Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society
   
Status & Comments
Year 2024 (records 61 through 95)

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.

2nd round:

22 Nov 2024 No, ID Recording leaves too much doubt for ID.
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.

2nd round:

25 Nov 2024 No, ID Apologies for my late second round vote...
I listened to the recordings again with headphones, and agree with the majority opinion that this song a bit "off" for an Ovenbird. I am hearing some faint Lesser Goldfinch calls in the background, and I'm inclined to agree with Max and Bryant that a goldfinch may be the most likely culprit for the Ovenbird-esque call.
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.

2nd round:

22 Nov 2024 No, ID No change of opinion. I share the same reservations as others.
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.

 

2024-72 Red Phalarope

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 22 Oct 2024 Acc Great find by one of our own - well documented
Keeli M. 22 Nov 2024 Acc Very thorough write-up and good photos. Uniform gray upperparts and thicker sturdier bill support ID.
Bryant O. 20 Oct 2024 Acc Nice find
Kris P. 26 Oct 2024 Acc  
Mike S. 29 Oct 2024 Acc Bill shape and plumage details confirm the ID. Nice photos and description...
Thanks to Kris for returning to the area to confirm the ID after the initial long range observation (likely would have been a much more challenging record to review).
Dennis S. 26 Oct 2024 Acc  
Mark S. 5 Nov 2024 Acc Excellent documentation and photos.
David W. 1 Nov 2024 Acc Nice writeup and photos. Liked the Avocet bit.
Kevin W. 22 Oct 2024 Acc The photographs show a phalarope with thick bill, plain gray back, eye patch, and even some red still in the throat area. Seems to match Red Phalarope best.

 

2024-73 Black-throated Blue Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 22 Oct 2024 Acc  
Keeli M. 22 Nov 2024 Acc Very distinct bird, good photos.
Bryant O. 20 Oct 2024 Acc  
Kris P. 3 Nov 2024 Acc  
Mike S. 12 Nov 2024 Acc Photos show a distinctive male Black-throated Blue Warbler.
Dennis S. 26 Oct 2024 Acc  
Mark S. 10 Nov 2024 Acc Excellent documentation. Interestingly, we're having a serious influx of this species here in central Nayarit. We had only one previous record, and this year there have been four sightings of up to 3 individuals, including one I saw yesterday.

Must be a good year for them.
David W. 20 Oct 2024 Acc Well seen and documented by many. Great find.
Kevin W. 22 Oct 2024 Acc Photos show distinct male Black-throated Blue Warbler.

 

2024-74 Ruff

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 22 Oct 2024 Acc Good documentation photos.
Keeli M. 22 Nov 2024 Acc Nice direct comparison with the yellow-legs. Good photo support for ID.
Bryant O. 26 Oct 2024 Acc Photos show a female Reeve, although the written record does a poor job eliminating other species.
Kris P. 3 Nov 2024 Acc  
Mike S. 21 Nov 2024 Acc Nice documentation, observed by many. Since there are better photos on eBird than the ones attached to this record, I would recommend linking to some of those checklists. For example, I noticed there are some very nice photos in David, Lauri, and Vivian's checklist from November 3.
Dennis S. 31 Oct 2024 Acc Not a very thorough report, but based on marginal photos, other observations the following days by a number of birders, and the few distinguishing characters noted it was enough for acceptance. The oranger legs,- compared to the accompaning yellowlegs, pattern of lighter margined back feathers with darker centers, overall dull gray plumage, and the ruffling of the scapular back feathers as noted in B1 photo all helped to accept this record.
Mark S. 10 Nov 2024 Acc Photos show a Ruff.
David W. 1 Nov 2024 Acc Photos show Ruff.
Kevin W. 22 Oct 2024 Acc The orange legs, light-edged feathers, and light chest seem to eliminate other possibilities. Not the greatest pics, but I can't turn it into anything else..

 

2024-75 Red Phalarope

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 22 Oct 2024 Acc Good documentation by many.
Keeli M. 22 Nov 2024 Acc Smooth gray back, solid, thick bill, good supporting photos.
Bryant O. 26 Oct 2024 Acc  
Kris P. 26 Oct 2024 Acc  
Mike S. 21 Nov 2024 Acc Nice written documentation and photos rule out similar species.
Dennis S. 26 Oct 2024 Acc  
Mark S. 10 Nov 2024 Acc Excellent documentation; photos.
David W. 1 Nov 2024 Acc Nice photos.
Kevin W. 8 Nov 2024 Acc Photos show the plain back, thick bill, and isolated eye-patch of a Red Phalarope.

 

