acc	Good report. Listed identifying characters, comparying with other large gulls, and backed by good close up photos. Substantiated by two well known experienced birders.
Mark S.	1 May 2024	Acc	Photos show an adult Western Gull. Besides the non-yellow legs, the mantle appears pale for a Yellow-footed Gull.
David W.	22 May 2024	Acc	Broad white "skirt," large bill, correct white pattern on wingtips, orange orbital ring. Looks good.
Kevin W.	9 May 2024	Acc	Dark mantle, heavy bill with the red spot, pink legs - general impression of bulky shape all look good for Western Gull.

2024-17 White-tailed Kite

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	29 Apr 2024	Acc	Photos show a White-tailed Kite, with the Bison fence of AI in the background. write-up is pretty limited but good enough with photos to accept. Too bad it was a one-hit wonder!
Keeli M.	7 May 2024	Acc	Photos support ID as WTKI.
Bryant O.	24 Apr 2024	Acc	No doubt about, that's a WTKI!
Kris P.	21 May 2024	Acc
Mike S.	21 May 2024	Acc	Definitive photos. Nice record.
Dennis S.	1 May 2024	Acc	No serious questions. Written report not very thorough, but photos leave no doubt. Most of the out of southern Utah records (Washington County) are in April when the birds are moving so it stands to reason.
Mark S.	1 May 2024	Acc	Photos show a White-tailed Kite.
David W.	30 Apr 2024	Acc	Photos show a White-tailed kite.
Kevin W.	9 May 2024	Acc	Photos show distinctive White-tailed Kite.

2024-18 Vaux's Swift

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	20 May 2024	Acc	Good description, although CHSW not eliminated by call or other distinguishing factors, in all likelihood VASW is much more expected. Timing is good too.
2nd round:	6 Jun 2024	No, ID	Although it is likely this is a Vaux's, without eliminating CHSW I am in agreement with other committee members that there probably isn't quite enough to be certain. Changing my vote.
Keeli M. 2nd:	23 Jun 2024	No, ID	Description doesn't rule out CHSW satisfactorily. I agree with other committee members there's not enough evidence to rule out other possible species even if VASW is the most likely.
Bryant O.	4 May 2024	No, ID	Observer admits Chimney Swift not ruled out, probably a Vaux's but no attempt in the field to assess Chimney vs. Vaux's, and no evidence for us to eliminate Chimney either. So what can we due expect ID as Chaetura swift sp.
2nd round:	13 Jun 2024	No, ID	Again, I agree with Kris on these, Chaetura is as far as the description gets us. In all likelihood they were Vaux's, but probability does not equal certainty.
Kris P.	21 May 2024	No, ID	Did not eliminate the Chimney Swift. We all understand that the Vaux's Swift is the more likely small swift in Utah, but using probability as the basis to claim the Vaux's ID while not addressing the very similar Chimney Swift undermines this record. Also claiming not to have a definitive enough view to eliminate the Chimney Swift justifies the ID only to genus. The observer also didn't address his experience with the Chimney Swift, only with the Vaux's, and it appears he concluded the bird was a Vaux's because he's used to seeing Vaux's. The fact that the birds were silent in their two passes in the 10-second observation favors Vaux's a tad, but 10 seconds of silence being the primary corroborating ID point is not strong enough support to ID these swifts to species.
2nd round:	6 Jun 2024	No, ID	No change of opinion. This record falls into that category where I think the bird was likely the species reported, but the observing and documenting fall short for not eliminating another species.
Mike S.	31 May 2024	No, ID	I do believe it is very possible (or even likely) that one or more Vaux's Swifts were observed. This is a very competent/experienced birder. However, I am reluctant to accept without any description of tail shape besides it it being "flared." In addition, I can't ignore this committee's past precedent of rejecting VASW records that did not eliminate the possibility of a Chimney Swift. In this case, multiple individuals probably adds to the probability of a VASW, but does not eliminate all concern. Although the behavior sounds good for a Chaetura sp., no mention of Northern Rough-winged Swallow in the similar species section raises an additional minor concern.
2nd round:	26 Jun 2024	No, ID	I am continuing to vote no out of an abundance of caution for reasons echoed by others on the committee. However, I do believe Vaux's Swift(s) were likely observed, as the timing of a vagrant Chimney Swift would be very early in April (according to past eBird records in the west).
Dennis S.	6 May 2024	Acc	Despite the proclaimed "zero doubt" of identity I believe the report covers the questions adequately.
2nd round:	7 Jun 2024	No, ID	Again "ZERO DOUBT" AND EXCEPTIONAL ABILITY", swayed my first impression, but after futher reviews of record and comments I believe the documentation is inadequate for acceptance.
Mark S.	3 May 2024	Acc	Very detailed write-up by an experienced observer; however, not much is offered to distinguish this from Chimney Swift other than the even lesser likelihood of it being that species. I'm on the edge of rejecting this for that reason, and could easily change my vote if others are also concerned by that. My vote is swayed to "accept" by the fact that the birds were silent, which is much more frequent in Vaux's than Chimney Swift.
2nd round:	5 Jun 2024	No, ID	Given that numerous on the committee feel that the safe call, Chaetura sp., is better for this record, I have no problem changing my vite, since mine was a soft accept in the first place, for exactly that reason.
David W.	30 May 2024	No, ID	Although the observer rightly points out that a Chimney swift would be less likely, he doesn't actually eliminate it as a possibility. As such, I am forced to consider this a Chaetura sp.
2nd round:	13 Jun 2024	No, ID	Nothing to add.
Kevin W.	9 May 2024	No, ID	While this is most likely a Vaux's Swift based on previously documented records, there is nothing within the report that eliminates the possibility of Chimney Swift, and the observer even indicates that he had "not nearly a definitive enough view" to differentiate.
2nd round:	13 Jun 2024	No, ID	The details do not eliminate possibility (albeit less likely) of a Chimney Swift.

