--Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society
   
Status & Comments
Year 2025 (records 1 through 50)

2025-01 Northern Cardinal

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C 8 Jan 2025 No, ID Washington County would be a reasonable location for such a vagrant to appear, but the record leaves me with questions. I read the record several times to become clear on whether the words represented the observer s description and previous experience with the species or the description of and experience with the species by the submitter, who did not observe the bird. The showing of field guides to the observer by the submitter left me with the impression that the observer wasn t sure of the species that visited the feeder. For such a vagrant, I d like more conclusive documentation from the observer s perspective before accepting the record.

2nd round:

27 Feb 2025 No, ID Same as first round
Max M. 14 Jan 2025 No, ID This is a very odd record. Written by the parent of the observer? How old is her daughter? How much experience does she have? I don't think the mother's experience qualifies for the observer. Showing someone pictures of birds in a book may lead to thinking they saw something that may be different than was actually observed, and then the record submitter describes a cardinal from a field guide? I don't think there is enough here to accept an exceptional species like Northern Cardinal without more information.

2nd round:

7 Mar 2025 No, ID Thanks Kris for the follow up information, I still don't think there is enough information to support this record.
Keeli M. 20 Jan 2025 To 2nd Description seems like it rules out other species, however, observer doesn't explicitly discuss how other species were actually ruled out. Soft accept but wondering what other board members think about this one.

2nd round:

127 Mar 2025 No, ID I believe the submitter is an experienced birder, and the bird she said her daughter described is likely a NOCA, but as others mentioned, the secondhand report is problematic and there are issues with supporting details that don't rule out an escapee or other similar species.
Bryant O. 5 Jan 2025 No, ID Although on the surface this looks like a good record, at the very end under additional info, we see that this whole record is a 2nd hand report by a parent speaking for their child, therefore it is hearsay. There is no information on the age or experience of the child and the person writing the record did not see the bird, which is very problematic. There is at least one other report of a NOCA in Washington county recently, and this would fit the expected pattern of their occurrence in Utah(unlike many other records) but I don't think a second hand report from a parent for their child is a scientifically valid record

2nd round:

1 Mar 2025 No, ID This report is all hearsay without an actual account from the observer of the bird, not a scientifically valid sighting.
Kris P. 11 Feb 2025 No, nat This record is confusing and misleading, and I wouldn't accept it for those reasons if we had voting categories to match. But we don't, so I'm not accepting it because neither the observer nor the submitter established that the bird is wild and not an escapee.

I think the misleading nature of this record is unintentional. My e-mail inquiries to clear up the confusion have gone unanswered.

I believe Lucy Ormond submitted this record on behalf of her daughter, Adrienne. Lucy filed an eBird checklist from the same address on the same date and with the same details as in record 2025-01, except she didn't mention that her daughter was the observer and she (Lucy) didn't see it:

https://ebird.org/checklist/S206977609

Note that Lucy also comments she thought the bird was a stray from Arizona; the same comment that appears a couple times in the record. But her name doesn't appear on the record anywhere.

Very confusing is that the observer, Adrienne Shoell, also uses the name Annie. Misleading, if my conjecture is right, is that Lucy may have entered her own experience with the species rather than Adrienne/Annie's. (I don't think an observer with the experience listed would need to be shown a Northern Cardinal and other red birds in eight field guides to confirm what she saw.)

I e-mailed Adrienne at the e-mail address in the record in early January to clear up the mystery. She has not replied. She might not even be aware of the UBRC or that a sight record was submitted on her behalf. Or maybe my message ended up in her spam folder. I also e-mailed Lucy in mid-January and haven't received a reply while allowing extra time because she wasn't available during part of that period. While I have Lucy's phone number and birded with her once, I think additional attempts to straighten this out are too intrusive and unnecessary because I've confirmed most of this information through publicly-available sources.

I don't think Adrienne is a birder nor is she in a position to evaluate a Northern Cardinal for signs of captivity. Those would be under-pigmented feathers, unusual feather wear and unwary behavior. Even experienced birders may not know these are concerns for a certain subset of songbirds, and the additional comments don't include trying to establish the bird's wild status.

2nd round:

21 Feb 2025 No, nat I'm staying with my No, Nat vote for the second round. There are myriad reasons not to accept this record, and others I described without realizing it in my first round comments: This record was submitted anonymously, perhaps not intentionally. I don't think following the scientific method ever allows for data bases to accept anonymous records. This circumstance probably should result in an automatic 'Not Accept' regardless of the content of the record. Another that I mentioned is that the means of contacting the citizen scientist involved in this sighting is not viable, or my inquiry was simply ignored--also not acceptable when following the scientific method. The details of the observation and species elimination are irrelevant in light of the fact that neither the "scientist" nor the submitter are available to answer questions about the observation. This, to me, is akin to submitting a phD dissertation to a panel of academics and then never being available to defend the thesis, all the while expecting to be published: No.
Mike S. 23 Jan 2025 No, ID This is a potentially intriguing and truly unusual record. If this description was a first-hand account of this bird, I would likely vote to accept. However, the secondhand account from the submitter's daughter introduces some uncertainty. I think it was prudent of the submitter of this record to allow her daughter to point out the bird that she saw in field guides, and she may well have seen a Northern Cardinal. However, this is a very unusual circumstance, and I don't believe we have much precedent for accepting records submitted by someone other than the observer (except for maybe some exceptional circumstances where there was a photo or other definitive documentation that could be traced back to the observer).