2024-76 Pomerine Jaeger

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 5 Nov 2024 Acc Great find by Kris Purdy (she is on a streak!)
Keeli M. 22 Nov 2024 Acc Very thorough write-up, and photos show supporting bill and tail characteristics.
Bryant O. 26 Oct 2024 Acc Kris alerted me of the presence of a possible Pomarine Jaeger at Farmington Bay so I gave chase, and quickly found the bird about 150m out west of the main dike road. I watched it in the scope for over half an hour, mostly preening and loafing on the water but then it got up flew around, re-landed, then flew some more only to land far out. My general impression: Very large and bulky, when I initially saw it I though a juvy Herring due to overall bulk. Bill was very thick and long with a prominent nail at tip. Had a fierce flat headed and big eyed look. Very short primary projection past tail when sitting on the water. As it was preening I was able to view the tail and undertail coverts in good detail. UTC were heavily barred black and white, and the shape of R1 was very short and blunt. When it flew it had very broad based wings and a hefty bulky, short tailed look, flight was powerful and direct with deep leisurely wing beats, rather gull like. I was able to look at the u
nderwings in photos and see the "double flash" of white from the base of the primaries and primary coverts. All of this added up to Pomarine and I agree with Kris's assessment. My photos here: https://ebird.org/checklist/S200253673
Kris P. 3 Nov 2024 Acc  
Mike S. 3 Nov 2024 Acc Good photos and excellent written description. Structural details combined with flight style, boldly patterned undertail coverts, and other subtle plumage details all help to eliminate similar species. Nice record!
Dennis S. 31 Oct 2024 Acc Thorough report. Great effort to complete correct Id of bird and separate from other jaegers. An amazing observation of it killing a Franklin's Gull. Sure glad the observer didn't weep when it flew away - luckly returning.
Mark S. 10 Nov 2024 Acc Excellent documentation; bill characters alone confirm the i.d.
David W. 1 Nov 2024 Acc Convincing writeup and photos.
Kevin W. 27 Nov 2024 Acc Great descriptions eliminate other possibilities. The uniform-colored head, thick bill, and bulky body convince me.

 

2024-77 Lawrence's Goldfinch

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 5 Nov 2024 Acc Great documentation photos.
Keeli M. 22 Nov 2024 Acc Excellent photos. They're having quite the irruption this year.
Bryant O. 6 Nov 2024 Acc What else is there to say except WOW! Excellent write up and photos.
Kris P. 12 Nov 2024 Acc Distinctive bird; excellent observational notes and photos.
Mike S. 21 Nov 2024 Acc Nice description with definitive photos of a male Lawrence's Goldfinch. At least a few other birders searched for this bird over the next couple of days but I don't believe it has been re-found.
Dennis S. 10 Nov 2024 Acc Great photos!
Mark S. 10 Nov 2024 Acc Excellent documentation and photos.
David W. 5 Nov 2024 Acc Amazing photos and very detailed writeup.
Kevin W. 27 Nov 2024 Acc Photos show distinctive face and body pattern of a Lawrence's Goldfinch.

 

2024-78 Scissor-tailed Flycatcher

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 14 Nov 2024 Acc Very nice looking bird and great record for the county.
Keeli M. 22 Nov 2024 Acc Undeniably a scissor-tailed flycatcher. Good photos.
Bryant O. 8 Nov 2024 Acc Excellent documentation
Kris P. 12 Nov 2024 Acc Unmistakable adult male. A nice record for Grand County.
Mike S. 21 Nov 2024 Acc Nice photos show a distinctive Scissor-tailed Flycatcher!
Dennis S. 10 Nov 2024 Acc Great photos!
Mark S. 5 Dec 2024 Acc Excellent photos, good documentation.
David W. 8 Nov 2024 Acc Lovely individual well photographed.
Kevin W. 27 Nov 2024 Acc Photos show distinctive color and long-tail of Scissor-tailed Flycatcher.

 

2024-79 Magnolia Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 14 Nov 2024 Acc The description and elimination of other species leaves something to be desired. No mention of wingbars or lack there of? No mention of yellow rump? I am torn here - although sparse, the elimination of other species seems to be pretty comprehensive. Also it looks like the observer has photographed and observed many easter warblers in Canada based on his eBird profile. This is a very soft accept (I originally had no about halfway through writing this), but with the exception of an almost impossible Kirtland's Warbler I can't think of any western warbler that this might be confused with given the black flanks?

2nd round:

14 Dec 2024 No, ID Over thought this one. I agree with others and changing my vote.
Keeli M. 30 Nov 2024 No, ID The description is a little incomplete for me for a sighting without photo evidence, and I don't feel like the observer did a thorough enough job ruling out other possible species.

2nd round:

15 Dec 2024 No, ID Continuing to vote no for the same reasons. Details are lacking and leave room for doubt about ID.
Bryant O. 13 Nov 2024 To 2nd There are a number of field marks not mentioned I'd like to see in a MAWA record, such as the distinctive tail pattern, wingbars, and eyering. Not sure what warbler they saw, but I'm not sure if enough was seen to make a clear ID. Also concerned of lack of specific location, where exactly in St. George? What was the habitat? City park? Virgin river? Red Cliffs Canyon?

2nd round:

11 Dec 2024 No, ID My concerns were echoed by other, too few field marks described for solid ID
Kris P. 16 Nov 2024 No, ID The details of this record as so sparse they don't minimally describe the bird or eliminate a host of other species. After the Yellow-rumped Warbler, the Magnolia is probably the most likely of the gray, black, yellow and white warblers in October, but probability doesn't substitute for the lacking description.

2nd round:

12 Dec 2024 No, ID No change of opinion.
Mike S. 16 Dec 2024 To 2nd I've had some difficulty with this record, and initially thought I would reject based on the very limited description. However, that limited description does appear to match a Magnolia Warbler better than anything else. I am open to giving the observer the benefit of the doubt, although there is admittedly no margin for error.

2nd round:

13 Dec 2024 No, ID Despite David's confident declaration that this was a Kirtland's Warbler, I believe the observer likely saw something else. However, the description is very brief, and I cannot be sure that "something else" was a Magnolia Warbler.
(...in case it wasn't obvious...yes, I am just pulling David's leg...)
Dennis S. 24 Nov 2024 No, ID Report not convincing enough for acceptance. Leaves many questions concerning elimination of other warblers - immatures and non-breeding adults.

