Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society
   
Status & Comments
Year 2024 (records 61 through 90)

2024-61 White-winged Crossbill

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 25 Sep 2024 Acc Good description and photos show WWCR - everywhere this year!
Keeli M. 18 Sep 2024 Acc Photos and write-up support ID.
Bryant O. 5 Sep 2024 Acc  
Kris P. 13 Sep 2024 Acc A clean description of appearance and call.
Mike S. 30 Sep 2024 Acc Excellent documentation.
Dennis S. 11 Sep 2024 Acc Accept both records. If only all records were this easy to determine. Photos made it easy.
Mark S. 8 Sep 2024 Acc  
David W. 29 Aug 2024 Acc Another fine record by one of our own. Nice to get further evidence suggesting breeding.
Kevin W. 20 Sep 2024 Acc Good photos showing crossbills with bold white wingbars.

 

2024-62 White-winged Crossbill

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 25 Sep 2024 Acc More WWCR - woohoo!
Keeli M. 18 Sep 2024 Acc Photos show bold white wing bars and crossed bills.
Bryant O. 5 Sep 2024 Acc  
Kris P. 13 Sep 2024 Acc  
Mike S. 30 Sep 2024 Acc Another great record with photos and good written documentation.
Dennis S. 11 Sep 2024 Acc Accept both records. If only all records were this easy to determine. Photos made it easy.
Mark S. 8 Sep 2024 Acc Good documentation and photos.
David W. 29 Aug 2024 Acc Nice writeup with supporting photos.
Kevin W. 20 Sep 2024 Acc Photos showing crossbills with bold white wingbars.

 

2024-63 Parasitic Jaeger

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 2 Oct 2024 Acc I've had some folks email me about this potentially being an odd LTJA, but I think there is enough here to support PAJA (also worthwhile looking at Connie Miskets photos of both this and the LTJA submitted). Accepting for now but interested to see if any committee members think differently.
Keeli M. 11 Oct 2024 Acc Photos and description are supportive of PAJA ID for me.
Bryant O. 18 Sep 2024 Acc Does look like a immature Parasitic, long narrow bill with small nail, 4 primaries show white shafts
Kris P. 27 Sep 2024 Acc Thorough record including excellent analysis, plenty of photos and elimination of the other two jaegers. This bird gave lots of people the chance to see and photograph it--something that hasn't happened in awhile.
Mike S. 9 Oct 2024 Acc Great photos and written documentation rules out similar species.
Dennis S. 16 Sep 2024 Acc Provides very detailed comparisons to characteristics of the other jaegers. Slender bill with only small amount of black on tip in photos was one deciding factor.
Mark S. 1 Oct 2024 Acc Excellent documentation; the photos show a Parasitic Jaeger.
David W. 8 Oct 2024 Acc I like the structure of the bill and the white pattern in the wings for a Parasitic. I would not bet my life on it though. The fact that record 2024-65 shows there being two species together is helpful.
Kevin W. 30 Sep 2024 Acc The description and photos showing thin and longish bill, streaked head and nape, cinnamon/ buffy feather edges lead me to conclude this is a Parasitic Jaeger.

 

2024-64 Boreal Owl

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 25 Sep 2024 Acc Nice photo, hopefully we can find a solution for not reviewing these in the Uintas.
Keeli M. 11 Oct 2024 Acc Another good BOOW record.
Bryant O. 18 Sep 2024 Acc Diagnostic yellow bill visible in photo=Boreal Owl
Kris P. 13 Sep 2024 Acc This has been a well-researched and planned endeavor that has pushed the bounds of what we've suspected but didn't know. Thanks especially to Jeff, and to Terry R. and James L. as well.
Mike S. 8 Oct 2024 Acc Another great Boreal Owl record.
Dennis S. 16 Sep 2024 Acc Wonderful photo leaves no doubt.
Mark S. 2 Oct 2024 Acc Excellent documentation.
David W. 10 Sep 2024 Acc I think these two submittal form lines say it all:
"Previous experience with this & similar species: This is the twenty-seventh confirmed hatch-year bird this season. I ve observed over sixty adults in the past four years in three states."
"References consulted: None required for this observation based on previous experience."
I would only like to add, "Wow."
Kevin W. 30 Sep 2024 Acc good documentation of a Boreal Owl.