2024-19 Least Bittern

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	28 May 2024	Acc	I'm leaning towards accepting this one based on the description (which I am not sure what else it could be), but the observer's "confidence" and inability to get a recording after continuous calling over 25 minutes makes me hesitate. For now I am accepting, but could be convinced otherwise.
2nd round:	6 Jun 2024	No, ID	I am struggling with this record, but am growing a bit concerned with the slough of records from this observer without any tangible evidence. With the addition of 2024-19a, given the bird supposedly responded to playback, I would think visual confirmation and/or a photo would have been possible. I also do not understand why there isn't an audio recording from at least one of the observations. There have been quite a few additional birders looking for the Laughing Gull, I am a bit surprised other birders haven't looked for or re-found this bird. My suspicions are growing, so I am changing my vote.
Keeli M.	21 May 2024	No, ID	Unfortunate that he could not get a recording given the fact that it vocalized so much. I don't think there's enough evidence ruling out other species that could sound similar.
2nd round:	23 Jun 2024	No, ID	Continuing to not accept due to the continued lack of supporting evidence for this record. It still feels like a bit of a stretch. Agree that the call doesn't really match up with anything else, but the observer's continued inability to produce supportive evidence other than his confidence in his own abilities gives me pause.
Bryant O.	4 May 2024	No, ID	Audible only and observer has only 1 other experience with this species make this a marginal record at best. Without physical evidence I'm hesitant to accept into accepted records. Possible but not definitive. I'd suggest the observer try and visually confirm next time and get in the habit of obtaining documentation.
2nd round:	1 Jun 2024	No, ID	Unfortunate that the observer returned and heard it again but made no attempt (again) to document. Regarding the historical records, just because this species once was more common doesn't make this record more acceptable, there have been 2 reports in the past ten years, the most recent 9 years ago. Clearly this species is in no measure of the word common or expected in Utah anywhere currently, historical records aside. The observer seems over-confident, proclaiming himself with an "exceptional ability", despite only encountering the species once before. This is all anecdote, with nothing scientifically valid about this record IMHO.
Kris P.	28 May 2024	No, ID	This record inspires more questions than it answers. - Why was the word 'unsuccessful' used in not attaining a recording? That word implies there was an attempt. I'd like to see more details of why it didn't work. Batteries died? Forgot the phone? Fat-fingered an app? 25 minutes is a long listening time for not obtaining a recording for a secretive marsh bird that also happens to be a significant rarity for the state, especially if you plan to report it to others. - Did anyone else on the local birdline chase this report? It seems like publicizing this species would have sent lots of people there to try for it. It might have drawn birders from Northern Utah, too. A previous credible report of this species was withheld until the bird was probably gone to avoid attracting undue attention to it. The lack of eBird checklists filed the day or two after this report imply that at least no eBirder sought it out and so another possible verification is not available. - Why would a January Henderson VP Least Bittern be issuing the cooing song? At least, I take from the submitter's description that he thinks his Sand Hollow bird was issuing the male's spring advertising call, rather than the harsher and more sharp call of both sexes, and he compares it to a call he heard a year and a half ago in the winter while birding with a professional guide. While I see checklists documented from Alexander Harper logging a Least Bittern at HVP in January 2023, there are no details of audible/visible/song type. I applaud this birder for not using an audio playback to draw the bird out, but that leaves only one person's phonetic representation of a call for a species with a very high level of rarity. The similar species section does little to shore up the minimal information presented. I'm also not comfortable with the primary point of advocacy being the submitter's self-assessment of his memory of bird sounds. While the nugget of the phonetic description of the song is fresh and original and clearly not a field guide description, it's open to interpretation and simply is not enough.
2nd round:	3 Jun 2024	No, ID	I've reached the same conclusion even with the addition of 2024-19a: The claim is supported with no evidence, almost no experience, and the phonetic description is open to interpretation. Frankly, I could make the words fit a Pied-billed Grebe call. Not eliminating other species is inexplicable and a serious weakness, along with not recording the bird, again, when the birder had a device with him to do that as documented in -19a. I find no pros supporting accepting this record--only cons.
Mike S.	31 May 2024	No, ID	I've gone back and forth on this record, as I do believe there is a good chance that a Least Bittern was heard. The call description (as best I can tell), does seem to describe a Least Bittern, although I have never been very good at deciphering these written audible descriptions. I find that I am prone to convincing myself that the description fits, but then realize that it may be somewhat of a stretch of the imagination. Knowing about Paul's relatively recent experience hearing this species down in Clark County is helpful, as this call may have been somewhat fresh in his memory bank. The bottom line is that this is a very rare species in Utah, and an audible only description (with no recording) is stretching my comfort zone for any rarity. 20+ years ago this type of record may have been perfectly acceptable as documentation for a rare bird. However, in an age where affordable recording devices are widely available (and most of us carry one around in our pocket), I am not sure that documenting a prolonged bird call with words-only is acceptable documentation. For the record, I believe Paul is a very good, careful, and competent birder who probably heard a Least Bittern. I might be convinced otherwise, but the documentation doesn't quite rise to a level that I am comfortable accepting in the first round.
2nd round:	20 Jun 2024	No, ID	I am still not comfortable with the heard-only documentation in this record since there is no audio recording. (For what it's worth...) We clearly don't have enough LEBI records to remove this species from the review list based on our usual criteria, BUT I wouldn't be surprised if they occur with some regularity in Washington County and simply go undetected. At some point I will try getting out to some areas of decent habitat at night or early in the morning to listen for vocalizations. I wanted to follow up on this report (and still might), but simply haven't had much free time this spring/summer.
Dennis S.	6 May 2024	Acc	Despite the proclaimed "exceptional ability" with bird calls I believe the report covers the question adequately.
2nd round:	7 Jun 2024	No, ID	I was borderline on our first round and after reviewing 2cd round comments and concerns with lack of additional verifying evidence, and inspite of "exceptional ability" by the observer, am changing to not accept.
Mark S.	6 May 2024	Acc	Good description of a distinctive call. I'm surprised that this is a review species. They at least used to be resident at several locations in Washington County, including one very close to the site of this report. Historically, they were found statewide.
2nd round:	4 Jun 2024	Acc	I'm given a bit of pause by the concerns of others, and reports that this species is so much rarer (though I suspect frequently overlooked) than it used to be. However, the description of the call doesn't really fit anything else in habitat like this (I can't make the description fit any calls of Pied-billed Grebe, that is never a single, unchanging series). In the supplemental record it did respond to playback, so there is that, too. It would be nice to have a recording, and a bit puzzling as to why not, especially for the second sighting, but not everyone has a recording app on their phones, or is used to using one. Although a bit softer than my first round vote, I can't really make this into anything else.
David W.	30 May 2024	Acc	This is a very soft accept based on scant evidence (description of the "song"). In the past, we often heard this species in the St. George area (though always at night), so its presence is not too surprising.
2nd round:	13 Jun 2024	No, ID	My soft accept from the first round is eroding from the continued stream of records from the observer lacking physical evidence. I understand not having necessary cameras or phone apps while birding now and again (I have done that often enough), but returning to document the bird without them seems a bit odd. I'll change my vote to a soft No.
Kevin W.	9 May 2024	No, ID	The bird was not observed, and there was no recording, only the obsesrver's account. He indicates that he's only heard Least Bitterns once last January, so I'm not sure that his experience is sure enough to count.
2nd round:	13 Jun 2024	No, ID	I'm still uncomfortable accepting this record with only the observer's interpretation of what he heard.