2nd round:

27 Dec 2024 No, ID No additional thoughts from 1st round.
Mark S. 5 Dec 2024 No, ID I don't think this description rules out Yellow-rumped Warbler. Though the observer seems experienced, I'm puzzled by the lac of description of the under tail - the most distinctive feature of Magnolia Warbler.

2nd round:

27 Dec 2024 No, ID As per my first round comments.
David W. 22 Nov 2024 No, ID I was going to vote to accept, but then I did a search through my field guides and found an alternative perfect match to the few field marks presented in this writeup: the Kirtland's warbler. Now, lest I be accused of trying to pad the Utah list, I want to head off any groans regarding suggesting the possibility of a species that until recently looked like it was heading for the extinction bin. I am not saying this WAS a Kirtland's warbler, just that the description in this record was a bit Spartan and left the possibility open for some other bird to fly through -- I don't like playing the probability game when it comes to rarities. This just goes to show that less is not necessarily more when it comes to rare bird writeups.

2nd round:

10 Dec 2024 No, ID I think I'll stay with my first round vote.
Kevin W. 27 Nov 2024 Acc The combination of Bright yellow breast with bold black streaks and gray head without yellow eliminates other possibilities, including rare ones that the observer indicates.

2nd round:

10 Dec 2024 No, ID I change my vote. I agree with others that the details are too sparse for definitive identification, and that it could have been a different species.

   

2024-80 Red Phalarope

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 14 Nov 2024 Acc Looks good for Red Phalarope - great find by KRPU
Keeli M. 30 Nov 2024 Acc Good size comparison between phalarope sp. in the photos showing a chunkier bird with a thicker bill and a smooth gray back.
Bryant O. 13 Nov 2024 Acc Photos and description consistent with Red Phalarope. Too bad it wasn't the Red that was in full Alternate plumage. I have also seen Alternate plumage RNPH very late in Oct-Nov, wonder if Red ever do that too?
Kris P. 16 Nov 2024 Acc  
Mike S. 6 Dec 2024 Acc Nice record with notable size/structural differences from nearby RNPH. The mostly plain gray back is also noteworthy. It's a strange side-by-side comparison with the alternate plumage RNPH, given that RNPH are usually in mostly basic plumage by the end of July!
Dennis S. 18 Nov 2024 Acc  
Mark S. 5 Dec 2024 Acc Excellent documentation.
David W. 22 Nov 2024 Acc Nice writeup, though perhaps almost terse by Kristin's standard.
Kevin W. 27 Nov 2024 Acc The phalorope in the photos shows a plain back and distinctive eye patch. The bill seems thick in some photos (others maybe not so much) - it looks like a Red Phalarope to me.

  

2024-81 Red Phalaropoe

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 14 Nov 2024 Acc Possibly the same bird lingering, maybe further along in molt? Hard to say - but regardless looks good for REPH
Keeli M. 30 Nov 2024 Acc Smooth gray back, chunkier bird with chunkier bill. Looks good for REPH
Bryant O. 13 Nov 2024 Acc Photos and description consistent with Red Phalarope.
Kris P. 16 Nov 2024 Acc  
Mike S. 11 Dec 2024 Acc Maybe not quite as straightforward as the other Red Phalarope records we've recently reviewed, but I believe the combination of photos and written description still establish the REPH ID.
Dennis S. 18 Nov 2024 Acc  
Mark S. 5 Dec 2024 Acc Excellent documentation.
David W. 22 Nov 2024 Acc I especially enjoyed the description of the shape: "Like a crescent with one side (the neck and head) longer and taller."
Kevin W. 10 Dec 2024 Acc Photos show distinctive face pattern, thick bill, and unpatterned back- distinguishing characteristics of Red Phalarope

 

2024-82 Magnolia Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 27 Nov 2024 Acc Good write-up eliminating similar species.
Keeli M. 15 Dec 2024 Acc Observer adequately rules out other species and thoroughly describes the unique color patterning supports ID. Observation time was very short, which does concern me a little bit, but I think observer's experience with this species and description supports ID.
Bryant O. 16 Nov 2024 Acc This is what a sight record of a MAWA should look like, tail pattern-check, wingbars-check, eyering-check. All the field marks unique to this species were noted in the record.
Kris P. 17 Nov 2024 Acc Includes diagnostic features, especially the tail pattern and tail-fanning behavior, and a fairly complete description that eliminates other species.
Mike S. 11 Dec 2024 Acc The written description establishes the ID. Similar species are adequately eliminated.
Dennis S. 24 Nov 2024 Acc Much more thorough report. Does good job eliminating conflicting closely resembling species.
Mark S. 5 Dec 2024 Acc Good description.
David W. 22 Nov 2024 Acc Very nice writeup with a good elimination of similar species. I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that the tail description eliminates the Kirtland's warbler.
Kevin W. 10 Dec 2024 Acc Descriptions seems thorough and eliminates other species.

 

2024-83 Crested Caracara

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 27 Nov 2024 Acc Nice documentation photos. Likely same bird lingering in an area not heavily birded?
Keeli M. 15 Dec 2024 Acc Excellent photos supporting ID.
Bryant O. 22 Nov 2024 Acc Can't argue with those great photos
Kris P. 11 Dec 2024 Acc A good record; excellent photos.
Mike S. 13 Dec 2024 Acc Photos show this distinctive species. Very interesting that this bird has stuck around since late August (with no known observations in between). It likely covers a sizable area making it difficult to detect.