  

2024-65 Long-tailed Jaeger

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 2 Oct 2024 Acc Good documentation beyond the record itself by many.

2nd round:

5 Nov 2024 Acc Glad that others have noted the extra photos on eBird as well. As Kris noted, have a summary comment about the photos submitted as part of the record?
Keeli M. 11 Oct 2024 Acc Underwing pattern, size, and bill pattern all support ID as LTJA. Good write-up and photos.

2nd round:

3 Nov 2024 Acc Appreciate the discussion on the confusion regarding the photos. I still think there is adequate support and written justification that both PAJA and LTJA show up in these photos.
Bryant O. 18 Sep 2024 Acc There is some confusion because some of the photos in the record are of the Parasitic that was also present(A & B) however, the photos are label correctly in the eBird checklists and there side by side comparison really does show the different structure and bill shape of these 2 Jaegers, with the smaller one in back being a Long-tailed, meaning a LTJA was absolutely present at this location on this date and is seen in some of the photos

2nd round:

26 Oct 2024 Acc Photos E, J and L really show the structural difference between PAJA and LTJA, LTJA has a shorter bill with larger nail, pale nape and dark cap, cold gray tones, longer primaries projection past tail and longer R1 tail plumes and longer tail in flight. Size is smaller but that is not the only reason it is a LTJA
Kris P. 27 Sep 2024 Acc Thorough record, excellent analysis, and what great good fortune to have the Parasitic present at the same time, and for the photographers to capture them both in several frames.

2nd round:

25 Oct 2024 Acc The photos capturing both birds in the frame, a rare circumstance in our state, backed up by Connie Misket's extra-record eBird photos, are highly credible evidence to support accepting.

I think Mark's misgivings are totally understandable. The photo confusion is particularly unfortunate for this species pair, but Bryant's comment explains it. Should this be noted in the summary comment for the record that photos A and B are not of the subject species?
Mike S. 14 Oct 2024 Acc Great written documentation with photos, and awesome to have an opportunity to study this species side-by-side with a Parasitic. 

2nd round:

12 Nov 2024 Acc Continuing to accept and I agree with the analysis by others on the committee. I believe the photos with both jaegers in the frame provide a nice side by side comparison showing important size/structural (and subtle plumage) differences between the two individuals.
Dennis S. 22 Sep 2024 Acc Thorough report and photos comparing PAJE helped make decision to accept.

2nd round:

15 Oct 2024 Acc Still feel no serious problem with acceptance.
Mark S. 2 Oct 2024 To 2nd I've been troubled by this record ever since I first saw the reports and photos on social media and eBird. Looking at the photos, most of what is supposedly the Long-tailed Jaeger look more like a runty Parasitic Jaeger, and only a few suggest Long-tailed.

Since male Parasitic Jaegers can be 20% smaller than females, I'm not sure that the apparent size differences are sufficient to establish the identification. In most of the photos the bill looks too long and thin for LTJA, and the underwing blazes too bright and large. The photos on the eBird submission look better for LTJA, but I'm still not sure that it's sufficient to establish the i.d.

I don't feel strongly enough about this to vote "no" this round, but would like to hear if others have the same doubts that I've had.

2nd round:

5 Nov 2024 Acc Since no one else has any issues with this record, and my own questions were not strong enough to reject this record outright, I'll vote to accept.
David W. 2 Oct 2024 Acc I can't certify that all photos belong to this species, but I do believe one of those birds is a Long-tailed for the reasons identified by the observer in her writeup.