2024-20 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	20 May 2024	Acc	Looks good for YBSA
2nd round:	15 Jul 2024	No, ID	Changing my vote - thanks to other committee members who can see color better than myself to raise concerns about not ruling out a potential hybrid.
Keeli M.	21 May 2024	Acc	Immature plumage in Feb coupled with photos seem supportive to me of ID as YBSA.
2nd round:	12 Jul 2024	No, ID	Definitely a challenging record. Changing my vote after considering some of the other committee comments and concerns. There is some inconsistency and hybrid isn't definitively ruled out.
Bryant O.	9 Jun 2024	To 2nd	I'd like to see some discussion on this, not sure hybrid has been addressed?
2nd round:	10 Jul 2024	No, ID	I'm not sure this isn't within range of a pure YBSA, but the observer made no mention of hybrid and didn't evaluate for this in the field, and the photos are too poor to be certain, so I'm voting that hybrid is not ruled out, and in Utah hybrids need to be considered.
Kris P.	30 May 2024	No, ID	I think this bird shows signs of mixed parentage between Yellow-bellied and Red-naped Sapsuckers. Very compelling for me is photo B1 that shows the red of the throat washing over the black frame, a Red-naped characteristic. I also see Yellow-bellied features, including a heavily-marked back and spotty red in the crown in December. The lack of red in the nape is important but not diagnostic and I'm skeptical given my concerns about the red throat breaking the black frame. Another concern I have is a conflict between the narrative and what the photos show. The narrative says the crown is brownish, but the December photos clearly show a lot of red in the crown. The narrative also says in the Sex field that there's red coming in on the throat, but in the Field Marks section that the throat is grayish. The throat has significant red in photo B1 (which also shows the afore-mentioned red over the black border). I went to eBird to find the Feb 18 checklist that includes additional photos not included in this record, and I'm not convinced that the December and February birds are the same bird even if they're on the same sap wells. The features of the February bird are compelling, but the views are too limited to call an ID given this is an out-of-range sapsucker species with a significant tendency toward hybridizing where ranges overlap. Finally, the observer didn't address hybrids in the Similar Species section, which is imperative in our state where we may see six forms of the S. varius complex.
2nd round:	8 Jul 2024	No, ID	No change of opinion. I think this bird was a bugger to view and photograph and consequently, the evidence offers only partial views obscured by shadows, tree branches or posture. This means it's just not possible to assess all the characters, which is so important in a vagrant sapsucker. And then there's the appearance of a couple Red-naped characters. Mark mentioned another challenge in sapsucker ID, that while we have good information to analyze intermediate characters of hybrids, we have little information to analyze intermediate molt timing (and to extend the thought, so we can compare it to Yellow-bellied molt timing). I just don't think we have enough here to call this bird a Yellow-bellied. Here's the Feb 18 eBird checklist with photos. With the gap of 2 months between observations, I don't feel comfortable concluding this is also the December bird: https://ebird.org/checklist/S162130822
Mike S.	7 Jun 2024	Acc	This individual appears to be at a more advanced stage of molt than some immature YBSA show at this date. However, I believe it is within range of variation and probably not at the extreme end of that spectrum. No mention of hybrids in the similar species section combined with photo quality makes this record trickier. However, the photos in the February 18 eBird checklist continue to show a sapsucker retaining immature plumage with no (obvious) red in nape, so I am comfortable accepting this as a YBSA.
2nd round:	9 Jul 2024	No, ID	I am somewhat torn on this record, as I am not sure that the photos show features outside of normal variation for an immature YBSA. However, I am seeing some traits that might suggest a hybrid, as noted by others (such as the red bleeding into the black frame in the throat). A review of immature YBSA photos in the Macaulay Library shows some examples of individuals with red interrupting that black border, and I wonder if this may not be unusual for molting males of this age. Regardless, the photos don t show as much detail I would like to make a definitive call on the ID, so I am taking the cautious approach and changing my vote.
Dennis S.	11 May 2024	Acc
2nd round:	17 Jun 2024	No, ID	The timing of the molt sequence was and is still my #1 reason for acceptance. However, usually lurking in the background is the RNSAxYBSA concerns, as pointed out by several committee members. Additionally, the question raised by Kris concerning photos possibly showing more than one individual brings up serious afterthought. With these issues my conservative changed vote is changed.
Mark S.	30 May 2024	Acc	I'm voting to accept based upon the timing of the molt, though I do have concerns over the back pattern and the black border on the throat, that seems to be messy, with red incursions. Those features suggest a possible hybrid to me, though I don't know if the molt timing would be so disrupted in a hybrid. I could be convinced to switch my vote.
2nd round:	23 Jun 2024	No, ID	I'm changing my vote because I think this is a hybrid. I expressed my concerns in my first round vote, and before seeing the February photos (assuming there the same bird). Looking at the later photos, I can add a well-divided back pattern and what appears to be a bit of reddish in the nape to the messy black throat border. There's just too much that looks like Red-naped Sapsucker to be confident that it's not a hybrid, in spite of the molt timing. I can't find any information on the molt timing in hybrids, so that might not be a factor.
David W.	30 May 2024	Acc	Mid December juvenile. Lacks red nape. Back moderately "messy."
2nd round:	15 Jul 2024	No, ID	I'm not sure why we have different standards for how much hybridization we accept in different species. I still think this one is mostly Yellow-bellied. If it were a Mexican duck, would we be so strict? But I don't wish to die on this hill, so I'll vote with the consensus.
Kevin W.	9 May 2024	Acc	The black malar stripes surrounding the red throat and messy back striping look good for a Yellow-bellied Sapsucker.
2nd round:	6 Jul 2024	No, ID	Kris and some of the others have brought up convincing points about the possibility of this individual being a hybrid; I'm changing my vote.