Given that this is almost certainly the same individual as record #2024-67, I believe the records should be combined after our voting has completed. However, I am glad this second sight record was submitted to document the length of time this bird has been in the area.
Dennis S. 24 Nov 2024 Acc Photos leave no question. (These photos aren't the same as those submitted with earlier report are they?)
Mark S. 27 Dec 2024 Acc Photos are definitive.
David W. 29 Nov 2024 Acc Almost certainly the same individual seen by Tory Mathis on 28 Aug 2024 (Rec. # 2024-67).
Kevin W. 10 Dec 2024 Acc Photos show a Crested Caracara. Wow!

 

2024-84 Brown Thrasher

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 29 Nov 2024 Acc Unfortunately this bird didn't stick around, Bryant and I went to try to relocate in the evening and heard it call in response to play back multiple times. Quite the yard bird for MJM!
Keeli M. 15 Dec 2024 Acc Lighting conditions make it hard to tell it's rusty, but bill size and description of the bird and of its vocalizations support ID as BRTH. Nice yard bird!
Bryant O. 29 Nov 2024 Acc Photos confirm ID
Kris P. 11 Dec 2024 Acc Photos definitive; what a great yard bird.
Mike S. 27 Dec 2024 Acc Photos show a Brown Thrasher. Nice documentation.
Dennis S. 29 Nov 2024 Acc Nice photos which made the difference in vote.
Mark S. 27 Dec 2024 Acc Excellent documentation.
David W. 28 Nov 2024 Acc One of the more charming and entertaining writeups I've read this year. I am voting to accept based on the photos.
Kevin W. 10 Dec 2024 Acc Photos show distinctive rufous back, and bold dark streaks, and yellow eye definitive for Brown Thrasher.

 

2024-85 Gyrfalcon

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 29 Nov 2024 Acc Great photos/documentation of a lovely bird.
Keeli M. 15 Dec 2024 Acc Facial markings, shorter wings, direct size comparison with PRFA, body shape and description all support ID.
Bryant O. 29 Nov 2024 Acc Great Photos! Would love to see the video
Kris P. 27 Dec 2024 Acc Excellent narrative and many diagnostic photos. The bird's unfettered legs establish its wild and naturally-occurring status.
Mike S. 27 Dec 2024 Acc Nice documentation with good photos and an excellent write-up. Someone may raise the possibility of an escaped falconry bird, which is worth exploring with this species. However, I am of the mindset that if the bird appears to be wild (exhibiting normal behavior for a wild bird, no jesses, etc.), then the probability is in favor of it being wild. I believe the late-November timing is within range of expectation for a Gyrfalcon in northern Utah.
Dennis S. 29 Nov 2024 Acc Amazing photos and thorough writeup. No question! Hope it stays the winter.
Mark S. 27 Dec 2024 Acc Excellent (and amusing) documentation. Diagnostic photos.
David W. 29 Nov 2024 Acc (See the record for my comments.)

If I can figure out how to download the videos off of the iPhone, I will submit those as well. They show harriers harrying the poor Gyr by repeatedly swooping on it.
Kevin W. 27 Dec 2024 Acc Good write-up comparing similar species, and good photos that show distinct "dark-hooded" appearance, broad wings, and long-looking tail. Interesting that four of the 11 records in Utah are in the last four years! I wouldn't call that a regular occurrence, but I wonder if it's an increasing trend.

   

2024-86 Red-shouldered Hawk

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 13 Dec 2024 Acc Nice photos and documentation
Keeli M. 2 Jan 2025 Acc Excellent photos which show a small hawk with vertical streaked bib, with unique checkerboard appearance on wings.
Bryant O. 1 Dec 2024 Acc Great photos
Kris P. 27 Dec 2024 Acc Essential field marks, especially the black-and-white checkering in the secondaries and the wide tail bands, distinguish this bird from a Broad-winged Hawk. It's a mystery to me why Utah County has logged a goodly number of Red-shouldered while the rest of Northern Utah has logged so few.
Mike S. 27 Dec 2024 Acc Great photos with nice written documentation.
Dennis S. 6 Dec 2024 Acc Many observers and photos.
Mark S. 27 Dec 2024 Acc Excellent documentation and photos.
David W. 12 Dec 2024 Acc Nice record, both writeup and photos.
Kevin W. 27 Dec 2024 Acc Photos show banded tail and blotchy wing pattern with rufous in the upper wing indicative of Red-shouldered Hawk.

 

2024-87 Red Phalarope

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C.     2nd: 16 Jan 2025 No, ID I share the same concerns that others have expressed concerning the distance from which small distinguishing traits had to be discerned on a small bird, especially when a general impression of size and shape (GISS or JIZZ) played a significant role in the ID.
Max M. 13 Dec 2024 No, ID Given the distance and admittedly relying on "jizz" rather than field marks, I don't think there is enough to confirm this record. Red Phalaropes can be very difficult to differentiate from RNPH, especially at long range.

2nd round:

14 Jan 2025 No, ID Looks like my first round concerns were shared by others, and very well described by Kris Purdy. No change of opinion here.
Keeli M. 2 Jan 2025 Acc Slight hesitation on this one due to lack of photo evidence supporting sighting, but observer hits the important ID characteristics that support this as a REPH.

