Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society
   
Status & Comments
Year 2024 (records 31 through 60)

2024-31 Zone-tailed Hawk

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 6 Jun 2024 Acc  Nice documentation photo in expected area.
Keeli M. 23 Jun 2024 Acc Great photo and description supportive of ID.
Bryant O. 30 May 2024 Acc Nice photo of an adult
Kris P. 6 Jun 2024 Acc  
Mike S. 13 Jun 2024 Acc Definitive photos at a known location.
Dennis S. 8 Jun 2024 Acc Ventral flight photos leave no shadow of doubt. Often seen in this area.
Mark S. 7 Jun 2024 Acc Good documentation; photo shows Zone-tailed Hawk.
David W. 5 Jun 2024 Acc Good photo and writeup.
Kevin W. 13 Jun 2024 Acc Photos show the banded tail and lightly barred underwing characteristic of the species.

 

2024-32 Common Gallinule

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 11 Jun 2024 No, ID Again - the slough of records from this observer with no physical evidence and no re-finds despite many birders visiting the site is a bit concerning. I could be convinced otherwise, and I am not sure what other species this would be confused with, but I am hesitant to accept.

2nd round:

31 Jul 2024 Acc Changing my vote to accept based on other member’s comments. I agree that this record really couldn’t be confused with anything else, just wish we had some additional evidence or observations.
Keeli M.  2nd: 21 Jul 2024 Acc Accepting this record because the written description seems to support ID and rule out anything else it could be, but echoing others' concerns that no one else has been able to relocate or confirm this bird.
Bryant O. 7 Jun 2024 No, ID I'm confused by the main ID feature, Candy Corn Bill? Aren't Candy Corns orange, yellow and white? Not red with a yellow tip? No mention of brown on back and white line on side. Maybe a Coot with a yellow stained bill? No one else has reported this bird, seems questionable.

2nd round:

31 Jul 2024 No, ID I still think there are a number of problems with this record. A) There is no actual description of the color of the bill, just "Candy Corn" which is not a color. A lot of assumption is going into that statement. Also juvenile coots often have yellow bills that could be called "Candy Corn". See  https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/589138571 B)Coots also have white butts(UTC), less white but its still there. C)There is poor habitat. COGA like marshes, Sand Hollow res. has only a few small marshes, most shoreline is open sand and open water, unless things have dramatically changed. There are a lot of problems with Washington county COGA records because they were not flagged on the filter until after 2018, and many reports on eBird are questionable at best and most just plain bad data. But despite that there is only 1 ever report of COGA at Sand Hollow, in 2018 with no comments, which puts it in the bad data camp. D)This was also during the time a lot of other birders were there looking for rarities, why did no one else report one? This is all even without considering the reliability of the observer.
Kris P. 8 Jun 2024 Acc A straightforward record. The description mentions the bill color, white flank line and white in the tail, and eliminates coots. Check, check, check and check.

2nd round:

18 Jul 2024 Acc No change in opinion. I think this documentation is sufficient to establish the ID and eliminate the coot.
Mike S. 26 Jun 2024 Acc I believe the written description (particularly the bill) eliminates similar species. The relatively high water levels at Sand Hollow have recently created some good habitat for this species with flooded vegetation at the southeast end of the reservoir.

2nd round:

2 Aug 2024 Acc While I wish the description provided a bit more clarity, I still believe it adequately establishes the ID.
Dennis S. 11 Jun 2024 Acc The descriptions lack several additional distinguishing characters, but there's probably enough for acceptance.

2nd round:

29 Jul 2024 Acc No additional serious problems with acceptance.
Mark S. 7 Jun 2024 Acc Description fit this distinctive bird and adequately eliminates similar species.
David W. 13 Jun 2024 Acc Paul sure has been seeing a lot of good birds lately.

2nd round:

15 Jul 2024 Acc Continuing to accept. Nothing else I know on this side of the ocean matches this description.
Kevin W. 14 Jun 2024 Acc Seems like the colored bill and white in the tail eliminate similar coots.

2nd round:

7 Jul 2024 Acc Continuing to accept. I think the description eliminates other possibilities, and the habitat is appropriate.

 

2024-33 Chestnut-sided Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 6 Jun 2024 Acc Observer has experience with eastern warblers, and description eliminates other potential candidates. I can't think of any other warbler that this could be confused with.
Bryant O. 7 Jun 2024 Acc Good field notes by an observer familiar with this species.
Kris P. 9 Jun 2024 Acc  
Mike S. 26 Jun 2024 Acc Good written documentation eliminates similar species.
Dennis S. 8 Jun 2024 Acc Good detailed report and discussion with son.
Mark S. 7 Jun 2024 Acc Excellent description.
David W. 5 Jun 2024 Acc Very thorough and convincing description of a distinctive species.
Kevin W. 14 Jun 2024 Acc The description, including the chestnut flanks, clean belly, and facial markings all seem good for Chestnut-sided Warbler.

   

2024-34 Laughing Gull

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 11 Jun 2024 Acc Nicely documented by many.
Keeli M. 7 Jul 2024 Acc Dark wing-tips support ID and differentiation from FRGU as all FRGU should have at least a little white in the wing tips. BOGU would be noticeably smaller and daintier.
Bryant O. 7 Jun 2024 Acc Great photos support ID. I believe it is a 2nd cycle bird.
Kris P. 11 Jun 2024 Acc A robust record. All the details, the willingness to consult with others and the photos are strong points, not to mention lots of subsequent observers.
Mike S. 26 Jun 2024 Acc Photos show a Laughing Gull. All black wingtips and long, drooping bill eliminates similar species. I also observed/photographed this bird with Rick Fridell + Steve & Cindy Sommerfeld on June 5th.
Dennis S. 9 Jun 2024 Acc  
Mark S. 7 Jun 2024 Acc Good description; photos show a Laughing Gull.
David W. 13 Jun 2024 Acc Convincing photos showing the decurved bill. Seen by many.
Kevin W. 14 Jun 2024 Acc Good photos submitted, showing no white in the primaries/ wingtips, eliminating similar, expected, and also present Franklin's Gull

 

2024-35 Least Tern

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 11 Jun 2024 No, ID Same concerns as the other records submitted by this observer. "Target species based on Ebird bar charts" with a species like LETE in Utah gives me pause. He mentions here that he has a Nikon Camera, why not use it to obtain a photo?

2nd round:

31 Jul 2024 No, ID I agree that there isn’t quite enough detail included in this record to be confident that this was without a doubt a Least Tern. More details about the age, white forehead, leg color would be helpful. It sounds like there may have been others who observed the bird, I may change my vote if additional information would be provided to substantiate the record.
Keeli M. 7 Jul 2024 Acc Reluctantly accepting. It would not be the first record for that area, however, accepting without photographic support makes me hesitant on this record. Small size, tail shape, and yellow bill are diagnostic. The overconfidence of observer gives me pause.

2nd round:

9 Aug 2024 No, ID Also changing my vote because the rest of the committee seem to share my concerns about the overconfidence of the observer's statements and incomplete description..
Bryant O. 7 Jun 2024 No, ID No mention of the white forehead or yellow legs. Size can be deceptive as can color in weird light. Nobody else reported this bird despite a hoard of people looking for the Laughing Gull. All seems sketchy.

2nd round:

31 Jul 2024 No, ID Incomplete description, observer was "looking for this bird" which caused bias. Lots of others there looking at other rarities and didn't report this bird. Unless Rick Fridel also submits a record or comments about this record, his account is hearsay(was that this record or another?)
Kris P. 28 Jun 2024 To 2nd I'm having a very hard time voting in favor of this record despite the observer reporting seeing a yellow bill due to:

-The continuing theme of no evidence and 100% confidence; confidence is not evidence
--This record and several others by this observer have taken on a quality of reporting a bird to a hotline rather than contributing to a database that requires the observer to critically review and defend the sighting, and to provide the strongest substantiation available
- No apparent attempt to substantiate the sighting by finding out if the other observers present saw the bird (perhaps because of being 100% confident). There was time to shore up this sighting with other birders' reports, if there were any
- Not reporting the white forehead and black eye-line, which must have been as visible as a yellow bill
- Comparing the size of the tern with a species not present
- The profoundly low chance that a Least Tern would be present in the first week of June because the eBird bar chart reflected historical sightings during that week. The bar in Utah's eBird bar chart is supported with four sightings during that week in the history of eBird (yes, I checked every one). The bar in Washington County's bar chart is due to one sighting during that week in the history of eBird. And the Least Tern becomes the birder's target bird? And then he logs one? I doubt the observer knew the extremely low likelihood of the species in the state as represented by that bar; I think seeing the bar planted an unrealistic expectation and may have become a case of "I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it." The high improbability of Least Terns in Utah in the first week of June on top of my other doubts has become the factor in sending this record to the second round for discussion.

I'd like everyone's counsel on this: Does the report of the yellow bill overcome all other factors?

I'm also willing to take this discussion to our e-mail list serve as we've done in the past in the rare circumstance of questioning the observer in this manner.

2nd round:

7 Aug 2024 No, ID Several of you shared my concern about Paul not reporting the obvious feature of the white forehead, and that the yellow bill wasn't enough, among other concerns. The black tip on that bill must not be more than about a centimeter long at the most, and so not reporting the more obvious white forehead and high-contrast face pattern are serious omissions.

Mike's knowing other(s) saw this bird means there was back-up for the sighting, not either sought or cited because ... why? I don't have the impression this observer thinks in terms of what he reports requires substantiation and perhaps he has misconstrued the purpose submitting sight records. Hotlines allow birders to say, "I saw this" with no evidence or substantiation; databases require much more. The submission form asks for detailed information and the website educates submitters on how/what to provide. But that information was not offered in this record, and in other recent records.