2nd round:

7 Nov 2024 Acc Nothing to add.
Kevin W. 11 Oct 2024 Acc The photos showing this bird with another Jaeger gave me an opportunity to dig into Jaeger ID. Characters that I think stand out in the Long-tailed are the shorter bill, contrast between the light back and darker wing coverts, and only 2 primary feather shafts being obvious. The bird appears to be smaller than the accompanying Parasitic, but that's hard to tell with the perspective. Likewise, it's hard to tell general wing shape and if the wings are more narrow. Although the central tail feathers are visible in one of the photos, I can't tell much about their shape (are they blunt or pointed?).

2nd round:

8 Nov 2024 Acc Continue to accept.

   

2024-66 Tennessee Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 2 Oct 2024 Acc Not sure else what this could be based on the written description, although somewhat hesitant as I don't think I have seen photos of a breeding plumage male documented in Utah in fall, which is what the record is describing (not that it isn't possible, just much more unlikely). Is a Temmessee Warbler related to a Temminick's Stint? :)

2nd round:

5 Nov 2024 No, ID I was a soft accept in the first round, but after seeing other committee member's evaluations I agree with their concerns. Changing my vote.
Keeli M. 11 Oct 2024 Acc Description is supportive of ID, but seems late for a male to still be in bright breeding plumage. White/pale under tail coverts in combination with the rest of the plumage as described make it hard to be much else that I can think of.

2nd round:

3 Nov 2024 No, ID After reading other committee members' comments I agree there are some concerns here based on the lack of photos and the short observation time. I agree OCWA can not be fully ruled out based on the observer's description. Changing my vote to No.
Bryant O. 18 Sep 2024 To 2nd I'm concerned the observer is describing a alternate plumage male with a gray head, fall TEWA don't usually have a gray head, they should be lemon yellow, but many fall OCWA do show a gray head?

2nd round:

26 Oct 2024 No, ID Agree with Kris, too brief of a look and some things don't add up.
Kris P. 30 Sep 2024 No, ID  I don't think this observer had enough time (few seconds) to see clearly and then describe well enough the salient points of a Tennessee Warbler despite his emphasis on the pale under-tail coverts.
- I can't fathom the use of the term "buffier" twice as a comparison with the Orange-crowned Warbler given that buffy is a pale orange color and Tennessees don't show that tone in any age, sex or season.
- The multiple colors used to describe the under-parts (grayer-buffier) and the undertail coverts (creamy buffy-gray) are confusing and I don't think match the Tennessee's appearance except for perhaps, creamy.
- No mention of the darker eye-line (which should have been present) than in the Orange-crowned or the shorter tail which gives the Tennessee a chunkier look. Of these two possibilities, at least the darker eye-line should have been visible given he described the supercilium which is defined by the eyeline at the lower border.
- My concerns of a couple features being off or not mentioned get me right back to an observation time of only a few seconds and I don't think that was enough time to assess and ID this bird.

2nd round:

25 Oct 2024 No, ID Anecdotal records of Tennessee Warblers need to be clear and this one is not. The description is off or some features are missing either because the observer didn't see them or "few seconds" (what does that mean? three? an unspecified low number more than two? I'm not sure.) is not enough time to witness and claim this ID.

A factor I down-played in my first-round analysis is that the submitter described an alternate plumage male, which is possible due to the species varying molt strategy. But adding that unlikely plumage to a description that's off, features not seen or just not mentioned to the possibility that this was a 3-second view mean I'm still unwilling to accept this record.

This is at least the third annecdotal Tennessee Warbler record during my term where the observer was alone and some of the details just weren't right. I still reject the idea that this species must have photo evidence for us to accept a record, but I totally embrace the idea that if you're reporting one you see while you're alone and you don't get convincing photographs, all the details of the record must be right.
Mike S. 14 Oct 2024 To 2nd I am not as confident in this record as I would like to be, and I always feel much more confident with photos to discern the subtle details separating fall TEWA from OCWA.