2nd round:

20 Jan 2025 No, ID Definitely had some reservations on this one. Other committee members make good points I agree with. Did not pick up on the reported observation distance in my initial review. Agree that it's too far away to believe the observer could get an adequate look to correctly ID. Sometimes things should Changing my vote.
Bryant O. 11 Dec 2024 No, ID I'm very concern by the distance, 500yards! That's half a kilometer which would make seeing the fine details of plumage needed very difficult if not impossible. Both have a gray back, but RNPH have black and white streaking, which can't be seen at that distance. Judging bill thickness at that distance is not really feasible. He say's its mostly a GISS ID, but then say's he has little experience with that species? I struggle with IDing RNPH vs REPH every year on the AIC, and its just a given that if they are too far out ID cannot be made to tell a REPH from the masses of RNPH.

2nd round:

14 Jan 2025 No, ID  No change in opinion and I agree with all of Kris's concerns as well.
Kris P. 12 Dec 2024 No, ID The crux of the problem with this record is this statement: "I am confident in my ability to pick up on 'intangibles' that form the basis of much of my conclusions."

- Picking up 'intangibles' on an 8 1/2" bird at 400-500 yards (.23-.28 mile) and comparing them to a species not present is beyond reason.
-- The difference in the thickness of the two species' bills is likely millimeters, and this observer is judging this at 1/4 mile and comparing it to an impression of another bird from 7-10 days ago.
-- This judgement also appears to extend to body characteristics in flight, which implies the observer was able to keep the scope on the bird as it flushed and flew farther from this 1/4 mile location and he lost it. An impression like this must have been extremely brief while the bird was increasing its distance from the observer.

- Coincidentally, the Red Phalarope I documented recently in record 2024-72 at Farmington Bay was at 450 yards when I first saw it from the dike road as measured later on Google Earth while using my eBird checklist tracks from the dike road and the closer (30 yards) viewing location as guides of where to measure. I termed the bird "really out of scope range" until I took a different 1/4-mile route to reach the much closer viewing spot and confirm ID points. Like this observer's scope, mine has a 20-60x zoom.

- While the bird in this record was likely not approachable because it was in the middle of the reservoir, to me, this leaves the bird out of scope range and claiming an ID may be wishful thinking.

2nd round:

11 Jan 2025 No, ID No change in opinion. County eBird reviewers are an important source of records for the rare birds review process by encouraging eBirders to submit sight records to the committee (or conversely, not encouraging records when stronger details are not available for the eBird confirmation process). But the submitter has agency and doesn't have to say yes, especially when he expects the record not to be accepted due to so little substantive information.
Mike S. 31 Dec 2024 No, ID I believe a Red Phalarope may have been observed, and the timing is starting to get a bit late for a Red-necked in southern Utah (there are no eBird records of a RNPH in Washington County in November, despite the large flock reported by Paul in late-October).

Having said that, I don't believe the description is detailed enough to rule out a RNPH from consideration, which is understandable given the observer's distance to the bird. It's difficult to rely on the comparison with RNPH since the only nearby bird was a Horned Grebe.

This may well have been a REPH, and I believe Paul's overall "impression" of that species counts for something. However, I don't believe there were enough details available for a definitive ID.

2nd round:

21 Jan 2025 No, ID I continue to have concerns with this record, which have been echoed by others...
Dennis S. 27 Dec 2024 No, ID The month long time frame between observation date and report leaves some questions. Others include the long with observation distance, and too much emphasis on jizz and not enought deffinative characters. These lead to an unconvincing conclusion.

2nd round:

12 Jan 2025 No, ID No change from 1st round views.
Mark S.    2nd: 11 Jan 2025 No, ID No change from 1st round views.
David W. 10 Dec 2024 Acc Plain gray upperparts, stocker bill, plus some nice nuance stuff.
Kevin W. 27 Dec 2024 No, ID The observer may well have seen a Red Phalarope, but with no photos to study, and the description mostly entailing comparative features that are rather subjective, I think it's hard to accept this record.

2nd round:

24 Jan 2025 No, ID I continue to think this is a hard record to accept with such little detail, and add the concern that others have expressed that the distance observed would be difficult to note the details that would define it as a Red Phalarope.

 

2024-88 Mexican Duck

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C.     2nd: 16 Jan 2025 Acc  I m seeing red and green artifacts in every image. Some are worse than others as you examine the colors showing in the water of some images. So, naturally, those artifacts are showing up on the subject, distorting what we are left to evaluate from our perspective. Those colors would not have shown up in the field, so the observer would not have seen a need to explain why red or green colors might show up in images that others will use for evaluation. To my eye, photos B (not B1) and C, together, provide the best images of the subject for evaluation purposes in terms of not introducing such accentuated red and green artifacts. Those two images are augmented by the observer s description of what was observed in the field. Whites are also being exaggerated in some photos (photo A, for example) and therefore magnifying highlights in the water and the lighter feathers of the drake mallards and our review bird. This will turn pale edges on the tail feathers into bright white edges. I ve documented Mexican Ducks in Utah County and in southern Arizona that have been accepted by the Committee and regional eBird reviewers. The males in those cases showed some pale edges on the tail feathers, so it s not surprising to me that pale edges are looking brighter than expected in deeply cropped low-resolution images. Based on records that the Committee has already accepted for this species and the observer s description of what was observed and eliminated in the field, I vote to accept this one.
Max M. 13 Dec 2024 Acc Seems fine for a Utah MEDU