And so it looks like this is an important sighting given the very unlikely date that will not become part of the database given incomplete reporting, a history of no evidence/other observers/observer credibility.
Mike S. 5 Jul 2024 No, ID I don't believe I can accept based on the documentation provided, which is unfortunate since this bird was also observed by Rick Fridell (and possibly others) later this day. Unfortunately, I can't use that as a review criteria without photos or additional write-ups.

Almost the entire description is based on the small size and yellow bill, which are useful field marks (particularly the bill). However, I am troubled by the description of a black cap without any note of a white forehead, which is one of the most obvious features of this species.

I don't have too much doubt that a Least Tern was present, and the timing would be consistent with past records of this species (apparently why the observer was targeting this species to begin with). However, I don't believe the documentation here quite rises to a level that I am comfortable with accepting.

2nd round:

2 Aug 2024 No, ID No change of opinion. 
Dennis S. 11 Jun 2024 Acc I'm not "100% certain" of his ID, the overall description leaves much to be desired, but again it's defined small size and yellow bill is probably enough for acceptance.

2nd round:

29 Jul 2024 No, ID After rereading the report and the concerns of most voting members 3 or 4 times, I feel comfortable with changing my vote to no positive Id. Again the "100% Confidence" statement of identification ( which again is a turnoff) needs to be supported by 100% reporting of all possible characteristics - "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Mark S. 7 Jun 2024 To 2nd I'd like some discussion on this record. I'm puzzled as to why the observer obsessed over the bill color, and didn't note the obvious white forehead. If the bird had a yellow bill, it would have been in breeding plumage (as expected this time of year). It's far easier to see the white forehead than the bill color. Also, only some Least Terns have a black bill tip, and even those that do only have a tiny black tip. Other than "more agile," there is nothing about Least Tern distinctive, fluttery flight style.

I'm left with size (with apparently no other terns present) and impression of bill color as the only real characteristics to establish this i.d. Neither of those inspire much confidence. From the description, I could make this a pale-billed Forster's.

But please, feel free convince me to accept this record.
David W. 26 Jun 2024 No, ID I'm a bit conflicted by this record. I've always been amazed at how tiny Least terns look compared to all other terns in this part of the world, yet the observer compared its size to a Black tern (which, despite being nearly as short as the Least tern is much more massive in appearance--1.4 vs 2.1 oz per Wikipedia). And yet the description of bill color is very convincing, eliminating a juvie Forster's. Also, the behavior is right.

I'm also troubled by:
-- the lack of other terns in the area for size comparison
-- the lack of face pattern description (which also always struck me as notable whenever I've seen the species)
-- the lack of age in the record (Are we talking about an adult bird, as I suppose, or an immature? Should be an obvious call.).

I was going to pass this to the second round, but the more I read the details, the more I think I'll vote NO instead.

2nd round:

1 Aug 2024 No, ID If others saw this bird, then I hope they submit a record. However, I will not vote to accept this record based on the information provided, for reasons provided in my First Round comments. I think the observer may well have seen a Least tern but he has not provided enough evidence to assuage my concerns. That's unfortunate because this would be a significant record.
Kevin W. 14 Jun 2024 Acc Description of small size, bright yellow bill, and black cap eliminate other possibilities.

2nd round:

7 Aug 2024 No, ID Changing my vote based on concerns raised by others. The report should have been more detailed and included other vital details. The observer could have seen a Least Tern, but doesn’t provide enough information to conclude “100%” that he did.

 

2024-36 Mexican Duck

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 11 Jun 2024 Acc Seems good for MEDU, good write-up and description
Keeli M. 7 Jul 2024 Acc Tail in the photos looks like it might have a little whitish edging that might be wear, or might be a little intergrade, but I think this bird is showing enough MEDU characteristics to accept ID.
Bryant O. 7 Jun 2024 Acc No sign of hybrid on that bird, brown tail no black in rump
Kris P. 11 Jun 2024 Acc  
Mike S. 5 Jul 2024 Acc Photos appear to show a Mexican Duck. I don't believe this individual would stand out when compared to other accepted records of this species.
Dennis S. 9 Jun 2024 Acc  
Mark S. 8 Jun 2024 Acc Good documentation, no signs of hybridization with Mallard. Observer's point regarding the status of this as a review species in Utah is worth consideration.
David W. 13 Jun 2024 Acc Looks to be within our "purity" standards.
Kevin W. 14 Jun 2024 Acc Description, coupled with photos, indicate that dark crown without green, no curl in the tail, yellowish bill, contrast between the neck and breast - all good for Mexican Duck. As the observer indicates, it seems that this species is becoming more common in Northern Arizona, and seems to be in Utah.

 

2024-37 Lark Bunting

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 11 Jun 2024 No, ID Similar concerns to other records submitted by this observer.

2nd round:

31 Jul 2024 No, ID The delayed timing in the submission of the record from the observation is concerning, and I find it interesting that he reported it to the hotline shortly after another LABU sighting. Also – there were a couple of LABU overwintering near Lake Powell, which is probably why he was emailing Alex Harper from Red Rock Audubon Society in Las Vegas – so he probably had LABU on his mind. Something just doesn’t sit right/add up here. I am finding these records by this observer challenging. Even though I think the write-up is pretty solid, It seems like there are too many additional factors here that are causing me to be hesitant. It is pretty easy to convince yourself over time that you saw something you wanted to see.

3rd round:

26 Aug 2024 Acc Thanks to Mike S. for providing the additional information. I agree with others that there is enough to establish the ID, and it helps that he reported it at the time to the local group.
Keeli M. 7 Jul 2024 Acc Given the description with the large white wing bar (covert edging), and description of bill shape, streaky breast and face pattern, and white tail edging, I'm having trouble thinking of anything else it could have been. LASP juveniles might look similar, but observation is wrong time of year for juvenile LASP plumage.

2nd round:

9 Aug 2024 No, ID Changing my vote because after reflection, there's too much doubt in a 6 month old memory record.

3rd round:

29 Aug 2024 Acc Appreciate the additional information as well and changing my vote.
Bryant O. 7 Jun 2024 No, ID Seems to be from memory several month after the fact? To many lose ends here.

2nd round:

31 Jul 2024 No, ID My concerns about this being from memory months after the fact still remain

3rd round:

21 Aug 2024 Acc I guess I read the report wrong, the email does contain the description which sounds like a LARB, which is know to occasionally winter in St. George area.
Kris P. 12 Jun 2024 Acc This record is thorough and the notes shared shortly after the sighting is a plus. It includes the important characters, especially the long whitish wing-patch.

2nd round:

1 Aug 2024 Acc I'm continuing to accept. The details reported are accurate for a Lark Bunting and the timing is right for a wintering bird. Given that Paul composed the substance of the report from an e-mail he sent the day after the sighting, he documented the details of the bird then (additional comments section) and not 6 months after he saw it to produce this record. Also, he stated he was not aware of Mike's sighting until he (Paul) reported this Lark Bunting to the local text group. So I don't see this sighting being produced by the power of suggestion. He wasn't looking for Lark Buntings, said it was a surprise, and wasn't aware of Mike's bird yet.

3rd round:

21 Aug 2024 Acc The source document for the bird's description (additional comments) is dated a day after the sighting, and Mike's offering Paul's text of the bird on the same date of this record further validates that Paul wasn't conjuring the details of the description months after he saw the bird.

These details are correct for a Lark Bunting as is the timing, and so I'll stick with my Accept vote.

I have a theory as to why this observer submitted seven records within a short period of time and why at least this one was months old. Paul is a new resident of Washington County. He said in 2024-19, Least Bittern, that Mike S. informed him the bittern was a review species when he (Paul) reported the bird to the local text group. My theory is that Mike's info made Paul aware of the review list for the first time and so Paul submitted records on review list species he had seen/continued to see in his short tenure here at that time. The Lark Bunting was the oldest sighting, but he also reported and described the bird to others immediately in January which created timely source documents.
Mike S. 9 Jul 2024 Acc Adequate written documentation establishes the ID.

2nd round:

12 Aug 2024 Acc I still believe the combination of features described is adequate for a Lark Bunting and eliminates similar species. For those who are expressing concern about the delayed reporting, I remembered Paul reporting this bird in our local text group so I just did a search and found the following text from January 12:

"Female(?) lark bunting with a host of white crowns etc on Floratech rd. ... Heavy conical bil, broad black lateral throat stripe, base of bill looks black, unusually long, broad wing bar a tad buffy, white tail tip seen in flight. Smaller than nearby female redwing. Pretty good looks."

While that doesn't add much to the ID, it at least shows that this observation was not entirely based on memory months later.

3rd round:

22 Aug 2024 Acc No change of opinion.
Dennis S. 9 Jun 2024 Acc Why so long in reporting?

2nd round:

29 Jul 2024 No, ID Again my #1 concern is why such a delayed time in reporting? Even the reporter admits to " not remembering clearly the details when writing the report, and only" thinking" he could mentally remember the details,doesn't make his observation convincing. A 6 month memory record would never stand up in court!

3rd round:

3 Sep 2024 No, ID No change of opinion.
Mark S. 8 Jun 2024 Acc Good documentation; description fits female-type Lark Bunting, and adequately eliminates similar species.

2nd round:

19 Aug 2024 Acc I still think the description adequately eliminates other species, especially for a species as distinctive as this is, even in the female. I'm not concerned about the delay in submission, that can be caused by any number of factors. Mike's note about the earlier text report adds credence to this record.

It is also worth noting that the timing of this sighting is not outside of know patterns of occurrence for this species.