The fact that Adrienne is apparently too young to submit her own sight record introduces some additional concerns...

I hope Adrienne becomes an avid birder and adds this one to her life list, but I don't feel comfortable accepting this rarity based on the unusual circumstances of this record. I'm interested to see what others have to say...

2nd round:

2 Mar 2025 No, ID Looks like we are mostly on the same page.
Dennis S. 19 Jan 2025 No, ID Due to the extreme rarity of this species ( only 4 site records) along with the unauthorized introduction in the 1990's in Utah County, this record is hard to accept based on the one short observation time, and no additional later observations at the feeder.

2nd round:

26 Feb 2025 No, ID No additional thoughts from first round.
Mark S. 11 Jan 2025 Acc This is a soft accept, due to the irregular nature of the submission and the observation. The description clearly fits Northern Cardinal, but it's unclear whether the report is being submitted by the actual observer.

There are always questions regarding natural occurrence for this species, but at least this location would be logical for a naturally occurring vagrant.

2nd round:

28 Feb 2025 No, nat I'll change my vote considering the concerns of other committee members. I offered a soft accept, but the irregularities of this record make a rejection for such a rare species warranted.
Kevin W. 24 Jan 2025 No, ID Although the description of characters in this submission would eliminate other possibilities, I have several concerns. Primarily, that this bird was observed by the daughter of the submitter, who didn't see the bird herself (the report doesn't indicate the age of the observer). Also, the bird supposedly only showed once at a feeder, although other people were watching the feeders regularly.The fact that the observer then had to look through a book to find a bird that fits what she remembered indicates little or no experience with the species. I'm not sure the record is trustworthy enough to accept.

2nd round:

28 Feb 2025 No, ID No change in thoughts from first round.

 

2025-02 Gilded Flicker

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 10 Jan 2025 No, ID I took extra measures with this record because it reminded me of the Gilded Flicker record from last January (2024-04). The brown/cinnamon cap and nape of our current bird initially gave me the impression of a male Gilded Flicker. But closer observation seemed to reveal that the forehead color was slightly warmer or brighter than the rest of the crown and nape in some images. Beyond the head, the rest of our review bird appears to be typical of Northern Flicker (Red-shafted). First and foremost, Red/orange shafts can be seen in the primary and secondary feathers in photos C, D, and F. A hint of that color also appears in the lighter spots in the folded primaries. These traits do not support the Gilded Flicker ID.

I generated a list of images that are labeled Northern Flicker (Red-shafted) in the Macaulay Library that show the same cap and nape traits as our review bird but also clearly show the red/orange color expected for Northern Flicker (Red-shafted) on the undersides of flight feathers. Some were even labeled as Red x Yellow-shafted intergrades. Sibley notes that Red x Yellow-shafted Northern Flicker intergrades can appear similar to Gilded Flickers. Our bird seems to lack the red nape crescent often seen on red x yellow-shafted intergrades, but rather than confirm that such is the case with this bird, I took the approach of determining whether this bird is a pure Gilded Flicker as submitted. While not the most reliable traits due to variation among individual birds, I reviewed and noted that our review bird also appeared to have a darker brown dorsal color, bolder barring across the folded wings and back, more uniformly round black spots on the sides and flanks, and a breast patch that comes to a sharp point on the bird’s right side (although its left side is less so). Again, I recognize that these traits vary among individuals in both species, but I wanted to consider all traits in the balance. The scale tilted away from a pure Gilded Flicker.

Final note: After finishing my review of the complete record with its images and confirming that it was permitted, I reached out to the observer to see if he had any other images that could supplement the record. I received several images clearly showing the undertail feathers characteristic of Northern Flicker (Red-shafted). I forwarded those images to the secretary and webmaster to be included in the record.

2nd round:

30 Jan 2025 No, ID For the same reasons noted in my first round vote.
Max M. 14 Jan 2025 No, ID While the bird pictured does have a brown nape, this trait can be pretty extensive in Red-shafted Flickers. No mention of the shape of the bib or spots on the breast, no description of the undertail color or amount of black in the tip of the tail (not the best photos to view this either). I don't believe a normal, much more expected Red-Shafted Northern Flicker can be ruled out.

2nd round:

31 Jan 2025 No, ID No change of feelings from first round vote.
Keeli M. 20 Jan 2025 To 2nd This bird has some confusing characteristics to me. The cinnamon forehead made me lean toward GIFL, but the bright orange under tail and hints of orange under the wings in Photo G as well as the bib shape being more crescent shaped and less oval shaped make me lean toward hybrid.