2nd round:

31 Jan 2025 Acc I am really torn on this record and I wish I could recuse myself due to my colorblindness. I personally see no red/maroon on the breast and do not see green on the nape. I see there is discussion about whether or not this is truly the accurate representation of the bird's plumage or if they are artifacts of the photos. I think Jeff has a good point, that if those colors were truly seen on the bird that he may have included more details/comments about the difference in the field vs. the photos. Can we ask him at this point? or would alerting the observer to this alter his perception/memory? I also agree with Mark, we have already established that no MEDU observed in Utah is going to be pure. Without a standard or some kind of determination of phenotypic level of acceptance, I am not sure how to accurately make a decision of what constitutes an acceptable MEDU in Utah. I frankly could go either way on this one, but with it seemingly to be mostly phenotypic traits of MEDU, I am going to go ahead this round and accept as I feel like it falls within the range of what we have accepted in previous records of MEDU.
Keeli M. 2 Jan 2025 Acc Photo quality makes it a little hard to judge how much white there is in the tail. I believe Photo C is supportive of ID, but B has some confusing light artifacts in the tail area. Based on description of observation of brown rump/trail coverts, and brown tail edging, accepting this record.

2nd round:

8 Feb 2025 Acc The quality of photos makes it hard on this one but I think the record still supports ID as a MEDU..
Bryant O. 12 Dec 2024 No, ID Poor photos but appears to have some Mallard genes. Dark rump, pale tail, and maybe some green on nape(or is that just a photo effect?). Also breast seems reddish

2nd round:

14 Jan 2025 No, ID I'm seeing a strongly contrasting reddish breast, and some green in the nape in the photos which suggest some Mallard genes involved. I just can't get on board with this one, too many potential hybrid traits.
Kris P. 29 Dec 2024 No, ID I don't think the observer assessed the full suite of characters necessary to eliminate a Mallard x Mexican Duck hybrid. There's no mention of assessing the crown for green, one of the Mallard features that might persist into successive generations. Less important, perhaps, than the strongest characters that persist is the color and pattern of the brown breast which might indicate Mallard introgression (maroon-brown and smooth), but the observer indicates only "dark bodied" and "brown". The photos aren't of a quality that we can assess almost any of the finer features without the missing narrative description, either, so the record doesn't answer the question of hybrid in words or pictures.

Both the attention paid to the tail area and the explanation for the photo appearance of the curled tail feathers were helpful, just not enough to eliminate all doubt.

2nd round:

30 Jan 2025 No, ID Our analyses on this record represents, to me, the thrash that was predicted for birders and records committees when the Mexican Duck was returned to full species status. I'm willing to accept records that don't show primary signs of Mallard gene intrusion (green in the crown, curled tail feathers, white in the outer tail feathers except for fading as the feathers age). Nice to have but less critical would be to address black in the upper and under-tail coverts (assessed in this record) and reddish-brown in the breast. I've even accepted one record that didn't have photos, but the experienced birder knew what to assess and did it. I'm not willing to accept records that do an incomplete job of assessing hybrid characteristics. The slope is slippery enough already as we try to meet this challenge.

The photos are particularly frustrating and detract from the record. I take from everyone's comments there was a lot of eye-squinting to try to see colors or explain away colors that shouldn't be present. McKay's noting the photo artifact of curled tail feathers that wasn't present during his in-person observing was important. Had he also mentioned that the crown didn't show green even though we can't tell from the photos, I would have accepted his words. But he didn't.

We all want great evidence that fleshes out a record, but in my opinion, the photos here are of such a low resolution and full of misleading information that they can't be used to fill in what he failed to tell us.
Mike S. 31 Dec 2024 Acc I wish we had better quality photos to assess some subtle details. However, in combination with the good written description, I believe we have enough to accept as a Mexican Duck.

2nd round:

4 Feb 2025 No, ID I could probably go either way with this second round vote after taking another look. I echo Max's point (and believe I've mentioned this before), that there seems to be no widely accepted standard of acceptance for this species. As long as that is the case, whatever "criteria" we are using to assess MEDU records is likely to be quite subjective...

Having said that, we have 13 vetted/accepted records of this species in Utah, all since 2018. I believe is a large enough sample size to say we have some past precedent for acceptance here in Utah, even if the criteria used for each individual record is not crystal clear. If I compare this record to those ones, the overall quality of documentation is not quite on the same level. The photos are simply not good enough to see if there is green in the head, and this is not mentioned in the description. The breast contrast, mentioned by Bryant, does raise some concerns (I initially wondered if this may be the product of a backlit/shadow from the bird's head, but either way, it's not addressed in the description).

This might be a mostly phenotypically pure Mexican Duck, but I am changing my vote here since I believe there is some uncertainty, at least when comparing this record to past accepted records.
Dennis S. 27 Dec 2024 Acc Good written decription comparing mallard and photos left little question of identiy.

2nd round:

12 Jan 2025 Acc Hybrid questions may have some validity, but good enough documentation and photos still seem adequate for acceptance as a MEDU.
Mark S. 11 Jan 2025 Acc Good documentation; photos support the analysis. I see no evidence to support a hybrid

2nd round:

27 Jan 2025 Acc I've brought this up before, but if we have an elevated standard of purity for eliminating hybrid Mallard x Mexican Duck in Utah, then we should simply reject Mexican Duck sightings entirely. I'm sure that if DNA samples were run, that we would be very unlikely to ever find a "pure" Mexican Duck in Utah. We've set the precedent, and in accordance with the taxonomic decisions of the AOS NACC, that birds with no overt signs of hybridization would be accepted.