Having said that, I do believe the written details of the supercilium, undertail coverts, and (to some extent) the overall coloration, appear to be a match for a TEWA.

I do have some concern about the extensive variation of OCWA, combined with the observer's lack of experience with TEWA. I know we have some seen some examples of OCWA with undertail coverts that were quite pale, although that being the "palest" area would also suggest a TEWA.

Leaning towards acceptance but interested to see what others think of this record.

2nd round:

29 Oct 2024 No, ID I continue to have concerns with this record, which appear to be echoed by others. The description is less than definitive, and fact that this was a relatively brief observation by an observer with no (or very limited) TEWA experience tips my decision to a "no" vote.
Dennis S. 2 Oct 2024 To 2nd I want to see what concerns if any the committee members have. My main concern includes the short one time observation and the wide variation in plumages in Fall warblers, especially Orange-crowned which as pointed out in the report is very similar to Tennessee.

2nd round:

15 Oct 2024 No, ID I'm not convinced the report rules out an Orange-crowned, even with the continued thin comparison of the two.
Mark S. 2 Oct 2024 No, ID I don't think that the description rules out an Orange-crowned. I would have liked to see more about the presence of an eye-line (the description of the head sounds more like Orange-crowned), and structure, particularly bill a tail shape.

It's hard to accept based upon the description of only a single field mark, especially one that can be affected by lighting, plumage condition, etc.

2nd round:

5 Nov 2024 No, ID As per my first round comments.
David W. 10 Oct 2024 Acc I wish there had been more of a discussion of structure, and I'm not entirely sanguine about the description of the color of the undertail coverts, but I think the overall description warrants a soft Accept, based more on an accumulation of soft field marks rather than one definitive mark.

2nd round:

6 Nov 2024 No, ID I'll take a small step to the left and call this a soft rejection rather than a soft acceptance.
Kevin W. 11 Oct 2024 No, ID The observer may well have seen a Tennessee Warbler, and the description is perhaps fitting as such, but I'm a little thrown by the descriptions always comparing to the present Orange-crowneds- as in "Paler head," "paler and perhaps broader supercillium," etc., especially his emphasis on the vent being palest, and "pale creamy buffy-gray." I feel like the vent should stand out as bold white, and I fail to detect much in the description that would indicate that this isn't just an extreme in plumage of Orange-crowned Warblers.

2nd round:

8 Nov 2024 No, ID I don't think that the information provided is enough to rule out a different-looking Orange-crowned Warbler

 

2024-67 Crested Caracara

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 25 Sep 2024 Acc Wonderful documentation photos for a really neat but overdue first state record. Too bad it was another one-hit-wonder!
Keeli M. 11 Oct 2024 Acc Description is supportive of ID, but seems late for a male to still be in bright breeding plumage. White/pale under tail coverts in combination with the rest of the plumage as described make it hard to be much else that I can think of.
Bryant O. 21 Sep 2024 Acc Great photos leave no doubt, long overdue 1st state record.
Kris P. 2 Oct 2024 Acc Just amazing.
Mike S. 14 Oct 2024 Acc Given that there are CRCA records from Nevada, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Canada, and numerous records from the northeast and Great Lakes regions, it's a bit surprising it's taken this long to get our first in Utah. Still, a very nice record! Too bad it didn't stick for any subsequent observations.
Dennis S. 22 Sep 2024 Acc No question with excellent photos.
Mark S. 2 Oct 2024 Acc Amazing record, and unfortunately of so brief an occurrence. Excellent photos.
David W. 19 Sep 2024 Acc Excellent photos show this species. I'm not aware of falconers using caracaras for their hobby.
Kevin W. 11 Oct 2024 Acc Photos show distinct Crested Caracara. What a record!