2024-21 Vaux's Swift

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	20 May 2024	Acc	Good documentation by one of our own.
Keeli M.	21 May 2024	Acc	Excellent write-up of characteristics and discussion of how other species were eliminated.
Bryant O.	8 May 2024	Acc
Kris P.	22 May 2024	Acc	Less than 3 meters at the closest--Wow. An excellent record, replete with field details and analysis. I'd like to add my buck-50 in support of Bryant's weather analysis. My experience with Vaux's in Utah is almost identical in regard to timing (first half of May), weather (unsettled, cold, blustery, rainy, graupel-y, and maybe sunny all within the same hour), occurring with a swallow migration event, and not coincidentally, at the same location once (record 2007-06, Willard Bay SP). I watch for this weather now in early May hoping it will produce Vaux's and it did again with record 2011-19 in Davis County (two other other birders reported Vaux's on that same day, same weather, in Utah County (2011-24) and Cache County (2011-21). A 2021 Weber County sighting I reported as a Chaetura swift due to the brevity of my sighting also fit this mold. The exception to the weather pattern occurred with record 2018-15. A few moments after I mentioned this weather pattern and Vaux's Swifts to my birding pal and to watch for storms, a Vaux's appeared flying serenely in the sunny, warm, calm weather of May 1 without a care in the world, and became Salt Lake County's first UBRC (2018-15) and eBird record of the species. If many birders looked for this species during early May's unsettled weather, we might log enough data as a community to warrant removing the species from the review list. I happened to bird Willard Bay State Park the day after Bryant logged this swift, not knowing he had seen one, and instead I logged at least 15 high-flying White-throated Swifts and many swallows lower. Dang. I missed the bad weather and therefore, missed the Vaux's.
Mike S.	7 Jun 2024	Acc	My only hesitation with this record was the "brief" binocular view, which gave me some pause as to whether this was enough time to assess the subtle differences between Vaux's and Chimney Swift. However, I believe the smaller size of this individual relative to nearby VGSW and NRWS helps to minimize that concern, and probably rules out CHSW. Overall, good description and written documentation.
Dennis S.	11 May 2024	Acc
Mark S.	30 May 2024	Acc	Good documentation.
David W.	5 Jun 2024	Acc	Excellent description.
Kevin W.	29 May 2024	Acc	I think the observer does a good job eliminating the less likely but similar Chimney Swift based on flight pattern, behavior, and general shape.

2024-22 Gunnison Sage-Grouse

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	20 May 2024	Acc	Glad to see there a few in the state.
Keeli M.	9 Jun 2024	Acc	Description of lighter tail, longer filoplumes, and smaller body size supports ID, and it is known that a small population occurs in that part of the state even though the location is closely guarded.
Bryant O.	12 May 2024	Acc	Glad to see they are still around
Kris P.	31 May 2024	Acc	A good inaugural record for this species' new position on the review list. The bird's distinctively banded tail and more extensive filoplumes confirm the ID, as well as, in part, the geographically isolated area from the Greater Sage-grouse's range.
Mike S.	9 Jun 2024	Acc
Dennis S.	11 May 2024	Acc
Mark S.	30 May 2024	Acc	Excellent documentation and photos.
David W.	30 May 2024	Acc	Only species of sage-grouse in that corner of the state. Superb photos show the filoplumes and tail.
Kevin W.	29 May 2024	Acc	Good documentation in expected range of Gunnison Sage-Grounse