This bird shows no such signs. If I were to see it here, far from any Mallard populations, it wouldn't look any different from any other Mexican Duck. A darker breast and even a slight amount of greenish in the head is common in Mexican Ducks, certainly more than can be seen in these photos. Even slight amount of tail curl is also normal. Especially given the time of year (with all dabbling ducks in full alternate plumage), this individual is clearly at the Mexican Duck end of the spectrum, showing few, if any, signs of hybridization, phenotypically.

If we're going to reject Mexican Duck sightings based upon supposed or unclear minutia in field marks that *could* indicate a hybrid, even when the preponderance of evidence shows no clear signs of a hybrid, then we should probably reject most, if not all, Mexican Duck sightings in Utah as presumed hybrids.
David W. 12 Dec 2024 Acc Good job dealing with hybridization.
Kevin W. 27 Dec 2024 Acc Photos show bright bill, distinct line between the lighter head and darker breast, dark undertail, and little or no curl to the tail feathers. Seems good for a Mexican Duck.

2nd round:

24 Jan 2025 Acc I continue to think that the photos demonstrate enough to accept this as a Mexican Duck.

   

2024-89 Zone-tailed Hawk

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 17 Dec 2024 Acc  Good write up and photos to support
Keeli M. 2 Jan 2025 Acc Photos and description support ID for me.
Bryant O. 16 Dec 2024 Acc Great field notes and photo supports ID
Kris P. 29 Dec 2024 Acc  
Mike S. 30 Dec 2024 Acc  
Dennis S. 27 Dec 2024 Acc Good description and observation details made easy decision. Photos?
Mark S. 11 Jan 2025 Acc Good description, photos show a Zone-tailed Hawk.
David W. 15 Dec 2024 Acc The photos make the bird look almost vulturine, reminiscent of some odd tropical caracara, but the excellent description leaves no doubt.
Kevin W. 27 Dec 2024 Acc Good write-up eliminates other possibilities, photo show a dark hawk with lightly banded tail.

 

2024-90 Black-throated Green Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Max M. 17 Dec 2024 Acc Crazy
Keeli M. 14 Jan 2025 Acc Good documentation photos!
Bryant O. 16 Dec 2024 Acc Photos confirm ID
Kris P. 29 Dec 2024 Acc Excellent job by the submitter getting multiple photos that together show most of the bird, especially show the diagnostic yellow wash on the vent, and even though he didn't eliminate a Townsend's x Hermit Warbler hybrid in the narrative, the photos do the job.

I got a kick out of his comment (haha, sorry).
Mike S. 9 Dec 2024 Acc Photos are diagnostic. Great record!

This may be the first time a birder west of the Rocky Mountains has ever recorded a Black-throated Green Warbler and stated these words: "I was hoping it was a Townsend's."
Dennis S. 27 Dec 2024 Acc Good comparison to Townsend's. Nice up close photos.
Mark S. 11 Jan 2025 Acc Greenish crown, face pattern (photo B) eliminate Townsend's or Townsend's x Hermit.
David W. 17 Dec 2024 Acc Although mostly obscured by pine needles, the photos definitely show the lack of yellow in the upper breast, greenish crown color, greenish back color, and diffuse face pattern that differentiate this bird from similar species. Even the yellow wash in the vent area is visible. The habitat just goes to show that rare birds can show up anywhere.
Kevin W. 10 Jan 2025 Acc Good documentation, discusses differences with similar Townsend. Photos show the whiter chest, yellow band across the undertail.

 

2024-91 Red-throated Loon

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 4 Jan 2025 Acc Notes and images document the thin, upward pointing bills, white around the eyes, and white spotting on the backs to confirm the species.
Max M. 1 Jan 2025 Acc Very nice record(s) for Utah County/Lake, good write-up and documentation photos.
Keeli M. 20 Jan 2025 Acc Photo I especially supports ID, showing white speckling and lores on nonbreeding adult.
Bryant O. 24 Dec 2024 Acc Description and photos match RTLO
Kris P. 1 Jan 2025 Acc Excellent record. I appreciate the many photos, especially those depicting the white spotting on the back. Finding two birds at once is a heckuva great way to log your lifer and Utah County's first record of the species.
Mike S. 9 Dec 2024 Acc Nice documentation rules out similar species. There are many additional observations with photos on eBird.
Dennis S. 27 Dec 2024 Acc Many observers. Nice convincing photos. Great record for Utah County.
Mark S. 11 Jan 2025 Acc Good documentation.
Kevin W. 10 Jan 2025 Acc Photos show distinct characteristics of Red-throated Loon, including the delicate shape, upturned beaks, and stippled backs.