3rd round:

25 Aug 2024 Acc I appreciate Mike's additional information about this sighting, and more contemporary comments from the observer at the time of the sighting. I don't see any real grounds for rejecting this record based upon the details presented, nor for reasons of extreme rarity or difficulty in identification, and am not comfortable basing judgement on prejudice regarding the observer or timing of the submission.
David W. 26 Jun 2024 Acc This is a soft accept. I wish more effort had been put into differentiating between other sparrows, perhaps with a leucistic patch, but the time of year should make those equally unlikely.

2nd round:

8 Aug 2024 Acc Despite the controversy regarding the timing of the submittal, I continue to vote a very soft accept .

3rd round:

28 Aug 2024 Acc I think most objections to this report have been well addressed, largely due to Mike's diligence (thank you, Mike!). Sounds like a Lark bunting to me.
Kevin W. 6 Jul 2024 Acc Mine is a soft "accept" vote, and I could be swayed. The description seems to match, and I can't fit the description to anything else except maybe a Lark Sparrow or Blue Grosbeak, although the reporter eliminates these as options. It is rare for the species to be in the area mid summer like this, although there's an eBird record in Washington City in August, so maybe not unprecedented.

2nd round:

7 Aug 2024 Acc I note that I was wrong in what I assumed from the report was the date of the
sighting; I was using the date of submission erroneously. Given the time of year observed and the details provided, I don’t see what else it could be.

3rd round:

13 Sep 2024 Acc Continuing to accept based on the details provided.

 

2024-38 Tricolored Heron

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 21 Jun 2024 Acc Looks good for Tri-colored Heron.

2nd round:

31 Jul 2024 Acc While the photos/angle aren’t the best, I am pretty sure that I see white in the neck and belly in photo C, and maybe a little bit in additional photos. Between the written description and photos, I still think there is enough here to be confident that it is a Tricolored Heron, and the likeliness that is a hybrid is much lower than a pure TRHE. Continuing to accept.
Keeli M. 7 Jul 2024 Acc Photos and description support TRHE ID and rule out GBHE and LBHE, although this bird sounds like it had some retained nonbreeding characteristics which seem strange for the time of year.

2nd round:

9 Aug 2024 Acc Continuing to accept this record based on the combination of photos and description. The length and color of the bill, the white in the throat, and the description clinch the ID for me.
Bryant O. 7 Jun 2024 To 2nd I'm confused by how dark this bird is, no photos show white in the belly or throat, although the yellow face is off for a Little Blue. I wonder if a strange hybrid can be eliminated?

2nd round:

10 Jul 2024 No, ID What am I missing here? I don't see a white belly or line down neck of a TRHE, it does have some white in throat, and a yellow bill, so not a LBHE. We can't explain the overly dark plumage as being immature, as immature TRHE are paler than adults with a reddish head and neck, and just as much white.

LBHE X TRHE are known
https://media.ebird.org/catalog?taxonCode=x00696

I imagine there is some variation in that hybrid complex, and that seems the best explanation, even though a hybrid is much less likely than a pure bird.

Am I just nuts to no see this as a TRHE?
Kris P. 16 Jun 2024 Acc This was an excellent effort to tag-team the bird's ID and secure evidence resulting in a thorough record.

2nd round:

1 Aug 2024 Acc The written paragraph David cited describing the bird carried great weight for me because the white underparts are important in this species and the visual evidence doesn't show them well. I love me some evidence, but I think a lot of information can get filtered out inadvertently and we can become overly reliant on pictures when the observers' whole experience has to be taken into account. Thankfully, we have the written description of the bird's lower parts and it matches a Tricolored Heron. One of my first-round notes to myself was "wish I could see the pale neck stripe", and while I can see a little bit on the throat, it's not a satisfying length of stripe. I'm more inclined to agree this was as a result of angle and lighting rather than hybridization.
Mike S. 9 Jul 2024 Acc Photos/video combined with the written description eliminates similar species.

2nd round:

12 Aug 2024 Acc This bird does strike me as a bit odd for the reasons mentioned by Bryant, although a very close examination does appear to show most of the typical TRHE features (thanks to David for that thorough analysis). We probably cannot definitively eliminate a LBHE x TRHE hybrid based on these photos alone, but that hybrid combo is extremely rare with no western records on eBird (and only 4 or 5 east of the Rockies). Overall, I believe the photos and description are consistent with a Tricolored Heron.
Dennis S. 9 Jun 2024 Acc  

2nd round:

29 Jul 2024 Acc The photos may not be completely clear, but the excellent, detailed write-up is convincing enough.
Mark S. 8 Jun 2024 Acc I was preparing to question this record, because the photos and first part of the video gave me a Little Blue Heron vibe (in spite of the white belly/wing linings reported in the written description), but towards the end of the video, the long neck, long thin bill, and white belly of a Tricolored Heron are visible, alleviating my concerns. This is a Tricolored.

2nd round:

19 Aug 2024 Acc Still see sufficient evidence in the video to eliminate other species - this is a Tricolored Heron.
David W. 13 Jun 2024 Acc The excellent writeup was very helpful in differentiating this bird from other small herons.

2nd round:

15 Jul 2024 Acc I agree that the white belly and neck pattern are difficult to see, and it gave me pause upon first seeing the photos, but I think closer inspection shows this to indeed be a Tricolored heron:
1. I think the white belly and "thighs" can clearly be seen in several of the photos, especially A, C, and D.
2. The white "shoulder" on the wing is visible in a couple photos.
3. The long thin bill and facial color clearly match the Tricolored.
4. The neck is never facing us to give a clear view, but even there one can see clear white in the throat of photo A.
5. In some of the photos, there is a barely discernable brownish wash to the back consistent with a Tricolored.

And if the photos are not entirely satisfying, there is the written description which covers the bases:

"The bill was long, with a lighter, yellowish base and darker tip. Once it stretched, lifting its wings, the white belly and underwing coverts were obvious and immediately ruled out the Little Blue Heron idea. There were two short yellowish plumes coming out the back of the head, the front of the neck was yellow with some dark mottling contrasting with a dark breast. The dark breast contrasted with the white belly. The back had light, almost yellow feathers on its lower back. The skin around the eyes was yellow."

When I look at the photos in the interesting link sent by Bryant, I don't see a bird that matches this one. I think the lack of obvious neck stripe in the photos is explained better by angle of the photos than invoking hybridization.

BTW, I cannot get the video to run on my computers, so I cannot use that as evidence either way.
Kevin W. 6 Jul 2024 Acc The photos, showing a dark heron/egret with a white belly and bicolored bill fit Tricolored Heron for me.

2nd round:

7 Aug 2024 Acc Continuing to accept based on the photos and well-written description.

 

2024-39 Chestnut-sided Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 21 Jun 2024 Acc Very weird/interesting song, nice documentation by many.
Keeli M. 23 Jun 2024 Acc Photos and description support ID. Interesting that Merlin failed to ID it for several observers (possibly due to the fact that it would not be on the list of expected species for Utah, but interesting to me nonetheless). Male in breeding plumage singing his little heart out.
Bryant O. 8 Jun 2024 Acc Photo leaves no doubt
Kris P. 9 Jun 2024 Acc  
Mike S. 5 Jul 2024 Acc Nice photos leave no doubt.
Dennis S. 9 Jun 2024 Acc  
Mark S. 8 Jun 2024 Acc Good documentation and photos.
David W. 13 Jun 2024 Acc Well-documented bird.
Kevin W. 6 Jul 2024 Acc Photos show a Chestnut-sided Warbler singing.

 

2024-40 Hooded Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 21 Jun 2024 Acc Recording is spot on for Hooded

2nd round:

31 Jul 2024 Acc I understand concerns over “audio only” without visual confirmation, but the spectrogram matches Hooded Warbler perfectly. The likelihood that a different species of warbler, especially a western species, would learn Hooded Warbler’s song seems much more unlikely. Also – there was another Hooded Warbler with both audio and photos two days later singing at Notch Peak (although we still don’t have a recorded for that individual), so the timing also makes sense. I think the audio is sufficient in this case. Continuing to accept.
Keeli M. 12 Jul 2024 To 2nd I'm not catching the pulsing the observer mentioned in the record, but that could be due to my lack of familiarity with the calls of HOWA and MAWA. It does match the HOWA calls I listened to, however, some of the MAWA calls I listened to are similar enough that I have a hard time accepting this record. Curious what others in the group make of this.

2nd round:

9 Aug 2024 No, ID Still can't get past the recordings of MAWA I listened to that sounded similar enough to make me doubt the ID as HOWO based on two song recordings alone. 
Bryant O. 20 Jun 2024 Acc As much as I wish there was a photo or visual description of the bird, I can't find any other warbler song that match the recorded audio except a Hooded Warbler. I'd be willing to change my vote if someone else can.

2nd round:

8 Aug 2024 Acc Song is a perfect match for HOWA, nothing really similar.
Kris P. 7 Jul 2024 Acc Only two song sequences is not a lot to evaluate given that the bird was singing every 20-30 seconds, but the reported habitat seems right and I appreciate the submitter's experience. I'm accepting as a best match after listening to lots of reference audio files. The Magnolia Warbler is possibly the best comparison candidate, but sweeter, thinner and perhaps higher-pitched, and Fred eliminated this species.

2nd round:

5 Aug 2024 Acc I'm comfortable with accepting this record as an audible only. And as Max mentioned, the sonogram (eBird checklist) is an excellent match.
Mike S. 18 Jul 2024 Acc Too bad there was no visual, but the nice, clear recordings of the song establish the ID. The described behavior of staying "low in trees and underbrush" is consistent with my encounters with this species.