2nd round:

8 Feb 2025 No, ID No change of opinion that this is not a GIFL and appreciate the in depth analysis of other committee members' comments that this is a subspecies of NOFL with interesting characteristics.
Bryant O. 5 Jan 2025 No, ID There is no description of the bird under field marks? No mention of the shaft color or the tail pattern. Yes, the cap is intriguing, but the chest spots look very round and without a view of the tail or shafts, I don't think we can rule out an unusual Red-shafted, and especially a hybrid Red-shafted x Gilded. Someone needs to re-find that bird.

2nd round:

30 Jan 2025 No, Int Red under tail eliminates pure Gilded.
Kris P. 5 Jan 2025 No, ID This bird's crown pattern is arresting and I see why it caught Jacob's attention. But I think it's more likely a vagrant of the red-shafted subspecies C. a. cafer of the Pacific Coast region of the Northern Flicker's range. Here are a couple examples from Macaulay Library:

https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/628564457
https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/462640971

In addition, other characteristics favor red-shafted Northern Flicker including:
- Crescent-shaped black breast patch with pointy ends rather than more oval-shaped with rounded ends
- Circular breast spots on the sides rather than elongated to oval and becoming bars
- Feather shafts appearing to be salmon-orange rather than yellow
- Black bars on back not particularly thin/pale

I considered the possibility of a hybrid given recent Gilded Flicker record 2025-02 occurred less than 2 miles away, but the overwhelming phenotypic characters of the bird in this record are than of a red-shafted Northern Flicker.

2nd round:

30 Jan 2025 No, ID As per my first round comments.
Mike S. 30 Jan 2025 No, ID The photos show a male Northern Flicker. This is an interesting individual with a partial black outline around the red malar (potentially indicating some yellow-shafted introgression?). The crown/nape combo has a bit more contrasting brown than what is shown on many NOFL, but I believe still within range of variation. We are clearly seeing reddish-orange under the tail and on the wings, and the shape of the black breastband is consistent with a NOFL.

I suppose if this same bird was seen near the expected range of Gilded Flicker, there could be some discussion about a potential hybrid. However, at this location I am not seeing any reason to call this anything but a Northern Flicker.

2nd round:

4 Feb 2025 No, ID No change of opinion. Kris's examples from the Macaulay Library appear to be a good match.
Dennis S. 19 Jan 2025 No, ID Even with the apparent bright cinnamon colored fore-crown, I'm not convinced this bird is a GIFL. The variations among the NOFL make the GIFL dtermination complicated at best. In this bird the photos give a more reddish tail coloration appearance and the back and tail black barring appears more consistent with a NOFL.

2nd round:

26 Feb 2025 No, ID No change from 1st Round.
Mark S. 27 Jan 2025 No, ID I'm not sure that this isn't a pure red-shafted, but at the most, it's clearly a hybrid. The under-tail color is red-orange, not yellow, the back color dark and heavily marked, and the chest crescent very crescent-shaped and not at all rounded. The nape color seems to be within the range of red-shafted. The only thing I can see that would point towards Gilded Flicker is that the black on the underside tail tip seems wider than on red-shafted.

I'm not sure who at eBird suggested this as a Gilded Flicker, but I certainly can't see a pure Gilded Flicker here, and maybe not even a hybrid. There's too much red-shafted in this individual.

2nd round:

4 Feb 2025 No, ID As per my first round comments.
Kevin W. 24 Jan 2025 No, ID This is an interesting bird. The color of the feathers in the wings and the tail (particularly noticeable in photo G) are more reddish than what I would think a Gilded should show. The breast patch (more so on the left than the right side, for some reason) is more pointed than rounded like a Gilded. Also, I think that on a gilded flicker, the black tail tip should extend about halfway or more up the tail; whereas this looks to be less than half. The brown crown is the only real thing that confuses me. I haven't seen any Northern Flickers with a completely brown crown like that, but it also seems that the brown fades somewhat toward the rear instead of staying constant - I don't know what that means as far as a Northern Flicker, but I don't think Gilded Flickers should have a gradient of brown going to gray like that.

2nd round:

31 Jan 2025 No, ID I agree with others that this bird is a Northern Flicker. I hadn't recalled Northern Flickers with that much of a tan crown before, but the photos that Kris attached are right on.