2024-23 Vaux's Swift

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	20 May 2024	Acc	Same as 2024-18?
2nd round:	28 Jun 2024	No, ID	Changing my vote as I do agree with Kris that even though much more unlikely, they did not adequately eliminate Chimney Swift.
Keeli M.	21 May 2024	Acc	Description is supportive of ID and I believe adequately rules out similar species. Date was also coincidental with the weather patterns that Bryant described in his Vaux's swift sighting record.
2nd round:	12 Jul 2024	No, ID	Changing my vote. After reviewing the record again, the observer remarks they only got a look at the pale rump once in their short observation. He also states it was an incredibly windy day. I feel the description is incomplete and agree that CHSW was not adequately ruled out given those conditions and the short duration of observation.
Bryant O.	12 May 2024	To 2nd	Although these probably were Vaux's, the observer makes no attempt to really distinguish them from Chimney other than range, both can have a pale rump. Chimney is larger, similar to some swallows in size, Vaux's are smaller than any Swallow. I'm not sure how to proceed with this problem and would like to hear other thoughts. We know Vaux's is an annual migrant here, can we just accept any Chaetura swift as a Vaux's unless proven otherwise?
2nd round:	13 Jun 2024	No, ID	Again, I agree with Kris on these, Chaetura is as far as the description gets us. In all likelihood they were Vaux's, but probability does not equal certainty. As far as a pale rump is concerned, this(and the pale throat) can be seen on either species but Chimney average darker and Vaux's paler, but there is overlap so it is not an absolute field mark. Size and calls are. I guess if we want to accept any Chaetura swift as a Vaux's, we should remove Vaux's from the review list but keep Chimney on?
Kris P.	29 May 2024	No, ID	This record doesn't pass muster due to the observer's not seriously considering the most-similar Chimney Swift, and not addressing his experience with the Chimney or any swift other than the Vaux's. Even an answer of 'no experience' is acceptable; ignoring the field isn't. The minimal treatment of the Chimney Swift in the species elimination section uses one of the less reliable characteristics (pale rump contrasting with dark upper-parts) due to its overlap with the Vaux's. I don't think it's possible to assess that characteristic well enough during a 15-second view of a flying swift to use it to determine the bird wasn't a Chimney Swift, which may also show the feature.
2nd round:	8 Jul 2024	No, ID	No change in opinion.
Mike S.	10 Jun 2024	Acc	I wish there would be a bit more written about eliminating Chimney Swift. However, the note about the rump contrast at least provides some reason (besides probability) to lean towards Vaux's. In addition, the timing lines up with other VASW records (including record # 2024-21, observed the previous day). Although the sample size isn't huge in our region for CHSW records, it appears that the timing here would be a bit earlier than expected for that species.
2nd round:	14 Jul 2024	No, ID	I believe it s important for the committee to remain consistent with our handling of these Chaetura swift records. Since I ve voted no on similar records, I ve decided that my first round vote is difficult to justify, as I don t believe the pale rump field mark is quite enough to establish the ID as a Vaux s Swift. This was very likely a Vaux s based on probability, but the written documentation falls a bit short of eliminating Chimney Swift.
Dennis S.	11 May 2024	Acc
2nd round:	17 Jun 2024	No, ID	My vote on the !st round was based more on the slim possibility that the bird in question was a Chimney Swift - a much, much rarer species. But I do agree that the observers address didn't give much documentation to the characters separating each.
Mark S.	30 May 2024	Acc	Good documentation.
2nd round:	23 Jun 2024	Acc	I still think there is enough in the description to eliminate the much less likely Chimney Swift. Yes, there is some fuzziness to the pale rump characteristic, but the vast majority of Chimney Swifts don't have a pale rump (I looked at a couple hundred Macaulay Library photos, and I found two Chimney Swifts with a pale rump - and not very contrasting with the back in either). Noting a contrasting pale rump adds another level of "unlikeliness" to the idea that this was a Chimney Swift. Not only would it have to be a very rare species for Utah, but also the very rare variant that species that can be confused for the more common species. The lack of calls also supports Vaux's Swift, as the frequently are silent, whereas Chimney Swift is rarely silent. It would be nice to have some more specific comparisons on size with the swallows, but I think we have enough here to accept this record.
David W.	13 Jun 2024	Acc	Detailed description is convincing.
2nd round:	15 Jul 2024	Acc	Still think the description is adequate, especially the comment in the similar species section.
Kevin W.	29 May 2024	Acc	Although not much is provided to distinguish from the less-likely but similar chimney swift, the observer does indicate that the pale rump stood out, which may be sufficient.
2nd round:	8 Jul 2024	Acc	I agree with Mark's assessment that there is enough detail provided to eliminate the much less likely Chimney Swift.

