|
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 |
|
Keeli M. |
21 May 2024 |
Acc |
Immature plumage in Feb coupled with photos seem
supportive to me of ID as YBSA. |
|
Bryant
O. |
9
Jun 2024 |
To 2nd |
I'd like to see some discussion
on this, not sure hybrid has been addressed? |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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." |
|
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. |
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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] |
|
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). |
|
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. |
|
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. |
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. |
|