   

2025-03 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 8 Jan 2025 No, ID The record provides specific details and represents a great attempt by the observer to observe and document key field marks. The objective approach by the submitter was helpful with my review of the record. As I considered the details, it seemed that we needed to eliminate the possibility of a variant female Red-naped Sapsucker, for example, since some female Red-naped Sapsuckers can show a red chin and lack the red spot on the nape. I hesitate to accept the record without notes on whether there was a complete black border around the red throat and if the white markings on the back were indicative of Yellow-bellied rather than Red-naped Sapsucker.
Max M. 14 Jan 2025 No, ID I don't think the description of the throat pattern is enough to eliminate RNSA or Hybrid, along with the quick view. Also knowing that the nape isn't always red in RNSA. No mention of a complete or incomplete black border to the red on throat. . . Doesn't eliminate possibility of RNSA or Hybrid.
Keeli M. 20 Jan 2025 No, ID Not enough information in the record to fully support ID or rule out a hybrid.
Bryant O. 6 Jan 2025 No, ID No discussion of the amount of red on the throat or if it had a black border, no mention of age or back pattern. I don't think there is enough here to rule out hybrid RNSA X YBSA.
Kris P. 6 Jan 2025 No, ID Not enough to ID this bird to species or eliminate hybrids given that some Red-naped Sapsuckers don't have either the red nape or red spattered on the auriculars. A good view of the throat and its pattern and extent of red is imperative, and the pattern and extent of white on the back is also important.
Mike S. 4 Feb 2025 No, ID I don't believe the description is detailed enough to call this a Yellow-bellied Sapsucker. I certainly don't trust Merlin's ability to separate the calls of RNSA and YBSA. The description of no red in the nape may suggest a YBSA. However, the red may not always be obvious on a RNSA, and could also raise the question of a potential hybrid (which isn't addressed in the similar species section).

While the observer mentions red on the "chin," the extent isn't mentioned at all, particularly if this extended throughout the throat and whether the red was fully enclosed within a black border. I would also like to see more written detail on the back and head patterns to rule out a RNSA or hybrid.

I believe this record demonstrates the difficulty of adequately documenting a Yellow-bellied Sapsucker in Utah without photographs. It's certainly possible, but there should be very detailed field notes to rule out other possibilities (and as we've seen, sometimes even records with decent photographs can be tricky, especially when dealing with some young birds and potential hybrids).
Dennis S. 19 Jan 2025 No, ID Due to the minimum length of clear view observations admitted by the reporter and the questionable amount of red head coloration and other non-mentioned distinctive plumage characters I am unconvinced of its correct identity.( Additionally, was the bird a juvenile or adult?)
Mark S. 27 Jan 2025 No, ID I don't think there's enough in this description to establish the i.d., or certainly to eliminate the possibility of a hybrid. Red-naped Sapsucker can lack the red nape, and no description of the throat pattern or the back, that are key features, are offered.

Not enough here to accept.
Kevin W. 31 Jan 2025 No, ID The observer may have seen a Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, but details that would be conclusive are not included in the report, specifically the pattern on the back and the black pattern around the red on the throat. I certainly can't trust a merlin sound id and the lack of red on the nape to confirm it as a Yellow-bellied.

  

2025-04 Black-headed Gull

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 28 Jan 2025 Acc Description, images, and elimination of similar species confirm the ID. Independently confirmed by many subsequent observations documented in eBird.
Max M. 31 Jan 2025 Acc Excellent, well documented find by one of our own. Makes you wonder if it is the same bird from Sand Hollow, wandering around Utah of course no way to know but interesting to think about given how exceptional the record is.
Keeli M. 8 Feb 2025 Acc Great find. Red bill and legs and small size of bird combined with dark ear spot and wing pattern all support ID. Excellent job ruling out similar species.
Bryant O. 27 Jan 2025 Acc  
Kris P. 27 Feb 2025 Acc Such an excellent find by Bryant, and a thorough record well-documented and defended. I especially appreciate the extensive photos and the underwing shots showing those important dark primaries.
Dennis S. 26 Feb 2025 Acc A good sighting with multiple observers over several days leaves little doubt.
Mark S. 27 Jan 2025 Acc Excellent documentation. I'm glad Utah gets to participate in the Black-headed Gull invasion happening this year.
Kevin W. 31 Jan 2025 Acc The red bill and legs, along with the unique wing pattern clench this id for me.

 

2025-05 Hudsonian Godwit

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 29 Jan 2025 No, ID The description and images gave me an impression of Greater Yellowlegs. The highly cropped images distort the bill shape, but it seems that the length is about right for a Greater Yellowlegs, nearly twice the length of the head. A Godwit s bill length would be nearly three times the length of the head and begin with a thicker base. An overwintering Willet would be rare and show a stouter bill. While this bird appears chunky and hunchbacked like a godwit, foraging posture could give that appearance for a yellowlegs. Since the submitter indicated that the reported field marks relied on the cell phone images, that could explain why the leg color was described as dark, lighting on the legs is poor in the images we have to review. I checked recent checklists for the location in eBird and noted that one eBirder reported Lesser Yellowlegs at the same location two days (Jan 28th) after this reported sighting (Jan 26th). Two other eBirders that I know with significant experience also visited the location on the 28th and reported a Greater Yellowlegs. This record makes no mention of Greater Yellowlegs as a possibility nor how Greater Yellowlegs was eliminated as a similar species. Consequently, I am voting no on the ID.

2nd round:

2 Mar 2025 No, ID Same vote for the same reasons shared in the first round.
Max M. 31 Jan 2025 No, ID Clearly a Yellowlegs - not sure why the observer only chose to consider vagrant species. Also no optics other than a cell phone shot does not help in reliable field marks.