2nd round:

2 Aug 2024 Acc I still believe the audio recordings are more than adequate to establish the ID. Differences from warbler songs of other species may be relatively subtle, but this is still distinctive upon comparison. As others have mentioned, Magnolia Warbler is probably the most likely species to present confusion, but note the "emphatic end" of the Hooded Warbler song (to quote Sibley).
Dennis S. 17 Jun 2024 No, ID Audio by itself is usually insufficient for positive ID, especially in a closely related species such as warblers.

2nd round:

29 Jul 2024 No, ID Still have concerns with an audible only record, especially with the varitability of warblers.
Mark S. 23 Jun 2024 Acc The recording is of a singing Hooded Warbler; the strong, slurred and slow introductory notes eliminate similar warbler songs.

2nd round:

19 Aug 2024 Acc The song is unmistakably that of a Hooded Warbler.
David W. 7 Jul 2024 Acc I'm hesitant to accept based on audible-only ID, but the songs sure do sound like a Hooded warbler.

2nd round:

8 Aug 2024 Acc Still sounds like a Hooded warbler to me.
Kevin W. 6 Jul 2024 Acc It's too bad that he didn't see the bird, but the recorded song is pretty distinctive.

2nd round:

7 Aug 2024 Acc I still believe the song provided is distinct enough to conclude that it is a Hooded Warbler and not another species.

 

2024-41 Bay-breasted Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 28 Jun 2024 Acc This was a very odd and unexpected sighting, and too bad it didn't stick around. I wonder if it would have remained singing on territory if the pair of nuthatches hadn't been bumping it?
Keeli M. 21 Jul 2024 Acc Excellent diagnostic photos. Cool find!
Bryant O. 22 Jun 2024 Acc Photos leave no doubt
Kris P. 9 Jul 2024 Acc Very nice record.
Mike S. 18 Jul 2024 Acc Great documentation of a nice male in breeding plumage!
Dennis S. 21 Jul 2024 Acc No questions
Mark S. 23 Jun 2024 Acc Good photos, description; unmistakable.
David W. 26 Jun 2024 Acc Who am I to argue with a three-foot camera lens... [That's just envy creeping in.]
Nice record with good description and photos!
Kevin W. 19 Jul 2024 Acc Photos show distinctive pattern of Bay-breasted Warbler

 

2024-42 White-winged Crossbill

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 28 Jun 2024 To 2nd The description fits WWCR, but without photos or being documented by others I am skeptical of this individual's records. Curious to know what other folks think.

2nd round:

26 Aug 2024 Acc

I agree that it helps to have additional observers at this location. I also agree that it makes sense for this to remain a separate record, and appreciate DW's breakdown. Seems to be good numbers of WWCR in Utah this year (and decent numbers in recent years).
Keeli M. 21 Jul 2024 To 2nd While I think this could be a plausible observation given the proximity to a location where White-winged Crossbill have been documented, observer does not adequately discuss how similar species such as CAFI, HOFI, or PIGR were ruled out and PIGR specifically are fairly similar enough in appearance to confuse the two. The calls are different enough that it could be supportive of ID, but I just am having a hard time with this one, especially given the short reported observation time (1 min)

2nd round:

29 Aug 2024 Acc

Additional observers also raise my confidence level in this observation. Agree this record should be separate even though locations are fairly close.
Bryant O. 26 Jun 2024 No, ID Inadequate description does not address possibility of RECR with wing bars, which is not uncommon. Songs overlap, flight calls distinctive, observer seem unfamiliar with this fact.

2nd round:

28 Aug 2024 Acc

I agree this record should be separated from the Redman Campground record. Since I did observe this species at Silver Lake on the Brighton Bird Count on 7/13, I can say it is indeed present there, even if the record itself doesn't meet muster. Hard to vote against a record of a bird you know is present, even if details are sparce.
Kris P. 9 Jul 2024 Acc Good description of call; that one of them was both heard and seen is a plus.

2nd round:

21 Aug 2024 Acc

David's first paragraph in his second round comments so perfectly elucidates what I feel about records from this observer that I can't describe my thoughts any better: "...weary displeasure...". Yes.

The details in this record are accurate for a White-winged Crossbill and it's not an outlandish report considering the habitat, elevation, and well-documented presence by other birders just a half-mile away.
Mike S. 25 Jul 2024 No, ID Although other recent reports have clearly documented White-winged Crossbills in nearby areas (such as record # 2024-48), I don't believe the documentation in this particular sight record is adequate to accept as a standalone record.

2nd round:

22 Aug 2024 Acc

I will change my vote, as I see that there was a large Tracy Aviary group that identified a WWCR at this same location on July 13, which bolsters my confidence in the presence of this species at this location.

As long as we are treating this as a separate record from nearby 2024-48, I suggest revising the Sightings Summary page to clearly separate the WWCR observations from this location (Silver Lake) from the Redman CG observations, rather than listing them all together in one bulleted list.
Dennis S. 21 Jul 2024 Acc None

2nd round:

3 Sep 2024 Acc

The written description still seems valid enough.
Mark S.   2nd: 25 Jul 2024 Acc Without considering the history of the observer, nothing in this record would suggest grounds for rejection - the description clearly rules out similar species, and would certainly be sufficient for acceptance by this committee if submitted by a different observer. Not that considerations of credibility should be ignored, but in this case we have a species that's not difficult to identify, is irruptive, and thus not at all rare in certain years, and we have numerous reports from other observers that show this to be one of those irruptive years, when this species is not truly rare.

I see no legitimate reason to reject this record.
David W. 26 Jun 2024 Acc The description and location check out.

2nd round:

14 Aug 2024 Acc

I won't pretend that I am unfamiliar with the observer's long-standing, self-inflicted lack of credibility and his notoriety for changing bird IDs after the fact, and I have heard rumors that this sighting fell into that well-worn category, but I there is nothing in this record itself that would allow me to come to any conclusion other than White-winged crossbill. If others on the Committee wish to introduce other information as to why this particular record is suspect, I would welcome it. Until someone does, though, I will with weary displeasure stick to the record as presented.

Let me address some of the possible alternative species suggested by my fellow voters:
-- Pine grosbeak: this would be a great possibility were it not for the bill shape being described as crossed at the tip and the song. This argument also works for House finch and Cassin's finch (the latter also being pink like a Pine grosbeak).
-- Red crossbill: This bird was described as rose pink, not orangey-red. The wings were described as having two white wing bars, not pale hints of wing bars. The description of the song is a much better match for a White-winged crossbill than a Red crossbill (though I would have personally chosen "trill" over "chatter".
-- I agree with Mike that this should be a stand-alone record, but I also personally believe that there is enough evidence presented in the record for the ID to be correct as presented.
Kevin W. 19 Jul 2024 Acc The description seems good. I don't really think that photos of birds nearby confirm this record, but at least they indicate that the species is in the area.

2nd round:

6 Dep 2024 Acc I think that the description fits best for White-winged Crossbill.

 

2024-43 Painted Bunting

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 8 Jul 2024 Acc Great bird, nice photo documentation
Keeli M. 21 Jul 2024 Acc Absolutely amazing find. Glad they got photos.
Bryant O. 1 Jul 2024 Acc Photos show an adult male Painted Bunting without a doubt
Kris P. 14 Jul 2024 Acc No question on the ID, and I think the bird's bright red underparts absent of yellow, plus the fine condition of the tip of the tail, establish that this bird is wild and not a cage escapee. The belly feathers are pale in only a minor way and given that the photos are over-exposed, they're probably within the rich color range of a wild bird.

The timing is very odd. I wouldn't expect this species to be on the move for molt migration and wandering into the mountain west before late July at the earliest. There are very, very few records in June.

I'm disappointed in this record for a different reason: I'm weary of records missing information that the observer could fill in easily.
Mike S. 25 Jul 2024 Acc Photos clearly show a male Painted Bunting. I searched for this bird the following day and had no luck (same thing goes for at least 3 other birders I ran into at Lava Point). Great find by Toni!
Dennis S. 21 Jul 2024 Acc Good photo
David W. 7 Jul 2024 Acc Clearly a male Painted bunting. The bird doesn't appear overly worn, so I have no reason to assume it is an escapee.
Kevin W. 19 Jul 2024 Acc Photos show unmistakable Painted Bunting

   

2024-44 Rivoli's Hummingbird

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 8 Jul 2024 Acc Excellent record for northern Utah. Hope that it comes back so I can visit.
Keeli M. 21 Jul 2024 Acc Would have been nice to get photos showing size comparison with other hummer sp., but the photos are good quality and show all of the characteristics described in the thorough write-up. Cool find.
Bryant O. 5 Jul 2024 Acc Great find by Lee
Kris P. 14 Jul 2024 Acc Thorough record; excellent photos. Seeing this bird has been the high point of the summer. Thank you, Bryant.
Mike S. 6 Jul 2024 Acc Great photos and written documentation leave no doubt! Nice record.
Dennis S. 21 Jul 2024 Acc None
David W. 9 Jul 2024 Acc Jumbo hummingbird with a proportionately longer bill than a Blue-throated mtn-gem and with dark green central rectrices. What's not to love? Lauri Taylor took a good photo with a Black-chinned for comparison that shows the size difference.
Kevin W. 19 Jul 2024 Acc Good photos show, I believe, distinctive characteristics that would rule out similar (but maybe more unlikely) Blue-throated Hummingbird - namely the green rump and tail compared to the gold rump and dark tail of the Blue-throated.

 

2024-45 Pyrrhuloxia

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 15 Jul 2024 Acc Kind of torn on this one - seems fairly minimal detail in this written record but with the traits described, location, date and behavior I am not really sure what else it could be. Soft accept

2nd round:

26 Aug 2024 No, ID I was very hesitant to accept in the first round, thanks to other members for pointing out the lack of any red and the possibility of a JUTI. Switching my vote.
Keeli M. 21 Jul 2024 No, ID While I think it's a potentially plausible observation, the observer didn't discuss how they ruled out juvenile plumage cardinals which could have very similar coloration as the bird described. There's enough doubt there for me, without any additional supporting information or photos, I'm having a hard time saying yes.