 

2024-92 Yellow-billed Loon

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 4 Jan 2025 Acc The record documents the important field marks to confirm the species, especially the large pale bill with the upward curved lower mandible.
Max M. 1 Jan 2025 Acc Good documentation and photos by many
Keeli M. 20 Jan 2025 Acc Excellent photos showing pale head and neck and giant pale yellow upturned bill.
Bryant O. 31 Dec 2024 Acc  
Kris P. 2 Jan 2025 Acc Thorough, and with the best use of the comparison opportunity afforded by the Common Loon. I'm glad to see Bryant's noting the chubby-cheeked, thick-necked look, helpful GISS characters especially obvious when a Common Loon is present or when reviewing many photographs. The thick neck was a significant feature missing in all photos way back with record 2022-59 (not accepted), and so it's good to see it in these photos and Bryant describing it along with multiple other features.
Mike S. 21 Jan 2025 Acc Great written documentation with decent photos. Nice to have that side-by-side comparison with a Common Loon!
Dennis S. 12 Jan 2025 Acc Good photo documentation along with multiple observers over several days removes any questions.
Mark S. 11 Jan 2025 Acc Good documentation, photos.
Kevin W. 10 Jan 2025 Acc Photos look like a Yellow-billed Loon, particularly that big pale bill.

 

2024-93 Red-shouldered Hawk

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 4 Jan 2025 Acc The images augment the initial field notes to confirm a 1st-year Red-shouldered Hawk.
Max M. 1 Jan 2025 Acc Forgot about this bird but remember it being reported at the time of the Gray Hawk. Good write-up and photos
Keeli M. 20 Jan 2025 Acc Photos show small buteo with short wingtips that don't reach the end of a short tail, rufous feathering on shoulders, dark streaked bib, and white crescent in outer primaries. All support ID as RSHA
Bryant O. 31 Dec 2024 Acc Great photos show a juvenile RSHA
Kris P. 2 Jan 2025 Acc  
Mike S. 21 Jan 2025 Acc  
Dennis S. 12 Jan 2025 Acc Nice photos, several observers, leaves little question. Why so long between observation and report dates.
Mark S. 11 Jan 2025 Acc Photos show a Red-shouldered Hawk.
Kevin W. 10 Jan 2025 Acc Photos show characteristics of a Red-shouldered Hawk, including the banded tail, yellow cere, back and wings mottled with white, and reddish hint on shoulders.

 

2024-94 Chestnut-collard Longspur

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 8 Jan 2025 Acc The observer s previous experience with the species, visually confirming the sooty underside and the distinct dark triangle in the tail feathers after recognizing the flight call, and the elimination of similar species make this a strong record.
Max M. 1 Jan 2025 Acc Good description and write-up eliminating other longspur sp., noting distinctive call.
Keeli M. 20 Jan 2025 Acc Description is supportive of ID and rules out other longspur species.
Bryant O. 31 Dec 2024 Acc  
Kris P. 3 Jan 2025 Acc A frustratingly short sighting, I'm sure, but the critical ID points noted include the kiddle call, the sooty belly and the distinctive tail pattern.
Mike S. 22 Jan 2025 Acc Nice written documentation. Combination of the call, tail pattern, and underparts all help to eliminate similar species.
Dennis S. 12 Jan 2025 Acc Normally more definitive evidence would be needed for acceptance (photos) (longer observation times) (not just a flyby record and sound record). But the reporter did an excellant job comparing similar species, and removing ID questions.
Mark S. 11 Jan 2025 Acc Good documentation from an observer experienced with the species.
Kevin W. 10 Jan 2025 Acc I wish there were photos, but the observer does a good job describing key characteristics; ie the brownish head and back, black triangle in the tail, blackish belly, and the flight call. He does well eliminating similar species.

 

2024-95 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C 8 Jan 2025 Acc The notes and photos provide solid documentation for a male hatch-year Yellow-breasted Sapsucker. I agree with how the possibility of YBSA x RNSA is eliminated based on research I did while reviewing this record.
Max M. 14 Jan 2025 Acc Retained juvenile plumage at this date, along with good photos and description leave no doubt. Good find but one of our own.
Keeli M. 20 Jan 2025 Acc Agree with the ID based on the write-up. Bird still retains juvenile characteristics, which points more towards YBSA as do complete black border on throat, lack of red in the nape, and messy white barring on back.
Bryant O. 31 Dec 2024 Acc Agree with observers assessment, no sign of hybrid in this juvy YBSA
Kris P. 6 Jan 2025 Acc I don't see signs of hybridization with this bird. Multiple features support a pure Yellow-bellied: Incomplete molt on the late date with thick blackish (unbroken by red) malars outlining the blush of red in the throat, lack of red nuchal patch and extensive white ladder-like pattern (vs. two well-defined "chains" for a Red-naped). I'm longing to see the crown and the pattern of red that may be filling in there (should be scattered), but the photos, especially Photo E, don't even hint of this with a red halo on the crown, meaning that this is a late-molting bird more consistent with Yellow-bellied. The only minor unsettling concern I have is how white the white on the back is. I'd expect a Yellow-bellied to be more yellow-tinged, but this concern is not enough not to accept the record.
Mike S. 21 Jan 2025 Acc  
Dennis S. 19 Jan 2025 Acc The late stage of retention of the juvenile plumage and description of the back plumage pattern along with excellant supporting photos is convincing enough for acceptance.
Mark S. 11 Jan 2025 Acc Excellent documentation. Photos clearly support this species, both in extent of retained immature plumage and in the visible field marks of back and head markings, with no indication of hybrid features.
Kevin W. 24 Jan 2025 Acc Well written documentation, including distinguishing from juvenile Red-naped and hyprid sapsuckers. I think the juvenile molting and amount of black bordering the throat suggest this is a Juvenile Yellow-bellied Sapsucker.