2nd round:

7 Mar 2025 No, ID I can see from the photo quality why it gave some committee members pause, seems like most agree that this is a Greater Yellowlegs with poor quality photos.
Keeli M. 15 Feb 2025 No, ID Some concerns with this record that leave questions for me. Ruling out REPH by bill size was one concern since a REPH would be half the size of a Godwit. The bird is a godwit, and based on the bill shape and proportion of head to bill and the upturned shape I think I'm seeing in some of the photos, HUGO seems like the best fit, but the photo quality and lighting might be masking some details, the lack of optics aside from a cell phone camera, all make it a challenging ID for me.

2nd round:

12 Mar 2025 No, ID Agree with others this bird is likely a GRYE. Poor cell phone photos show tricky lighting and distortion that added confusion to the ID. Have also observed GRYE in places I don't usually see them this winter, as Bryant mentioned.
Bryant O. 27 Jan 2025 No, ID Looks like a Greater Yellowlegs. Google lens suggested a Greenshank, which is a close relative of Yellowlegs, which should have nudged them in the right direction. HUGO winter in southern south America and are EXCEPTIONALLY rare in North America in winter. Also, this bird lacks a pinkish based bill of any Godwit. Note, we had a pair of Greater Yellowlegs on the Liberty Park Pond the same week, our 1st record of GRYE there, so we seem to have had an unusual movement of them into SLC, where they are rare east of I-15. There was also a report of GRYE at Sugarhouse park on 1/28/25 on eBird, which seems to be this bird.

2nd round:

6 Mar 2025 No, ID Continue to believe this was a Greater Yellowlegs
Kris P. 27 Feb 2025 No, ID This bird appears to be a Greater Yellowlegs despite the observer reporting dark legs. Photo ID apps just can't rise to the occasion with such distortions presented in low-resolution cell phone images, which subsequently led the observer astray.

2nd round:

8 Mar 2025 No, ID No new thoughts on this record.
Mike S. 2 Mar 2025 To 2nd I apologize for a couple of my recent late votes
These low resolution photos may show a Hudsonian Godwit, and that may be the best match, but the timing would be exceptional for that species. I wish Willet was considered in the similar species section. Curious to see other opinions on this one.

2nd round:

11 Mar 2025 No, ID Similar to Kevin, I immediately thought about Greater Yellowlegs but was thrown off by the apparent "plain" back (and description of the "dark" legs). However, the photos are likely too poor to accurately assess the former point, and GRYE is a good match based on structure, not to mention the far greater probability.
Dennis S. 26 Feb 2025 To 2nd Would prefer open discussion by committee before voting. Very unusual place and time of record for this species.

2nd round:

14 Mar 2025 No, ID Too many unanswered questions especially the time of year and location.
Mark S. 4 Feb 2025 No, ID This would be a remarkable record, if true. The closest winter record (Dec-Feb) on eBird for this species is one bird (Dec) in central Kansas. There are no records at all father west. From that standpoint, Bar-tailed Godwit would be more likely, with a scattered few winter records along the west coast.

However, I don't get a godwit vibe at all from the photos, poor-quality notwithstanding. This looks more like a Greater Yellowlegs to me, a species uncommon, but not terribly unusual for that date and location. The bill doesn't look godwit-like, and is too short and not upturned enough. The legs aren't visible in the photos, and I don't put much stock in the description of the legs being dark, given the less-than-ideal conditions of the sighting.

I just have a hard time turning this into any godwit, let alone one of earth-shattering rarity.

2nd round:

26 Mar 2025 No, ID As per my first round comments.
Kevin W. 31 Jan 2025 Acc I have to admit I'm a little hesitant on this one because it was identified from pretty bad photos, but I can't turn it into anything else; it seems too plain-backed to be yellowlegs, and it seems like there's too much contrast between the back color and head color for it to be a willet. I'm not positive that it even shows the bill being upturned, as it only looks that way on photo D.

2nd round:

3 Apr 2025 No, ID Changing my vote; I agree with others that the bird photographed looks more like a Greater Yellowlegs.

 

2025-06 Black-headed Gull

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 5 Feb 2025 Acc The combination of the red bill and red legs with nonbreeding plumage separates Black-headed from the other hooded gull species. The distinct white primary feathers, molting hood, and ear spot also confirm the species.
Keeli M. 15 Feb 2025 Acc Red legs, drooping red bill, dark primaries with white window in outside primaries, black hood around/behind eye, all support ID as BHGU.
Bryant O. 5 Feb 2025 Acc Looks like the same individual seen at Lee Kay as week before, similar facial markings. Should this record be combined with the 1st so its clear to future generations they both refer to the same bird?
Kris P. 27 Feb 2025 Acc A needle in a haystack found a second time. I agree with the observer that this is probably the Lee Kay gull documented in record 2025-04, last seen the day prior to this sighting 25 miles to the southeast.
- Red drooping bill, red legs, black primaries on the ventral side noted and photographed.
Mike S. 5 Mar 2025 Acc Photos show a Black-headed Gull. Seems likely to be the same individual as record # 2025-04.
Dennis S. 26 Feb 2025 Acc Observers comments about previous record and possible repeat of same bird, along with photos is convincing enought for acceptance.
Mark S. 28 Feb 2025 Acc Good documentation.
Kevin W. 26 Feb 2025 Acc Similar to 2025-04, unique red bill and legs and wing pattern with dark underprimaries and white outer strip confirm it as Black-headed Gull.