2nd round:

29 Aug 2024 No, ID Agree with concerns about ID and didn't consider similarity to JUTI as well. Don't think there's enough evidence here to rule out JUTI, NOCA, or PHAI.
Bryant O. 10 Jul 2024 No, ID I'm concerned no red was observed in the plumage, even a juvy PYRR should have some red in the crown and wings. Juniper Titmouse was not considered or ruled out, but the description seems a spot on match for a JUTI, which always seem bigger than expected.

2nd round:

28 Aug 2024 No, ID Seems most of us have concerns with this record. Not seeing Red is a big problem. In addition to JUTI, female PHAI was also not well eliminated and only 1 field was used to dismiss it. I've had the experience that sometimes birds will have something large in their mouth that makes their bill look larger than it is, this could have easily been the case here with either of these species. Either way, description inadequate to eliminate all possibilities.
Kris P. 17 Jul 2024 No, ID I don't feel convinced on this ID given how sparse the description is, the species' tendency not to wander and the short observation time. I sure would like to have read about red/rufous in the folded wings or tail given the bright light and binoculars use. Could this bird have been a Juniper Titmouse? Maybe that's an outlandish suggestion given the bill detail, but the minimal description doesn't clinch it for me. I'm very interested in hearing arguments otherwise.

2nd round:

21 Aug 2024 No, ID Not reporting seeing any red on this bird is a resounding weakness of this record considering the bird was 30 feet away in bright light and the observer was using binoculars with excellent optics. There also should be a sense here of the importance of seeing the red color on this species so rare for Utah, but there's not, and the sparse details of the record don't make up for not reporting that critical but limited red.

One of the records committee suggestions is to report not seeing details that the observer knows are critical to the bird's ID. Perhaps all submitters don't know this because they don't read how to submit a report, but I think it's especially critical on this species that the observer didn't mention the color or that he even knew a juvenile Pyrrhuloxia should have some limited red.
Mike S. 1 Aug 2024 No, ID There are not enough details provided to establish the ID of an extremely rare species for Utah.

2nd round:

22 Aug 2024 No, ID I still believe the description comes up short for such an extremely rare species. The only field mark that may eliminate PHAI is the "thick bill," which would describe a PYRR, but is not adequate as a stand-alone feature to rule out a much more common species (particularly for the reasons mentioned by David).

I also agree with others that no mention of Juniper Titmouse in the similar species section is concerning.
Dennis S. 1 Aug 2024 Acc Key characters noted. maybe more details could have been included, but what else could it have been? Could certainly have used a photo - as always!!

2nd round:

3 Sep 2024 No, ID My initial concerns were certainly echoed by other committee members, enough so to change my vote.
Mark S.   2nd: 25 Aug 2024 No, ID As most other committee members have noted, and for the same reasons as stated by others, I don't see enough in this description to eliminate other species and accept a record of this rarity.
David W. 15 Jul 2024 To 2nd This is just such a rare bird in Utah and the description so sparse, that I am left without enough evidence to make a decisive judgement. The thick bill is a good sign, though I wish the observer had mentioned the almost spherical shape rather than just the thickness. Could it have been a Phainopepla choking down a berry?? And why did no one else see this bird in such a visited place? On the other hand, 30 seconds is a good long look. I am very undecided on this one.

2nd round:

28 Aug 2024 No, ID The comments of my fellow Committee members have not assuaged my doubts. I will vote NO because of insufficient evidence rather than the presence of evidence against the ID.
Kevin W. 6 Jul 2024 No, ID There were 13+ pyrrholoxias reported on ebird from Grafton a few weeks ago (https://ebird.org/checklist/S179831174); it was obvious that these birds were misidentified, as nobody else has documented an outbreak of these extremely rare birds to Utah. While the description in this report are a little better, the description describes the bird as "just like a cardinal but gray and thinner crest" - a gray cardinal doesn't seem very Pyrrhloxia-like to me. More likely a Phainopepla, although the reporter indicates that the bill was "way too thick" to rule out that species.

2nd round:

6 Sep 2024 No, ID Continue to think that this was some other species and misidentified. The description just doesn't give enough detail for me.

 

2024-46 Boreal Owl

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 15 Jul 2024 No, ID Not sure if there is necessarily enough to confirm here that they can eliminate Northern Saw-whet Owl? Unrecognizable weird noises, short view of a flyover bird, and size isn't always a reliable field mark (seemingly more so with a short view in flashlight). "White face" - NSWO definitely have some white/lighter colors to their face. I know this group has been regularly finding and documenting BOOW, but this is by far the least detailed and confident record. With three separate observers with different experiences and "deliberation" of a target species, it seems like it would be pretty easy to talk yourselves into seeing what you wanted to. Also they saw a NSWO in the immediate vacinity. . .I would like to hear other committee members thoughts.

2nd round:

26 Aug 2024 No, ID I still don't believe that NSWO can be adequately eliminated. As Kris has noted, this record is not nearly the well-documented sighting that is typical for this group.
Keeli M. 21 Jul 2024 Acc I appreciate the thoroughness of this write-up and the care and effort put into a thoughtful contemplation of the ID of this bird, and agree that given the characteristics described, BOOW is the likely ID of the owl they observed.

2nd round:

18 Sep 2024 No, ID I still think that the observers' experience here makes this a very likely observation, but after some contemplation of this record, agree that due to the lack of supporting documentation, they haven't adequately eliminated NSWO. I also agree with what Max commented, that it can be easy to talk yourself into seeing what you want to see. Changing my vote.
Bryant O. 10 Jul 2024 No, ID Poor looks at night of a owl flitting about overhead, size can be extremely hard to accurately judge under these conditions but seems to be their only field mark to rule out Saw-whet. Both show a streaked belly and white facial disc(especially in a flashlight), no definitive calls that aid the ID. Also this is poor marginal BOOW habitat, in a range they are not known from at a time of year they don't wander. My families cabin was near here, there are lots of Saw-whet, lots of Aspen and the few patches of conifers are small, scattered and discontinuous, and were hit hard by bark-beetles 20 years ago. There is no proof this was not a Saw-whet, despite their assurances otherwise.

2nd round:

28 Aug 2024 No, ID No one has made a compelling case for this record, and an additional factor here is these observers were "looking" for this species in their home county, that creates observer bias since we all want to see what we are looking for. This record really stands out in habitat, elevation, and known range and needs to be carefully vetted. I had a recent experience of a NSWO coming in to BOOW calls, and it is VERY hard to tell these species apart in the field, a photo of the bill color or hearing the SONG is needed to clinch ID, size is extremely unreliable for owls at night.
Kris P. 1 Aug 2024 No, ID I'm concerned that a short observation of a moving bird at night under bright illumination skews perception of size, distance and colors. Pale features like the facial disk could look even paler in bright light and numerical size estimates could be wildly wrong.

The sounds the bird made were enough only to grab attention, not to ID the bird to species, and some of the description is not very distinct from the saw-whet. I think these observers documented every impression they got. It was the moving short view that limited what could be gleaned distinctively different from the saw-whet.

This record also has a couple of strengths that make me feel not completely firm in my vote: Observing a saw-whet moments apart is one, and the fact that Jeff is very likely the state's most experienced Boreal Owler in addition to significant experience with other mountain owl species is the other. I'm not sure those two things are enough given my other concerns about the challenge of the sighting itself.

2nd round:

21 Aug 2024 No, ID No change in opinion; just more words to flesh out my first-round impressions. Well-documented evidence-based records have become Jeff's norm on documenting this species. That every sighting doesn't meet that standard is the frustrating reality of owling or birding in general. I don't think the details available on this bird eliminate the saw-whet and measure up to what the committee should accept.
Mike S. 12 Aug 2024 No, ID I really appreciate the extensive write-up and overall effort to document this individual. However, I have some concerns that the field marks provided are not definitive for a Boreal Owl, and I don't believe a Northern Saw-whet Owl can be eliminated. eBird records indicate that NSWO would certainly be more common/expected at this location. Part of the ID is based on size, which I suspect would be difficult to determine under these conditions (at night with flashlights, in flight, naked eye, no nearby comparison with another bird, etc.). There are other subtle field marks that may suggest BOOW, but under these conditions, I have my doubts that the human eye can positively discern subtle detail to eliminate a similar species (to be clear, not a criticism of these particular observers). The experience of some of the observers does cause me to pause a bit, but for now I do not feel comfortable accepting this record.

2nd round:

4 Sep 2024 No, ID The only amendment I'd like to make to my first round comment is that the observers did apparently observe a NSWO at this same location (as others have noted). However, the differences noted with this individual are very subtle, and size is almost never a reliable field mark unless there is a direct, side-by-side comparison with another bird or other object.

Some of the observers are very experienced with BOOW and I wouldn't be too surprised if that is what they saw. However, I don't see the documentation rising to the level of acceptance, particularly in these difficult viewing conditions in an area where NSWO is the more likely species.
Dennis S. 22 Jul 2024 Acc Very detail and excellent description.

2nd round:

3 Sep 2024 Acc Along with the excellent report the observers experience with this species is the contributing factor.
Mark S. 19 Aug 2024 Acc Excellent description and analysis by experienced observers.