 

2024-68 Ovenbird

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 2 Oct 2024 No, ID Although the cadence and rhythm looks okay for Ovenbird, it should be getting louder through the song. I don't see why this recording isn't just of a goldfinch? I found many recordings of them on Macaulay doing similar little repetitive calls and I am not sure that it isn't the only bird in the recording.

2nd round:

5 Nov 2024 No, ID No change in opinion, I had found an almost identical recording of a goldfinch during my first round review, I tried to re-find it in Macaulay but failed to do so. I agree with others that this doesn't sound quite right for a singing Ovenbird (I won't try to re-write Kris's well worded breakdown).
Keeli M. 18 Oct 2024 To 2nd Not sure what to make of this one. Audio sounds like a good match, especially with the call that alternates with the higher and lower notes, but the single toned call does sound pretty close to a WIWA in pitch and tone. Hard to make a decision on an audio recording alone. Observer makes a good case for OVEN. Interested in seeing what the rest of the committee thinks.
Bryant O. 21 Sep 2024 No, ID Doesn't seem to match Ovenbird, particularly the trait they have of starting soft and getting louder. I don't know what it is, and its not our job to figure that out. But the evidence provided does not prove that it was an Ovenbird. Not all birds can be IDed, its OK to just say warbler sp. when you don't know, you don't know...

2nd round:

26 Oct 2024 No, ID Recording does not match Ovenbird. Max may be on to something with Goldfinch, much more likely and they can do weird stuff. Habitat, time of year also make much more sense for Goldfinch.
Kris P. 11 Oct 2024 No, ID This audio file is very strange due to poor quality, atypical song and the possibility of two different birds.

- Distance from the subject(s), background noise and editing of the file reduced or altered the bird sounds and led to poor-quality audio and spectrographs in the eBird checklist

- Both songs differ from known Ovenbirds' primary song in pattern (none-to-little increasing frequency and amplitude at the start resulting in the iconic crescendo [noted as weak or missing by the submitter]). Both the frequency and amplitude are consistent throughout the song sequences, which is not typical of Ovenbirds. In addition, most Ovenbirds' primary songs in Macaulay top out at about 12 kHz. These recordings achieve less than 8 kHz. This may be because of distance/poor quality of the files, but I can't tell.

-Significantly, the submitter assumed the subject bird sang two different songs with no advocacy as to why the first one was an Ovenbird, and then said the bird switched to a more "ovenbird-esque" song. But he didn't see the bird. Not in the source literature for Ovenbird sounds and singing behavior (Birds of the World species profile) nor in the many files I searched in Macaulay Library does this spectrograph pattern of the first song appear as an Ovenbird song as either the primary song, the attenuated/flight song or the incomplete song.

There's just too much amiss here.

2nd round:

25 Oct 2024 No, ID I agree with Bryant that this one should have been left unidentified in the field, and while I understand Mark's noting the amazing timing of a singing out-of-range bird was not meant to sway us either way, to me that timing of the song is one more odd thing about this record.

While capturing evidence might be something of a holy grail for a birder, not all evidence is good enough to establish the ID and this audio file doesn't.
Mike S. 21 Oct 2024 Acc Audio recording establishes the ID.
Dennis S. 2 Oct 2024 No, ID I'm not convinced the weak audio is of an Ovenbird.

2nd round:

26 Oct 2024 No, ID No change in my thoughts.
Mark S. 2 Oct 2024 Acc Pretty classic Ovenbird song; amazing that it would be singing out-of-range in August.

2nd round:

5 Nov 2024 Acc I still pretty clearly hear an Ovenbird in the recordings; there really isn't anything else that sounds like this. The recordings are not of a quality or volume that would allow parsing of the subtleties of whether it shows a sufficient "crescendo" effect, but Ovenbird has one of the most distinct and unique songs in NA.

Regarding the season, I don't have a great objection to that, just noting that it's interesting. I just had a singing Ovenbird last week (bird seen) here on its winter grounds, so maybe not as unusual as it seems.
David W. 8 Oct 2024 Acc It does indeed sound like an ovenbird in both variations of its song. I could not find an alternative better fit.