 

2025-07 Smith's Longspur

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 8 Mar 2025 No, ID This is not to say that a Smith s Longspur wasn t observed, but I hesitate to accept this record because it would be a first state record that has limited documentation. In my opinion, the bar is higher for accepting first state records. In this case, we have only a description from a brief observation. I recognize that many birders do not carry cameras, but I would be more comfortable confirming such a rarity if we had some corroborating support from a recording, photo, or one or more other birders in cases like this, especially considering how many people have spent a significant amount of time scouring the fields for Horned Larks, Thick-billed Longspurs, and Chestnut-collared Longspurs over the past couple of months in the same area.

2nd round:

4 Apr 2025 No, ID Sticking with my first round vote. I hope this record helps other observers understand the importance of well documented/substantiated records, especially for first state records.
Max M. 7 Mar 2025 No, ID The record describes a non-breeding adult or juvenile bird, which looks VERY similar to CCLO. Many of the field marks used to describe/elimination of CCLO seem to be the very similar in CCLO/ or there is overlap with both species. "White outertail", "faint streaks on chest", and "bolder malar stripe" all seem to describe both species. I found more Smith's Longspur photos with fainter/paler malars than the other way around, but lots of overlap. Thin bill compared to other longspurs seems somewhat subjective, and it isn't as if we have a ton of other longspurs flocking together for direct comparison. For such an exceptional, first state-type record without physical documentation or more definitive field marks to eliminate CCLO (which we know are present in the area), I am not comfortable accepting this record, even as provisional.

2nd round:

8 Apr 2025 No, ID Looks like we all have similar thoughts on this record, keeping my first round vote.
Keeli M. 12 Mar 2025 No, ID Observer reports short tail, SMLO should have a fairly longer tail, especially compared to some of the other Longspurs. There are some inconsistencies in how similar species were ruled out that do not sufficiently support ID for me, especially without a photo.

2nd round:

9 Apr 2025 No, ID No change in first round vote. Same concerns as other committee members.
Bryant O. 1 Mar 2025 No, ID Not sufficient for 1st state record, and other longspurs not eliminated. No mention of wingbars, bill color, amount of white in tail(all longspurs have white outer tail feathers) etc.

2nd round:

5 Apr 2025 No, ID Insufficient documentation and other longspurs not eliminated. No one else has reported this species here or anywhere recently, or for that matter ever in Utah that I can find.
Kris P. 8 Mar 2025 No, ID My concerns about this record go beyond the extreme improbability of the species showing up anywhere in the Intermountain West from the Canada to Mexico borders. (eBird shows only a handful of records and not all of those are well-documented)
- The bill described as siskin or chickadee-like; those comparisons seem different enough to me that the two species would not be used to compare to the same bird
- The inherent weakness of a single-observer anecdotal record with no repeatability of the sighting through capturing physical evidence
- Birders with excellent cameras have combed the Howell area again and again for longspurs this winter adding to the improbability factor that no one else has seen this bird
-The habit pattern of the observer to report immensely rare species when alone and never substantiate mega-rarities with evidence; consistently no subsequent reports by other birders, and even when other birders are in the same party no one else sees the bird. I think these circumstances constitute good cause to question the veracity of the observer
-I don't think this species belongs even on the provisional list as a first-state record based on this report

2nd round:

13 Apr 2025 No, ID I'm comfortable with the first round majority and will continue with my not accept vote.
Mike S. 2 Apr 2025 No, ID The observer may have seen a Smith's Longpsur, but I don't believe there is enough detail to rule out a first-winter Lapland Longspur, which are fairly similar to SMLO. For a single observer record with no photos, I would like to see more extensive written documentation for a potential state first.

2nd round:

5 May 2025 No, ID I I echo many of the concerns mentioned by others.
Dennis S. 14 Mar 2025 Acc This species has been regularly observed in this area over the last couple of months and the report is supportive and adequate.

2nd round:

22 Apr 2025 No, ID After reading the many legitimate concerns, little doubt exists for not accepting.
Mark S. 26 Mar 2025 No, ID I'm not sure that an immature Chestnut-collared Longspur can be eliminated from this description, as well as perhaps some others.

For a first state record, I'd like to see stronger evidence.

2nd round:

10 Apr 2025 No, ID Not enough evidence here to accept.
Kevin W. 26 Mar 2025 No, ID The description is so general that it fits a few sparrows and other birds. I think a bird of this rarity and similarity to other species needs more details, and maybe even photos for acceptance. Details about the bill being bicolored seem confusing, as it doesn't seem that Smith's Longspur should have a noticeably bicolored bill.