2nd round:

25 Aug 2024 Acc I think that the experience of the observers, along with the fact that Saw Whet Owl - the only other candidate species - was seen only moments from this sighting, gives credence to an otherwise less than ideal observation. I believe the analysis given in the excellent written description is correctly reasoned, and sufficient for acceptance of a non-exceptional record.
David W. 18 Jul 2024 Acc This is a very soft ACCEPT (borderline). Jeff is definitely the premier Boreal finder (perhaps outside the secretive ranks of the DNR), but this was not a sighting with Jeff's usual excellent photos or an audible confirmation. Still, several soft field marks combine to make the sighting credible, especially considering the experience of the observer(s). Were it not for the fact that Boreal owls are now regularly seen in many high elevation areas (mostly by Jeff and his expedition partners), I would have voted NO.

2nd round:

5 Sep 2024 No, ID I suppose I should be consistent with my usual conservative approach to the records. I still believe that Jeff and crew saw a Boreal owl, but I also agree that the evidence for this sighting is very marginal.
Kevin W. 19 Jul 2024 Acc detailed description and comparison between observers eliminates other likely owls, including Saw-whet.

2nd round:

13 Sep 2024 No, ID As others point out, the description lacks enough details to be sure of the identification (even though they may have truly seen a Boreal Owl). I change my vote.

 

 

2024-47 Orchard Oriole

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 15 Jul 2024 Acc Nice photo of breeding plumage male.
Keeli M. 21 Jul 2024 Acc Write-up leaves something to be desired, but the photo provides solid ID support.
Bryant O. 10 Jul 2024 Acc Great photo!
Kris P. 1 Aug 2024 Acc Much as I dislike "see photo" records, the photo is excellent and the species is distinctive.
Mike S. 12 Aug 2024 Acc Despite the limited written description, the clear photo of an adult male makes this an easy ID.
Dennis S. 1 Aug 2024 Acc Written descriptive report is not very thorough, but photo leaves little doubt of Id.(Thank Heaven for it!!)
Mark S. 19 Aug 2024 Acc Photo shows an Orchard Oriole.
David W. 10 Jul 2024 Acc Photo shows an orchard oriole.
Kevin W. 7 Aug 2024 Acc Comments: Photo shows an Oriole with distinctive chestnut color.

 

2024-48 White-winged Crossbill

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 15 Jul 2024 Acc Good documentation by many - cool to see them at the same location as last year.
Keeli M. 21 Jul 2024 Acc Excellent photos showing clear white wing bars and good write-up discussing how similar species were eliminated.
Bryant O. 14 Jul 2024 Acc Photos and recording leave no doubt. I also saw 1 or 2 WWCR at this location a few days later. FYI, we seem to have a bumper crop of Engelmann Spruce ripening in the Wasatch and Uintas, so we see more of these in the coming months
Kris P. 5 Aug 2024 Acc Very well-done record offering excellent evidence and many observers.
Mike S. 12 Aug 2024 Acc Nice photos and documentation by many observers.
Dennis S. 22 Jul 2024 Acc Photo of male leaves no question in ID.
Mark S. 19 Aug 2024 Acc Well-documented.
David W. 15 Jul 2024 Acc Heard and seen by many. Odd that they so often show up in this area and so seldom anywhere else in Utah.
Kevin W. 7 Aug 2024 Acc Photos show distinctive white wing-bars indicating White-winged Crossbill.

  

2024-49 Boreal Owl

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 15 Jul 2024 Acc Good documentation
Keeli M. 21 Jul 2024 Acc Nice photos and solid write-up.
Bryant O. 14 Jul 2024 Acc Photos show BOOW
Kris P. 1 Aug 2024 Acc An outstanding record and an important one that thoroughly establishes the Boreal Owl as a breeding species in Utah--a fact never as well-documented in the past as this one is.
Mike S. 12 Aug 2024 Acc Great record with awesome photos!
Dennis S. 22 Jul 2024 Acc No question - great photos. Amazing number(7) of owls.
Mark S. 19 Aug 2024 Acc Excellent photos and documentation.
David W. 15 Jul 2024 Acc Jeff finally managed to get some (amazing) photos of juveniles to bolster the claim that this species breeds in Utah. We've known it for years, and DNR has documented it, but this is wonderful photographic confirmation.

The dark-chocolate color of the breast, pale bills, spots on the outer ring of the facial disk, and the nonaggressive presence of an adult are very compelling.
Kevin W. 14 Aug 2024 Acc Excellent photos, including some of a juvenile, show distinctive Boreal Owl: Dark edge to facial disk, chocolate brown streaking.

 

2024-50 Acorn Woodpecker

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 31 Jul 2024 Acc Photos show Acorn Woodpeckers.
Keeli M. 21 Jul 2024 Acc  
Bryant O. 17 Jul 2024 Acc Photos do show ACWO. If indeed there were fledglings, this maybe be the 1st evidence of nesting in Utah? Anyone know?
Kris P. 5 Aug 2024 Acc Given the under-birded nature of this spot, the possibility of more breeding Acorn Woodpeckers in the area is tantalizing.
Mike S. 19 Aug 2024 Acc Good documentation of a distinctive species. In recent years, it appears there have been very few Acorn Woodpecker observations from this part of the state.
Dennis S. 22 Jul 2024 Acc No problems due to nice adult photo.
Mark S. 19 Aug 2024 Acc Good documentation, photos.
David W. 18 Jul 2024 Acc I'd always assumed the population of this species, that for many years lived close to US-191 in Devils Canyon (complete with larder trees), was still somewhere in the area. It is reassuring to get evidence they are still nearby, though nearly 500 feet higher in elevation and in a quieter place.
Kevin W. 14 Aug 2024 Acc Photos show distinctive black and white pattern of Acorn Woodpecker. Supporting documentation about breeding in Utah.

 

2024-51 Acorn Woodpecker

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 20 Aug 2024 Acc Good location and description for Acorn Woodpecker

2nd round:

26 Aug 2024 Acc Continuing to accept
Keeli M. 9 Aug 2024 To 2nd I know that Acorn WP is a likely species for this location and that they are a very recognizable species but I would like more description of how other species were ruled out. Soft accept.

2nd round:

29 Aug 2024 Acc Continuing to accept.
Bryant O. 8 Aug 2024 Acc Known location and great description leave no doubt

2nd round:

28 Aug 2024 Acc Such a distinctive species that nothing really is similar, and they hit all the marks in their description. Solid record.
Kris P. 13 Aug 2024 Acc  

2nd round:

23 Aug 2024 Acc No change in opinion.
Mike S. 19 Aug 2024 Acc While this isn't a particularly thorough sight record, I believe the description is adequate to establish the ID of an Acorn Woodpecker. This species is known to occur around this area.

2nd round:

4 Sep 2024 Acc Again, a distinctive species in a known location. Continuing to accept.
Dennis S. 11 Aug 2024 Acc Known to occurr in this area.

2nd round:

3 Sep 2024 Acc  
Mark S. 19 Aug 2024 Acc Decent written description of a distinctive species adequately eliminates other possibilities.

2nd round:

25 Aug 2024 Acc Hard to mistake this species.
David W. 8 Aug 2024 Acc Good description of a distinctive woodpecker. This species is known from this general area.

2nd round:

28 Aug 2024 Acc Nothing to add.
Kevin W. 14 Aug 2024 Acc Good description eliminates similar possibilities; within area known to have a
population (although a little way from recent reports).

2nd round:

13 Sep 2024 Acc Continuing to accept

 

2024-52 Hepatic Tanager

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 20 Aug 2024 No, ID I struggle with the color on this bird, and with the lighting I am not sure if the bill is truly dark. The posture and lighting makes me think that is more likely a SUTA. I could be swayed otherwise by folks who aren't colorblind, but based on what I can see it seems fine for Summer Tanager.

2nd round:

10 Oct 2024 No, ID Despite my colorblindness it appears that a number of other committee members share my concerns about lighting and structure. Thanks to Kris for the interesting pictures of the Summer Tanager with some similar coloring to HETA. All these factors along with timing and habitat issues are leading me to retain my no vote.
Keeli M. 9 Aug 2024 Acc Excellent supporting photos. Good discussion of how other similar species were eliminated.

2nd round:

18 Sep 2024 No, ID The dusky cheek and back coloration and the stout dark bill still seem to match HETA better for me, but the head shape with what looks like a slight crest, the upright posture, the location found, and the potential lighting issues with the photos do leave me with some doubt. Changing my vote to err on the side of caution with this one.
Bryant O. 21 Aug 2024 To 2nd Although the plumage looks good for HETA, the bill and structure look better for SUTA. Since this will be the 1st chronological Utah record, I think it needs some discussion. I can't say I've ever seen a SUTA with this plumage. But it is very unusual to see HETA out of habitat, which is pine/oak forests

2nd round:

4 Oct 2024 No, ID Still troubled by the structure and bill shape, and Kris's comments about lighting and plumage do seem to be affecting this bird. It could have been a HETA, but that hasn't been proven. Note, observer is asking for our help IDing this Tanager, and is not fully confident them self that it was a HETA.
Kris P. 13 Aug 2024 Acc I'm glad Angie found this one in her archives. The dull red and especially the gray pattern on the lores, auriculars, back and wings, plus the bright red on the crown and throat clinch this ID. A young male Summer Tanager should look blotchy bright red against yellow-green. I wonder how often the Hepatic has been missed in Utah due to the similarity of the two species and the thought process that Hepatics "don't" occur here. This record and last year's are certainly long overdue given how close to Utah the bird occurs in northwest Arizona.

2nd round:

23 Sep 2024 No, ID I'm changing my vote to Not Accept due to an unrelated, but dramatic example of a male Summer Tanager's variable appearance photographed on Sep 21, 2024 by multiple parties within a couple hours of each other at Provo Canyon - Timpanogos and Canyon View Parks. Here's a link to three sets of photos from Macaulay:

It's extremely likely that Edison Hinckley's uniformly bright red bird is the same individual as reflected in the first two sets of photos, an individual described as a bright red male, but showing in the two sets with somewhat similar grayish-reddish characteristics as our review bird. I think these images demonstrate how differently light can portray a bird and that photos can lie.