2024-24 Scaled Quail

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	28 May 2024	No, Int	I believe this is in the area that Kris P. and others identified as a location for DWR introductions/releases, so unknown population status is an issue here.
2nd round:	28 Jun 2024	Acc	I forgot about the bylaw, thank you to Kris and Bryant for the reminder. Changing my vote to yes
Keeli M.	9 Jun 2024	Acc	This sighting is not too far from the expected range of SCQU, and the observer's description is supportive of the ID. Nothing much else out there that looks similar.
2nd round:	12 Jul 2024	Acc	No changes to my vote. Good description by observer.
Bryant O.	12 May 2024	Acc	Good description by an observer experienced with species.
2nd round:	13 Jun 2024	Acc	As Kris mentioned, we are voting on the ID of the quail, not their providence since we created a bylaw especially to deal with SCQU. This allows us to gather data until we have enough info to decide if they are established or not at some later date. For what its worth, this is my eBird review region and I have recent SCQU marked as exotic-provisional until we know their status, excepting the historic records in Montezuma Canyon which were a natural expansion from NM. That all being said, I think there is a large number of quail raised by hobbyists that are not legally permitted that the DWR has no idea about, although Bobwhite and Japanese Quail are the most popular. But given the remote and sparse population in this area, I doubt many locals are raising and releasing SCQA here. I think since we are continuing to get reports of SCQA, it seems we may have a small established population near the 4 corners in Utah, especially if 2015 was the last release date by UDWR.
Kris P.	3 Jun 2024	Acc	I think this observer ID'd the pair correctly and has the experience to do so. The DWR hasn't released any Scaled Quail in the Southeast Region since 2015 (as per Heather Talley, DWR Upland Game Coordinator, on June 3, 2024), and given the quail's short lifespan of ~1 year, the reported pair are likely wild-produced descendants from released birds or naturally-occurring. One of the 2015 release locations was the Bluff Bench 3-ish miles from the site reported here, so certainly a wild-produced population could be radiating outward from there.
2nd round:	13 Jun 2024	Acc	No change in opinion regarding the observer correctly ID'ing these birds, and our rules allow for observers to submit sightings without verifying provenance. But if the committee itself still must question provenance leading us not to accept records, we should consider removing Scaled Quail from the review list. Requesting records by virtue of review-list status only to turn them down because we can't verify wild vs. pen-raised does a disservice to those willing to submit records, to wit: "Please submit records which we will then not accept". Research into the provenance issue with the DWR has shed some light on the history and current-day possibility of releases by both state (a long time ago) and private entities (possibly on-going), but there's no way to know wild vs. released for sure since not all categories of private quail-holders have to register with the division. Even if everyone had to register, birds might get away from a hunter who releases his while training his dog. Those releases aren't tracked in any way. *Additional comments to support 2nd Round Vote, June 19, 2024:* Heather Talley, DWR Upland Game Coordinator, answered my inquiry and said the Certificate of Registration (COR) rules I shared with you via e-mail from the division's web site were outdated and need to be taken down from the site. The game bird aviculture rules were updated in October 2023 and don't permit ANY holding of Scaled Quail in the state. In addition, the DWR had not approved a Scaled Quail COR in Utah since 2010, and has never permitted a Commercial Hunting Area (CHA) COR to hold Scaled Quail in the Southeast Region. This information reduces the possible sources of Scaled Quail in the region to wild expansions, progeny from previous DWR releases, or illegally-kept birds.
Mike S.	10 Jun 2024	No, ID	I have some concerns with this record. First and foremost, this bird was observed from a moving vehicle with no optical equipment. 40-ft may be close enough to ID this species under those conditions, but it does cast some level of doubt. In addition, I recall from our past discussions that there is an introduced SCQU population in southeastern Utah, which may raise questions related to provenance. I don't recall if we reached any conclusions, but if that continues to be a concern then perhaps we should re-evaluate whether this species belongs on the review list.
2nd round:	11 Jul 2024	Acc	It appears that my concerns about provenance have been previously addressed in our bylaws, which seems like a reasonable approach (like Max, this had completely slipped my mind, so thanks for that reminder...) Regarding my first round concern about lack of optical equipment and the observation being from a moving vehicle: While this never an ideal situation, I suppose this species is distinctive enough that I am willing to give the observer the benefit of the doubt. The description does seem to eliminate a Gambel's Quail.
Dennis S.	8 Jun 2024	Acc	Report not completely convincing (could have more complete comparison with GAQU) but adequate enough. Observers past experiences with quail species was the determining factor. Scaled Quail are rarely seen in this area.
2nd round:	17 Jun 2024	Acc	I still think the observers past experiences with quail species is convincing enough for acceptance.It also appears he was surprised to see them and didn't jump to a hasty conclusion.The question of intro duced SCQU will possibly give some shadow of doubt, but the known existence of the wild population in this area should take precedence unless evidence (banded birds or release site birds) exists to the contrary.
Mark S.	4 Jun 2024	Acc	Although the view was brief, it would be sufficient for an experienced observer to make a positive identification, and the distinctive features were noted, and other quails eliminated. It could be argued that Scaled Quail could be the most likely quail species in this location. Certainly it's the mostly likely location for Scaled Quail in Utah.
2nd round:	23 Jun 2024	Acc	I hadn't considered the possibility of introduced birds at the time of my original vote, but it appears that any official releases would have been too long ago (>10 years) to reasonably believe that these could be survivors of those releases, and I find the idea of private releases to be unlikely in that area, or at least less likely than a natural occurrence. I think it's most likely that these were wild birds within the known range of the species.
David W.	5 Jun 2024	To 2nd	The photos show a Scaled quail. The identity of this species is not in question, but, as always with this species in Utah, the provenance is. So this is one of those odd situations where DNR has been releasing Scaled quail very close to where they were seen naturally by us in the distant past. These individuals were located in a spot almost equidistant between the location of their historic (albeit one-off) occurrences in 1997/2007 and where, according to Bryant in 2022, they have been released by DNR in the Comb Cliffs (see Sight Record #2022-18). - Honestly, I thought the ABA rules regarding introduction of birds into existing/historic/established range indicate such birds counted as legit (think Ring-necked pheasant). Do we operate under the same rules? I realize our records are not meant to be a listing "game" but this is an odd gray area. I'd like to hear what others say. My inclination is to vote to accept. Just for some background, we (and many others) saw our birds in 2007 in Montezuma Creek at about 37.521168, -109.240556.
2nd round:	7 Jul 2024	Acc	Per bylaws.
Kevin W.	29 May 2024	Acc	I accept that the observer saw Scaled Quail. I guess one could ask if they were stocked game birds or not, but they're within documented range of the species.
2nd round:	8 Jul 2024	Acc	Continuing to accept based on identification.

2024-25 Lark Bunting

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	28 May 2024	Acc	Nice documentation photos
Keeli M.	21 May 2024	Acc	Nice photos, supportive of ID.
Bryant O.	14 May 2024	Acc	Great Photos
Kris P.	3 Jun 2024	Acc	A straightforward record; it covered exactly what it needed to cover and no more.
Mike S.	10 Jun 2024	Acc	Nice photos show a male Lark Bunting.
Dennis S.	16 May 2024	Acc
Mark S.	4 Jun 2024	Acc	Good documentation, definitive photos.
David W.	5 Jun 2024	Acc	Hard to argue with those photos.
Kevin W.	29 May 2024	Acc	Good photos show distinctive black bird with white wing patch of Lark Bunting.