2nd round:

2 May 2025 No, ID I don't think there's enough evidence here to accept.

 

2025-08 Mississippi Kite

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 2 Mar 2025 Acc The photo shows a juvenile Mississippi Kite (MIKI), even down to the noticeably shorter outer primary feather on each wing. I was curious about why the report was delayed, so I googled the Whatbird Forum that was mentioned as a resource for confirming the ID and found the observer s post, which was dated February 25th of this year. It seems that it wasn t apparent to the observer that he d observed a rarity for Utah until processing images at a much later date, reportedly after a busy period of life. Regardless of the timing of the record and when the observer may have confirmed the species, the image clearly documents a juvenile MIKI, an amazing record for Utah. Here is the link to the Whatbird discussion for what it s worth: whatbird discussion

2nd round:

4 Apr 2025 Acc I'm sticking with my first round vote. I made efforts to validate and become comfortable with the explanation for a delayed submission prior to my first vote by researching the Whatbird chat, looking at eBird records, and the record that was submitted to the committee.
Max M. 7 Mar 2025 Acc Wow - Crazy this was taken almost 2 years ago.

2nd round:

15 Apr 2025 Acc The photo does look a bit funky upon further inspection, but I think it might have to do with altering the shadows. It does have an odd look to it like the outline was clipped and pasted. However, I think the follow up discussion on whatbird about delay in reporting makes sense. Continuing to accept.
Keeli M. 12 Mar 2025 Acc This looks good for a first year MIKI. Can't really turn it into anything else with that wing and tail shape and coloration.

2nd round:

9 Apr 2025 Acc Appreciate the additional details regarding the delayed submission, which helps alleviate at least one question/concern with this record. Continuing with same vote.
Bryant O. 6 Mar 2025 To 2nd If the observer is genuine and photo actually taken at said location, then it certainly is a MIKI!. However I'm concerned with the photo which looks photo-shopped? Especially the bird is surrounded by a pale halo which looks fake. Yet observer insists they only lightened the photo a bit? But if your going to photoshop a bird for the BRC, why put it in blue sky and not against a landscape from the location reported? I don't know, something about that photo looks fake to me, maybe I'm just being overly critical? There are several legit records in western Colorado nearby, most adults from June, perhaps a few breed there?

2nd round:

30 Apr 2025 Acc I'll give the observer the benefit of doubt, especially considering the forum discussion. It would be nice to see the original unedited photos however
Kris P. 12 Mar 2025 Acc The photo unquestionably depicts a juvenile Mississippi Kite, and so I have no doubts that the observer identified it correctly and kudos to him for snapping a great photo. The record is also thoroughly documented.

This report sort of flew in under my radar as I don't remember seeing it pop up in eBird around the time of the sighting, and yet, it's there now, confirmed. I went to the whatbird thread the observer referred to in his references section for more info: here it is:

Note the observer said he originally passed it off as something common, but clearly he had niggling doubts and finally got back to it and sought help in that forum. Also, I contacted the eBird reviewer for Grand County and he also confirmed the observer submitted the checklist on February 25, 2025, the same date listed in the whatbird thread where he (Sean Cowden) said he was going to report it. He filed this sight record within a week of confirming the ID on whatbird and filing the checklist in eBird.

I have no problem with the late reporting since our bylaws don't levy a deadline, and therefore, we shouldn't exact a penalty.

2nd round:

13 Apr 2025 Acc Nothing to change my vote on this record. I think the photo depicts a juvenile Mississippi Kite, and the whatbird thread explains the delay.
Mike S. 3 Apr 2025 2nd The photos show a juvenile Mississippi Kite. While I hate to be "that guy," I am curious if anyone has any insight into the circumstances of this record. I am somewhat concerned that the observer lives in the expected range of this species potentially raising the question of a photo mix-up. For example, a few months ago a photo made the rounds here in Washington County of a Yellow-throated Vireo that was supposedly seen at a local park. However, we came to learn after some inquiry that the observer mixed up some photos from a recent vacation.

Given the time that has elapsed since the observation, it would be nice to have some narrative from the observer about specifically recalling observing this bird in Utah or potentially some notes that pin this bird to the reported location? I can reach out to the observer directly to get some of these details. I am already late with my first round vote, but I am happy to reach out to him early in the second round.

2nd round:

5 May 2025 Acc I ll change my vote to accept based on some of the additional information that has been provided. Seems like the benefit of the doubt is warranted here.
Dennis S. 14 Mar 2025 Acc I always have a concern on a record that's turned in a year or more later after occurrence. Why? That aside, the photo and brief mention of distinquishing characters removes most concerns.

2nd round:

22 Apr 2025 Acc I still have some concerns when a record has an extended time lapse between observation date and record entry date and its authenticity. But I think we still need to try to base our voting on distinguishing characteristics adequately covered and elimination of look alike species.
Mark S. 26 Mar 2025 Acc Photo shows Mississippi Kite; structure and wing shape are unique.