I was less concerned in my first round vote about the bird's somewhat SUTA-like peaked crown after finding multiple examples of Hepatics with peaked crowns (or conversely, Summers with Hepatic-like smoothly rounded crowns), but the shape of the crown has more impact in light of the photos I referenced, above. And given the bill could show as dark because Summers can have dark bills or Angie mentioned there could be a shadow, that casts all the factors indicating Hepatic as suspicious. I'm choosing the conservative route and believe we don't have enough to go on here to accept this record as a Hepatic.
Mike S. 4 Sep 2024 Acc I was initially quite skeptical of this record and tried talking myself into a Summer Tanager, but the photos do appear to show diagnostic features of a Hepatic Tanager, which are also described in the sight record.

My main concern came down to the delayed reporting, which may increase the possibility that the observer could have mixed up her Grafton photos with a different location (potentially out of state). However, I emailed the observer and I think she was able to alleviate those concerns. I'd be happy to share that message with the group, if requested.

2nd round:

8 Oct 2024 No, ID When I initially saw this record, I had the same thoughts about the structure appearing more like a Summer Tanager (particularly the head and bill shape). I ultimately convinced myself that it "had to be" a HETA since I couldn't find any examples of a SUTA showing plumage details (at any age) very similar to this bird.

I think Kris's second round comment is a good reminder of how various lighting conditions can influence the appearance of a bird. Since all the photos we have to work here are from the same perch with the same angle, light, etc., this raises some concern. SUTA is common/expected at this location and I don't think the photos are definitive to rule out that possibility. I still think this may be a HETA but I am changing my vote to err on the side of caution.
Dennis S. 11 Aug 2024 Acc No question from photos. Question about timing. Was a list kept on this date at Grafton to verify date and location?

2nd round:

15 Sep 2024 Acc The photos and the delayed timiming of the report are the two main concerns. But I think the reported observers e-mail response helped to minimize these concerns.
Mark S. 19 Aug 2024 No, ID I think she had it correct with calling this a transitioning young male Summer Tanager, then over-thought it.

My first impression from the structure was that this is a Summer Tanager - large bill, long body, peaked crown. Nothing about the structure of this bird looks right for Hepatic Tanager.

Yes, the bill is very dark, that should indicate Hepatic Tanager. Except that western Summer Tanagers frequently have dark bills, and this is well within the range for western Summer Tanager.

There are patches of dusky coloration, but they don't match for Hepatic Tanager in either color (too tan/yellowish, not enough dusky gray/dark red), nor in pattern. The dusky on the head is the entire side of the head, even extending to the nape, not just the auriculars, and the dusky on the wings and back is too amorphously distributed in blotchy fashion across the back, shoulders and wings, and not as restricted as in Hepatic Tanager.

I'm having a hard time seeing a Hepatic Tanager in these photos.

2nd round:

1 Oct 2024 No, ID As per my first round comments, and as someone who sees many, many of both Hepatic and Summer Tanagers in all plumages, I still have a hard time seeing this as a Hepatic, due mostly to structure fitting Summer much better with regards to bill shape and size, head shape, and elongated body.
David W. 8 Aug 2024 Acc Good description and photo. The shape and coloration of the bird support the the ID. The bird is bright where it should be and dull where it should be.

2nd round:

8 Oct 2024 Acc Others have brought up interesting points which have caused me to reconsider. I have searched the web looking at photos of both Summer and Hepatic tanagers and I think the pattern of duskiness on the face, shape of the bill, and color of the bill all suggest a Hepatic. I realize that Mark lives in Mexico where certain races of Hepatics are much more common than up here, and he is certainly more of an expert than am I, but I have to go where the evidence leads me. There are certainly examples of the cheek patch extending to the nape on some of the photos found on the web. Also, I think this bird does not resemble the bird recently seen by folks luckier than me in Utah County, neither in bill color nor face duskiness.

So thank you to those bringing up good questions, but I will still vote to accept.
Kevin W. 14 Aug 2024 Acc gray cheeks and wings, heavier bill point to Hepatic Tanager. Wish we would have known about this earlier!

2nd round:

20 Sep 2024 Acc I continue to think this has to be a Hepatic Tanager; a young/ transitioning Summer tanager should be more red/ yellow blotchy, not with this much dusky color, especially on the cheeks and back.

 

2024-53 Red-shouldered Hawk

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 20 Aug 2024 No, ID Does not adequately eliminate Cooper's Hawk, much more likely to be breeding in urban SL Valley.

2nd round:

25 Sep 2024 No, ID Still agree with most that these are likely Cooper's Hawks
Keeli M. 9 Aug 2024 No, ID Structure is all wrong for a RSHA. No discussion of how other species were eliminated. Photos look more like an immature COHA to me.

2nd round:

18 Sep 2024 No, ID Definitely a mis-IDed COHA.
Bryant O. 21 Aug 2024 No, ID This is one of those rare records where we have photos of a misIDed birds. This is a Cooper's Hawk without question. I hope the eBird reviewer informed them of their error rather than directed them here, which is what should have happened.

2nd round:

18 Sep 2024 No, ID No strong argument these are not Cooper's Hawks
Kris P. 13 Aug 2024 No, ID Looks like a family of Cooper's Hawks nested and fledged in this observer's yard. This must have been great birdwatching to have them so available.

2nd round:

13 Sep 2024 No, ID I think these birds are indisputably Cooper's Hawks.
Mike S. 11 Sep 2024 No, ID The poor photos appear to show a juvenile Accipiter.

2nd round:

19 Sep 2024 No, ID No change of opinion. I agree this is a Cooper's Hawk.
Dennis S. 11 Sep 2024 No, ID I have a number of concerns. The admission of lack of birding experience and with other possible similar species (accipiters), emphasis on sounds of young at nest site, and no attempt at a physical description of the bird leaves a lot to be desired. The photos add little or nothing. Also with a observation length (approx.30 days), why were no other observers brought in to verify this highly unusual and unlikely nesting record.

2nd round:

15 Sep 2024 No, ID No additional thoughts - still too many concerns for acceptance.
Mark S. 7 Sep 2024 No, ID For numerous reasons, from shape, behavior, and plumage details (tail banding, breast streaking, etc.), this is clearly a Cooper's Hawk, and not a Red-shouldered Hawk.

2nd round:

1 Oct 2024 No, ID Cooper's Hawk.
David W. 12 Sep 2024 To 2nd Apologies for voting so tardily on this record, but I have gone back and forth on it. First, let me just say I cannot open the video on any of my computers, so I am somewhat uninformed.

I get very mixed signals on this bird. I like the checkered wing pattern, but there is precious little red visible on this bird and the tail strikes me as too long for a Red-shouldered. To make things worse, the streak pattern on the breast looks a lot like an accipiter. The photos are not that wonderful, considering they are nearly all we have to go on for this record.

2nd round:

16 Sep 2024 No, ID Other people's comments confirm my hunch on this bird with embarrassing uniformity. I should have voted NO in the first round but foolishly wondered whether the structure in the photos was just unfortunate camera angle (especially since I could not open the video).
Kevin W. 14 Aug 2024 No, ID I couldn’t see videos because of access, but the shots from the video have streaking all the way down the chest/ belly – making it look more like a Cooper’s Hawk. The information provided in the sight record doesn’t eliminate this more likely possibility.

2nd round:

30 Sep 2024 No, ID Still looks like a Cooper's Hawk

 

2024-54 Black-headed Gull

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 20 Aug 2024 Acc Great photo documentation of an overdue 1st state record! Too bad it was a one-hit-wonder.
Keeli M. 29 Aug 2024 Acc Really interesting sighting. Unfortunate it didn't seem to stick around.
Bryant O. 21 Aug 2024 Acc Photos leave no doubt. Unfortunately I was driving through St. George on this day, but didn't hear about until I was in Vegas so missed it. Too bad it has not been relocated.
Kris P. 3 Sep 2024 Acc Excellent photos. Terrible record.
Mike S. 11 Sep 2024 Acc Great record with excellent photos. The flight shot rules out other, even less likely possibilities (such as Brown-headed and Brown-hooded Gulls). More likely/expected Bonaparte's eliminated by brownish/less extensive hood, thicker red bill, and underwing color/pattern.

This bird was seen by several folks on August 10 but was apparently gone by the time I looked for it on the 11th.
Dennis S. 11 Sep 2024 Acc The photos are amazing and leave little doubt as to the ID of this bird. This will be an extremely rare bird for this part of the world. Are there other records for the interior of the western USA? What's the committee think?
Mark S. 7 Sep 2024 Acc Amazing record; photos show a Black-headed Gull.
David W. 14 Aug 2024 Acc Spectacular photos show all the required field marks for this remarkable bird.
Kevin W. 6 Sep 2024 Acc We had several adept birders independently identify this gull. I have no experience with the species, so it helps to compare with other dark-headed gulls. It seems that the narrow red bill and legs, along with the brownish head that shows white neck eliminates Bonaparte's, Little, Franklin's, and Laughing. The white outer primaries and dark under primaries also seem to be unique to this species. Very similar Brown-headed Gull (but maybe less-likely) has distinct white window in wings and pale eye.

 

2024-55 White-winged Crossbill

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 20 Aug 2024 No, ID I don't think they eliminated other similar species like Pine Grosbeak, especially with the "fat" bill descriptor.