2nd round:

19 Nov 2024 Acc I appreciate the skepticism shown by my fellow Committee members, especially as regards the lack of crescendo, but I will go down with Mark on this one as a believer. At least we won't be lonely on this sinking ship. I think both versions of the song match the Ovenbird in both the recording (to my ear) and the sonograms (to my eye). So I will stay with my vote to accept.
Kevin W. 11 Oct 2024 No, ID I'm not sure what this song is, but it doesn't sound like any of the recordings of Ovenbird that I can find. I'm curious if any committee members with better call-ids can identify it.

2nd round:

8 Nov 2024 No, ID No change in my thoughts

 

2024-69 Parasitic Jaeger

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 10 Oct 2024 Acc Looks good for PAJA, seen by others after the first sighting with additional documentation.
Keeli M. 3 Nov 2024 Acc Thorough write-up and description of how other species were eliminated.
Bryant O. 4 Oct 2024 Acc  
Kris P. 23 Oct 2024 Acc A really excellent record, particularly of the observations and analysis of the bird's flight behavior, and the recent pelagic tour experience.
Mike S. 4 Nov 2024 Acc Good written description rules out similar species. Photos may not be definitive, but they do give the overall impression of PAJA and appear to be consistent with the description.
Dennis S. 4 Oct 2024 Acc No question about accuracy of ID. Thorough report and photos.
Mark S. 4 Oct 2024 Acc Excellent written description/analysis; photos confirm this species due to structure (bill, body shape, tail) and the single wing flashes.
David W. 1 Nov 2024 Acc Good writeup.
Kevin W. 11 Oct 2024 Acc Good write-up, and the distant photos seem to confirm the observational notes, even though it's hard to tell many details.

 

2024-70 Northern Cardinal

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 10 Oct 2024

No, ID

 This record leaves me with more questions than answers. 100 yards seems pretty far away (in addition to the thick brush), a species that is not prone to wander and is a resident in its range, no mention of other possible or likely similar species. 7450 feet in elevation in February? 4 year old sighting from memory? I know cardinals would be pretty hard to confuse with anything else but I don't know if there is enough here worth considering.

2nd round:

14 Nov 2024 No, ID Looks like the majority of folks have the same concerns I had in the first round vote. No change of opinion.
Keeli M. 3 Nov 2024 No, ID While it would be pretty hard to confuse a NOCA for anything else I don't think the record provides enough evidence to rule out tanagers or to fully support this record.
Bryant O. 11 Oct 2024 To 2nd Although their description seems good, this record does not match the pattern of occurrence of this species. It is EXCEPTIONALLY rare for NOCA to wander out of range, and the few records west of the Rockies and north of the Grand Canyon have not occurred in winter, also this species is not a species of high elevation mountains. So this just does not match the pattern of occurrence of this bird and is hard to swallow without evidence. There are some large red birds that are much for likely in that habitat and season(Pine Grosbeak), and perhaps since the observer is so familiar with NOCA that just saw a red bird and made assumptions? I'm having a hard time accepting this one without photos.

2nd round:

6 Nov 2024 No, ID I agree with others, this records is out of season and habitat for the known pattern of occurrence of this species, and so therefore would need very strong evidence to accept which is completely lacking. Being from memory years after the fact also weakens the case for this record.
Kris P. 11 Oct 2024 No, Nat Without photos or word description of certain features so we can assess feather pigmentation and wear that might confirm or refute captivity, I don't think this bird can be considered naturally-occurring. Strawberry is a strange place for this species to show up. I don't have a problem with proper ID given how distinct cardinals are and Audrey's life experience.