2024-26 Cassin's Sparrow

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	28 May 2024	To 2nd	The photos I initially received for this bird for input did not include all that are part of this record, including the "additional photo" that shows a strong median crown stripe. I am not quite as confident now looking at these photos that this isn't a drab Grasshopper Sparrow, or if there may be two individuals present in the photos? Would like to hear other committee members' thoughts.
2nd round:	15 Jul 2024	No, ID	Looks like most of us are in agreement about concerns with the bold and wide median crown stripe, and the quality of the photos doesn't help in eliminating the possibility of an overexposed and pale Grasshopper Sparrow.
Keeli M.	21 May 2024	Acc	Wrong size, wrong facial pattern, and way too big a bill proportionally for BRSP; head shape and coloration not right for GRSP. Photos aren't that great, but the crown streaking, pale eye ring and face all support CASP as the best match for this bird.
2nd round:	12 Jul 2024	No, ID	I saw this bird in person, and GRSP really did not seem to fit for ID, but in all honesty I didn't know what to make of it. This bird didn't have the right head shape or coloration for GRSP. I saw no yellow or buff tones in the field, but I agree that there's too much uncertainty and inconsistency in the photos to positively accept ID as CASP.
Bryant O.	16 May 2024	To 2nd	Full disclosure, these photos were sent to Max and I while we were doing a survey at Great Salt Lake for input, we were looking on a phone in bright light. Obviously the photos aren't great and a bit over exposed, but it doesn't have the buff and yellow tones expected in a Grasshopper Sparrow at first glance, however that may just be a lighting issue? But the bill does looks small for a GRSP and better for a CASP, and the back speckles look more like CASP, so I am leaning that way but I want to hear everyone else's thoughts before making a final decision.
2nd round:	10 Jul 2024	No, ID	The more I look at the photos, the more it looks like an overexposed Grasshopper Sparrow. Cassin's can have a white median crown stripe, but its always faint and blurry, this one's head stripes are just to crisp and bold. The little dark comma behind the eye looks more GRSP like, and the lack of a crest is a strike against Cassin's. Note to self, wait until you get home and look on a high resolution screen before commenting on ID.
Kris P.	4 Jun 2024	Acc	I think the group saw a Cassin's and their words and photos make the case. I take minor exception to the word 'steep' used twice to describe the forehead, but that's a nit to an overall decent record. No need to eliminate the Botteri's here given that the Botteri's is not known to wander. [Last paragraph added on 6 Jun 2024]
2nd round:	12 Jul 2024	No, ID	I'm flipping my vote on this record after deciding the images are so marginal as to be misleading, the narrative is not very helpful, and I think the conservative route Dennis mentions is the best path. I so didn't get Grasshopper Sparrow GISS from the photos in the first round that I didn't seriously consider that species. While a deep dive supporting this vote into Macaulay photos for both species still favors Cassin's, a plumage character that I think should be present on a Cassin's with such a bold crown pattern is some semblance of the lighter throat bracketed with narrow, dark submoustachial stripes. That should show in the additional photo, the only photo with uniform lighting on the throat. But it doesn't. Grasshopper Sparrows have plain throats and Cassin's might, but bold crown-plain throat seems unlikely. I've concluded the same thing about this record as I did with 2023-74, Canyon Towhee: Why can't a rare bird show up looking like the typical rare bird, rather than with atypical features better for a more common species, while none of the diagnostic features are visible? I keep going back to the record to look for things I can't validate due to the record quality. That means the best vote for me is not to accept.
Mike S.	13 Jun 2024	No, ID	Some of these photos do give a Cassin s Sparrow impression, and I believe the observer makes a compelling case based on the written description. However, I am lacking confidence in the ID based on what is visible in these relatively poor photos. I am particularly concerned about the very bold median crown stripe, which is visible in multiple photos. After searching the Macaulay Library, I can only find an obvious median crown stripe on a small percentage of CASP, and very few of those birds show that feature as prominently as this individual. Also, the yellow lores appear to be quite bold/contrasting in a couple of photos, which would generally be a subtle CASP feature (if visible at all). Despite my concerns, I do believe other options can be ruled out except for Grasshopper Sparrow, and structurally, there are a couple of things that do not look great for that species. I have tried assessing other, more subtle features (covert and back pattern, etc.), but these photos make it difficult to come to any definitive conclusions. I am happy to re-evaluate my vote in the second round, but I d prefer to err on the side of caution when a potential rarity has unusual characteristics for that species (assuming the more expected options cannot be definitively eliminated).
2nd round:	11 Jul 2024	No, ID	I am still having a difficult time eliminating a Grasshopper Sparrow. There is no question that Cassin's Sparrows can show a median crown stripe, but I am still concerned about the boldness/prominence of this feature in these photos. Although not definitive, a couple of the photos appear to show a buffy breast, which would also be consistent with a GRSP. I am not claiming any degree of certainty about the ID, but these relatively poor photos show enough GRSP-esque features that I believe caution is warranted.
Dennis S.	8 Jun 2024	Acc	Photos and adequate report leave only a few concerns. Some distinct characters were not mentioned - back markings and coloration, white tips of tail visable in flight. Too bad distinct song was never heard by anyone. Was seen by several capable birders.
2nd round:	17 Jun 2024	No, ID	From 1st round comments it's apparent most of us were leaning towards acceptance, but still having concerns with plus and minus characters. I am still about 60/40 in favor of acceptance, but maybe the conservative route should be taken - based both on the non-thorough written description and the non-supportive photos.
Mark S.	4 Jun 2024	Acc	Head shape, bill size/shape, and overall paleness/plainness eliminate Grasshopper Sparrow, and the only other possibility would seem to be the even less likely Botteri's Sparrow. But the bill and head shape seem better for Cassin's, and the one photo where we can see the upper surface of the tail shows dark center ribs that are better for Cassin's. The pale central crown stripe is an feature of some Cassin's Sparrows, including one that I documented here in San Blas last winter. For me, Cassin's is the clear best-fit for this bird.
2nd round:	23 Jun 2024	Acc	I saw the additional photo after making my vote, and thought, "oh, I'll bet some will think Grasshopper Sparrow, from that central crown stripe." But I remembered that the Cassin's Sparrow I found here in January, identified by both sight and calls, had a fairly prominent central crown stripe. The crown stripes in these photos are entirely consistent with Cassin's Sparrow. There are a number of features, primarily structural, that help eliminate Grasshopper Sparrow. Specifically, The bill size/shape relative to the head/forehead is wrong for GRSP; the head is too rounded and small relative to the body for GRSP; the tail appears to be too long relative to the body; the body may not be plump enough for GRSP, the facial markings, while perhaps within the range of variation for GRSP, are otherwise too plain, especially for a Spring individual; the back markings look to pale for GRSP; and finally, the tail cocked posture visible in one of the photos is common in CASP, but I've rarely seen it in GRSP. While there is no doubt some overlap and interpretation differences in these characteristics, especially given the marginal quality of these photos, it would be unlikely for all of them to line up behind CASP if this were indeed a GRSP. I have a hard time seeing a GRSP here, and think there is enough evidence to accept this record. You can see my photos on this eBird checklist:
David W.	13 Jun 2024	Acc	I am a bit troubled by the strong median crown stripe, but I think it falls within the range of this species. I suppose we are fortunate in the early date of this sighting so we can rule out most sparrow juveniles.
2nd round:	15 Jul 2024	No, ID	Since my first round vote I've talked to someone (a birder of great skill) who actually saw the sparrow and they were not convinced of the ID despite being listed as one of the observers in the Sightings section. As a result, my doubt expressed in the first round has been amplified to the point where I will change my vote to NO. I still think it is likely the observer(s) saw a Cassin's due to the shape, but I am no longer sure just what they saw.
Kevin W.	4 Jun 2024	Acc	This one is tricky for me, as there are other similar species and the photos aren't the greatest. I was looking for the unique back pattern found on Cassin's, and I think photo E shows this the best. Other things, like the short pointed beak, the yellow lores, light eyering, divided crown, and pink legs all checked the appropriate boxes.
2nd round:	8 Jul 2024	No, ID	Changing my vote. It seems that the photos just don't make a clear case for eliminating Grasshopper from possibility.