2nd round:

25 Sep 2024 No, ID Still do not believe the observer eliminated similar or more likely species.
Keeli M. 29 Aug 2024 No, ID While this is a species that seems to be showing up in that area abundantly, I don't think the observer has done a sufficient job in ruling out similar species in this record.

2nd round:

18 Sep 2024 No, ID Continuing to say no due to lack of discussion of how similar species were ruled out.
Bryant O. 21 Aug 2024 No, ID Concerned they did not eliminate or even consider the much more likely Red Crossbill, which can have white wingbars. The main field ID of Crossbills is their calls, which they seem unfamiliar with. So I'm not sure why this was not a Red Crossbill.

2nd round:

18 Sep 2024 No, ID This record makes no attempt to consider Red Crossbill, so even though I saw and heard WWCR at this location a few weeks later, I also saw RECR and I'm not sure what species this observer saw.
Kris P. 13 Sep 2024 No, ID While White-winged Crossbills are entirely plausible in this area and others reported them here a month later, this record fails to offer adequate documentation due to:
- Very weak details in most sections that are critical to establishing the ID, and no defense of the submitter's conclusion or eliminating other species
- No description of the call despite claiming twice to have heard it, and so there's nothing to go on
- Playing recordings later of a bird never heard prior to this audience more likely muddles the memory and can't be solidly defended as an ID point

2nd round:

23 Sep 2024 No, ID Same opinion as first round: This ID is not properly justified.
Mike S. 11 Sep 2024 No, ID The observer may have seen White-winged Crossbills, but without discussion on similar species other than "bigger than a House Finch," I don't believe there is sufficient documentation to accept.

2nd round:

19 Sep 2024 No, ID No change of opinion. Similar species have not been ruled out.
Dennis S. 11 Sep 2024 Acc Borderline acceptance mostly due to an inadequate description and comparison with RECR. The noted brief observation of the white in wings was the determining factor.

2nd round:

15 Sep 2024 No, ID My borderline 1st round vote has changed due to the clear concerns of the majority of the committee.
Mark S. 7 Sep 2024 Acc This is a soft accept, as the observation was marginal and the details in the written description scant, even if they cover the essential field marks. I'm influenced, however, but the knowledge that this appears to be an irruptive year for them in northern Utah, with numerous reports, most better than this one.

2nd round:

1 Oct 2024 No, ID Since my first round vote was very soft, and based to a significant degree on the numerous other reports, and not on the evidence presented here, I have no problem changing my vote due to insufficient evidence for this record.
David W. 14 Aug 2024 No, ID ID is likely correct, but not enough here to be sure. The description is just a bit too vague. Either one ought to provide good photos/audio recordings or provide a complete, detailed description.

2nd round:

16 Sep 2024 No, ID Nothing to add.
Kevin W. 6 Sep 2024 No, ID The observer may have seen a White-winged Crossbill, but sparse details fail to eliminate possibility of Pine Grosbeak, and she even indicated that the bill was "fat" with the glimpses she had.

2nd round:

30 Sep 2024 No, ID Not enough details provided to eliminate other possibilities.

 

2024-56 White-winged Crossbill

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 20 Aug 2024 Acc Seem to be lots of these around this year.

2nd round:

25 Sep 2024 Acc Agree with other committee members that there are definitely WWCR's in the photos
Keeli M. 29 Aug 2024 Acc Nice photos, supportive of ID. Definitely seems to be an irruptive year for this species.

2nd round:

18 Sep 2024 Acc Agree with Kris that photos and write-up need clarification and better labeling but still think there is a clear and positive White-winged Crossbill ID here.
Bryant O. 21 Aug 2024 Acc Great photos

2nd round:

18 Sep 2024 Acc All photos show WWCR, and I agree with their assessment of the yellowish Crossbill being an immature male WWCR. There is absolutely no doubt a WWCR was present. We can argue about the age and or sex or number of individuals, but WWCR is present.
Kris P. 13 Sep 2024 To 2nd This record is confusing due to lack of photo labeling and one of the birds isn't a slam-dunk White-winged Crossbill.

I think this party clearly saw two White-winged Crossbills, an adult male and an immature male. Both are described and defended in the narrative and (I think) depicted in photos. The adult male appears to be in Photos C and G and the immature male in A, B, and E. The problem is with the bird described as shy or a juvenile-type, possibly depicted in Photos D and F. But that means all three birds are in photos according to me and the record says that only two of the birds were photographed. Did I get the photos wrong and all the birds with any red are actually the immature male?

Without the submitter labeling the photos something like Bird #1, #2 and #3 and following those designations in the narrative, the record is confusing and we're left to make assumptions as we've had to do in the past with multi-bird records. I don't want to make assumptions on what the submitter intended.

In addition, the juvenile-type bird doesn't offer a lot of ID points to distinguish between White-winged and juvenile male Red Crossbill. The only thing to go on here given the bird's posture is the darkness of a portion of the wing contrasting with the white wingbar, basically a judgement call (which KC made) on a bird that perhaps wasn't even necessary to include in this record given there are two other strong candidates nicely justified.

I'm doubtful enough that I'm not willing to choose a stance on this record without consulting.

2nd round:

24 Sep 2024 Acc I've exchanged messages with KC and he agreed that all three birds are depicted in the photos with the immature male in A, B and E; the adult male in C and G; and the juvenile in D and F, resolving my concern that the narrative didn't match the photo labeling.

In addition, I think the juvenile's base blackish color of the wing is contrasty enough with the narrow white wing bars to fall within the range of a White-winged instead of a Red juvenile, and the combination of photos and narrative defend his conclusion.
Mike S. 11 Sep 2024 Acc Nice photos with extensive written documentation.

2nd round:

9 Oct 2024 Acc  I'm glad Kris's first round concerns have been resolved (and the clarification from the observer certainly doesn't hurt).
Dennis S. 11 Sep 2024 Acc Excellent photos and other recent sightings in the area leave little question.

2nd round:

15 Sep 2024 Acc No additional thoughts - still accept.
Mark S. 7 Sep 2024 Acc Good documentation, photos.

2nd round:

1 Oct 2024 Acc Appears we now have consensus.
David W. 29 Aug 2024 Acc Excellent photos show the field marks. Very detailed writeup, complete with mood-setting, experiential narrative, helps cinch the ID.

2nd round:

9 Oct 2024 Acc Nothing to add.
Kevin W. 6 Sep 2024 Acc Nice to have a record of this species with such a detailed description plus photos!

2nd round:

30 Sep 2024 Acc Continue to accept.

 

2024-57 Boreal Owl

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 20 Aug 2024 Acc Good documentation.
Keeli M. 18 Sep 2024 Acc Photos and audio consistent with immature BOOW.
Bryant O. 21 Aug 2024 Acc Photo evidence
Kris P. 13 Sep 2024 Acc  
Mike S. 13 Sep 2024 Acc Great documentation including audio and amazing photos of an adult and juveniles.
Dennis S. 1 Sep 2024 Acc  
Mark S. 7 Sep 2024 Acc Excellent documentation and photos
David W. 29 Aug 2024 Acc Another amazing set of photos from the Boreal dream team.
Kevin W. 13 Sep 2024 Acc Excellent photos, including those of a juvenile Boreal Owl.

 

2024-58 Boreal Owl

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 20 Aug 2024 Acc Good documentation.
Keeli M. 18 Sep 2024 Acc Photos consistent with immature BOOW. Pale bill, spotting coming in on back and spotty streaks on front.
Bryant O. 21 Aug 2024 Acc Photo evidence
Kris P. 13 Sep 2024 Acc  
Mike S. 13 Sep 2024 Acc Yet another excellent Boreal Owl record. Great photos of these juveniles. I think we can say with confidence that this species is expected at this location.
Dennis S. 1 Sep 2024 Acc  
Mark S. 8 Sep 2024 Acc Excellent documentation and photos, again.
David W. 29 Aug 2024 Acc Another amazing set of photos from the Boreal dream team.
Kevin W. 13 Sep 2024 Acc More great photos

 

2024-59 Boreal Owl

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 20 Aug 2024 Acc Good documentation.
Keeli M. 18 Sep 2024 Acc Photos show adult and juvenile BOOWs. Good write-up.
Bryant O. 21 Aug 2024 Acc Photo evidence
Kris P. 13 Sep 2024 Acc  
Mike S. 13 Sep 2024 Acc Again, amazing documentation of an adult and juvenile Boreal Owls.
Dennis S. 1 Sep 2024 Acc  
Mark S. 8 Sep 2024 Acc Excellent documentation and photos.
David W. 1 Sep 2024 Acc Just another excellent Boreal owl record in a new spot by Jeff and crew. What a few years ago was an almost mythical species has become pretty much expected from these guys.
Kevin W. 20 Sep 2024 Acc Good photos of Boreal Owls

 

2024-60 Boreal Owl

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 25 Sep 2024 Acc Good description eliminates similar species, and decent audio recording.
Keeli M. 18 Sep 2024 Acc Audio is consistent with previously submitted records of begging calls. Description eliminates similar species.
Bryant O. 21 Aug 2024 Acc Description (especially of pale bill) is spot on. We should probably stop reviewing this species in the Uintas, but still need to for the rest of the state. How do we deal with this? There are several other species that need a regional exception as well.
Kris P. 13 Sep 2024 Acc  
Mike S. 23 Sep 2024 Acc Nice documentation including good audio of the juvenile(s).
Dennis S. 1 Sep 2024 Acc  
Mark S. 8 Sep 2024 Acc Good documentation.
David W. 29 Aug 2024 Acc Good writeup and recording.
Kevin W. 20 Sep 2024 Acc Good description eliminates similar species, including Northern Saw-whet Owl. I'm not experienced enough to distinguish the recording of the juvenile begging calls provided from others, but I think the other details are enough to go on.