2nd round:

9 Nov 2024 No, Nat I'll stay with my first-round conclusion. The super-majority opinion (seven members) from the first round that the male Northern Cardinal ID was likely or hard to mis-ID even if it's possible is not enough to offset the unlikelihood of the other factors everyone mentioned: anecdotal record/time/place/species habits/memory.
Mike S. 29 Oct 2024

No, ID

 I'm not sure what they saw, but evidence is lacking for a Northern Cardinal. The fact that part of the ID is based on memory several years later only adds to my concerns.

2nd round:

12 Nov 2024 No, ID I do agree that the brief written description appears match a Northern Cardinal. I suppose it is possible, but such an odd location/season would raise additional concerns about provenance (particularly for a bird not known to demonstrate much vagrancy). I still believe the overall evidence is lacking for such an extreme rarity.
Dennis S. 15 Oct 2024

No, ID

 It hard to accept a 4 year old record strickly from memory and the winter February date in the high elevation location (Strawberry Reservoir) even raises more concern.

2nd round:

10 Nov 2024 No, ID No additional thoughts.
Mark S. 9 Oct 2024 To 2nd I'm torn on this vote. The description sounds good, and the species should be unmistakable, especially for someone very familiar with it (though sometimes that itself can be deceptive, as you "fill in" details that fit your impression with the familiar species, and ignore similar, more common ones). However, it seems unlikely that an adult male cardinal could be confused for anything.

Then there's always the question of provenance, that has been an issue with previous sightings. But here we have an interesting issue in that the location would seem odd for an escaped bird, however it would be equally odd for a vagrant. The habitat, elevation, season, and remote location simply don't fit well for either scenario.

So I come back to the idea that it was something else (perhaps Cassin's Finch?) and that the description, especially from a memory not at all recent, was influenced by her perception of what she thought she saw, rather than what she actually saw.

In the end, I'm happy to punt it to the second round to see if others share my concerns, though my inclination is to vote against this record, more on grounds of misidentification, that seems most likely, than on doubts of natural occurrence.

2nd round:

5 Nov 2024 No, ID After seeing everyone's comments, my original reservations are reinforced, and I don't see enough evidence here to establish the i.d. for such an unusual sighting.
David W. 8 Oct 2024 No, Nat It sounds very much like the observer saw a male cardinal. However, no evidence is provided as to whether this was an escapee, so I will vote conservatively in the first round. I am willing to change my vote to accept if others offer convincing thoughts in that direction.

2nd round:

6 Nov 2024 No, Nat There's just too much here that's odd about this bird.
Kevin W. 22 Oct 2024

No, ID

 The description fits and eliminates other possibilities, but I'm hesitant to accept a record written from memory four years after the fact without more convincing evidence (photos) - particularly for a species that's only been accepted (as wild birds) twice before.

2nd round:

8 Nov 2024 No, ID I still question this record without better evidence.

 

2024-71 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 10 Oct 2024 Acc New species for Fish Springs NWR doesn't happen every day. . . Great bird to wake up to!
Keeli M. 3 Nov 2024 Acc Excellent discussion of how RNSA and hybrids were ruled out. Photos show completed black border around red in throat, no red nape, and messy white markings on the back.
Bryant O. 11 Oct 2024 Acc We also saw this bird in the same area later that afternoon, but the next morning both it and the WISA in the housing area were not re-found. The RNSA at the spring was still present.
Kris P. 11 Oct 2024 Acc Unequivocal in all features; excellent evidence
Mike S. 29 Oct 2024 Acc Looks like a solid adult male Yellow-bellied Sapsucker. Nice find!
Dennis S. 15 Oct 2024 Acc The thorough comparisons with the Red-Naped and accompaning photos leave little room for doubt.
Mark S. 9 Oct 2024 Acc Excellent documentation, and photos that show the important features. I see no overt signs of a hybrid.
David W. 9 Oct 2024 Acc Great writeup and photos.
Kevin W. 22 Oct 2024 Acc The photos show a bird that seems to be a clear Yellow-bellied Sapsucker; no red on nape, no red bleeding into the completely black border of the throat, messy barring on the back. Looks good to me.