2024-27 Ruddy Turnstone

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	28 May 2024	Acc	Looks good for RUTU
Keeli M.	21 May 2024	Acc	Great photos and good find!
Bryant O.	14 May 2024	Acc	Nice pics
Kris P.	4 Jun 2024	Acc
Mike S.	10 Jun 2024	Acc	Good photos show a distinctive Ruddy Turnstone in breeding plumage.
Dennis S.	16 May 2024	Acc
Mark S.	4 Jun 2024	Acc	No possible doubt here.
David W.	30 May 2024	Acc	Photos clearly show this species.
Kevin W.	12 Jun 2024	Acc	Photos show very distinctive pattern of a Ruddy Turnstone.

2024-28 Zone-tailed Hawk

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	28 May 2024	Acc	Looks good for ZTHA, good description.
Keeli M.	21 May 2024	Acc	Description and photos are supportive of ID. Shape of silhouette and description help rule out COBH.
Bryant O.	19 May 2024	Acc	Conclusive description supported by photos
Kris P.	6 Jun 2024	Acc	I briefly wished Ryan had given the dark Buteos a more thorough treatment, but it's probably not necessary given the mid-May dates. I think the record documents the Zone-tailed adequately, the multiple sightings are a plus, and even the marginal photos are helpful. What an experience this must have been to see a Zone-tailed fly by 20 feet outside the kitchen window.
Mike S.	13 Jun 2024	Acc	Photos combined with the written description establish the ID. Nice record for Garfield County.
Dennis S.	8 Jun 2024	Acc	Even with blurry photos, characteristic white tail band and bill coloration can be noted.
Mark S.	5 Jun 2024	Acc	Excellent documentation supported with definitive photos.
David W.	5 Jun 2024	Acc	Photos confirm observer's claim that the bird is shaped like a Zone-tailed hawk and not a Black hawk, etc.
Kevin W.	12 Jun 2024	Acc	Photos show yellow ceres and distinctive white tail-band of Zone-tailed Hawk. The wing pattern is more Zone-tailed Hawk-like than a Black Hawk would be.

2024-29 Least Tern

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	28 May 2024	Acc	Acc
Keeli M.	21 May 2024	Acc	Awesome find! The combination of small size, yellow bill, and white forehead rule everything else out.
Bryant O.	20 May 2024	Acc	Good Photos leave no doubt
Kris P.	7 Jun 2024	Acc	The size comparison with the Spotty is somewhat mysterious and I couldn't tell who was smaller than whom, but all the other details add up.
Mike S.	13 Jun 2024	Acc	Photos show a Least Tern.
Dennis S.	7 Jun 2024	Acc
Mark S.	5 Jun 2024	Acc	Excellent documentation.
David W.	30 May 2024	Acc	Seen by many.
Kevin W.	12 Jun 2024	Acc	Photos show distinctive yellow bill and crowned pattern of Least Tern.

1999-01A Field Sparrow (Photos for 1-1999)

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	28 May 2024	Acc	Photos support Field Sparrow - looks like maybe this was an accepted provisional record without physical documentation? I guess it is kind of weird that the photos are surfacing after such a long period of time.
Keeli M.	9 Jun 2024	Acc	Photos are really dark and don't do much to support this record, although I think they do kind of hint at the blank-faced appearance of a FISP. I believe based on the write-up that the original record was credible even if the photos don't provide a ton of support.
Bryant O.	16 May 2024	Acc	Photos do look good for a Field Sparrow, so there we have it, physical evidence!
Kris P.	6 Jun 2024	Acc	What a great find in Colby's archives. It's amazing that more people didn't get photos given that this sparrow stayed for several months.
Mike S.	13 Jun 2024	Acc	Photos show a Field Sparrow. Nice to have the supplemental photo-documentation with this older record! I'm glad Colby was able to dig these up...
Dennis S.	16 May 2024	Acc	I was one of several who observed the bird.
Mark S.	5 Jun 2024	Acc	Good documentation, and now with photos. I remember seeing this bird.
David W.	13 Jun 2024	Acc
Kevin W.	12 Jun 2024	Acc	The eyering, rufous crown, and distinct facial pattern look like Field Sparrow to me.

2024-30 White-rumped Sandpiper

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Max M.	28 May 2024	Acc	Very nice photos.
Keeli M.	9 Jun 2024	Acc	Photos and description are supportive. Long wings, crisp streaking on sides, elongated body and wings, but without the buffy tan wash on shoulders and breast that you should see on a BASP.
Bryant O.	27 May 2024	Acc	Cold gray tones, long primary projection, streaked flanks, all add up to WRSA
Kris P.	8 Jun 2024	Acc	An excellent record; well-documented and defended; terrific photos. This should be the standard for what a great job a person can do documenting a rarity even if it's a lifer and no one else sees it.
Mike S.	13 Jun 2024	Acc	Great photos show a White-rumped Sandpiper.
Dennis S.	7 Jun 2024	Acc
Mark S.	5 Jun 2024	Acc	A little rusty visible on the shoulder, the fine streaks on the breast and flanks, the stronger eye line, and orange base to the mandible all point to White-rumped. The date is late for Baird's, but consistent with previous White-rumped records in Utah.
David W.	13 Jun 2024	Acc	Great photos.
Kevin W.	13 Jun 2024	Acc	The long wingtips would eliminate all but similar Baird's Sandpiper, and the lack of buffy coloring on the chest eliminate that species.