2nd round:

10 Apr 2025 Acc Thanks for the additional details regarding the sighting and its late submission. No need to change my vote.
Kevin W. 3 Apr 2025 Acc Photos show distinct kite-shaped bill and body shape. The pattern eliminates other species.

2nd round:

2 May 2025 Acc No additional thoughts.

 

2025-09 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 12 Mar 2025 Acc Documentation and photos confirm the ID of immature Yellow-bellied Sapsucker with no signs of hybridization.
Max M. 1 Apr 2025 Acc Well-documented bird, glad the two records were combined
Keeli M. 9 Apr 2025 Acc Bird is lacking red on the nape, appears to have a fully complete black border around a white throat, is still in partial juvenile plumage (showing signs of delayed molt typical of YBSA) at the end of January. Pictures and discussion are support of ID as a YBSA and rule out RNSA or hybrids.
Bryant O. 1 Mar 2025 Acc The only Sapsucker that shows an all white throat is a pure female YBSA, the retained juvenile plumage makes this a SYF YBSA! Great catch Kris!
Kris P. 12 Mar 2025 Acc  
Mike S. 9 Apr 2025 Acc Nice written description with great photos. No sign of hybridization.
Dennis S. 14 Mar 2025 Acc Excellent description of separating characters from RNSA and supporting photos leaves no doubt in identification.
Mark S. 26 Mar 2025 Acc Juvenile plumage at this time of year eliminates Red-naped; red in the crown appearing diffusely across the crown supports YBSA - the red on RNSA crown starts at the forehead and progresses towards the hind-crown.
Kevin W. 3 Apr 2025 Acc I think that the amount of juvenile plumage on this bird in late January, along with the dark outline on the throat patch and the lack of red in the nape all lean toward being a Yellow-bellied Sapsucker. I am surprised at how clean the back striping is for a Yellow-bellied (compared to a Red-naped), but I do see photos online of Yellow-bellieds with similarly well-striped backs.

 

2025-10 Chestnut-collared Longspur

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 17 Mar 2025 Acc The writeup and images confirm the species.
Max M. 1 Apr 2025 Acc Well-documented bird, good photos
Keeli M. 9 Apr 2025 Acc Photos are supportive and consistent with CCLO.
Bryant O. 16 Mar 2025 Acc Diagnostic photos
Kris P. 13 Apr 2025 Acc Excellent photo documentation.
Mike S. 10 Apr 2025 Acc Excellent set of photos leaves no doubt! Nice record.
Dennis S. 24 Mar 2025 Acc Photos were great and convincing.
Mark S. 26 Mar 2025 Acc Excellent documentation and photos.
Kevin W. 3 Apr 2025 Acc Photos show pretty distinct features of a Chestnut-collared Longspur, including the chestnut collar, and distinct face pattern.

 

2025-11 Thick-billed Longspur

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 17 Mar 2025 Acc We don't have documentation of the diagnostic tail pattern (dark inverted T shape) in the record, but the write-up and images sufficiently document the species from my perspective. The lack of obvious rufous coloring in coverts may be indicative of a first-winter bird.
Max M. 1 Apr 2025 Acc Well-documented bird, good photos
Keeli M. 9 Apr 2025 Acc Photos aren't the highest quality but support overall pale bird with a thick pink bill that could be a TBLO. Would have liked the description of how LALO was eliminated to include a few more details such as the amount of white in the tail, but the photo details that are present (appearance of a faint white eye ring, lack of streaking on sides) support TBLO for me.
Bryant O. 16 Mar 2025 Acc Diagnostic photos
Kris P. 13 Apr 2025 Acc This species is so similar to the Chestnut-collared at this age. The streaking on the upper-breast-sides threw me a bit. The somewhat more distinctive features of the larger pink bill and developing dark breast patch, and the lack of dark markings on the rear auriculars support the ID.
Mike S. 10 Apr 2025 Acc Nice documentation. Tough to beat a trifecta of longspurs in one day in Utah.
Dennis S. 24 Mar 2025 Acc Again photos left no doubt.
Mark S. 10 Apr 2025 Acc Good documentation, photos, though poor, show Thick-billed Longspur.
Kevin W. 4 Apr 2025 Acc The bird in the photographs has lighter auricular marks and lacks the rufous wing-bar in a Lapland Longspur, and has a thicker bill and lacks the streaks of a Chestnut-collared Longspur.

 

2025-12 Yellow-bellied Sspsucker

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 1 Apr 2025 No, ID Photos would have really helped with this record since there is variation and similarities among individual sapsuckers, but we are left with making a decision based on the descriptions provided in the record. A red chin with a solid black border and a nape with no red feathers support a male Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (YBSA), but the description of the back being more neatly patterned with straight white on black streaking gave me the impression of a Red-naped Sapsucker (RNSA), which will typically show two nearly neat rows of white markings on the black back. I d expect the back of an adult YBSA to be described as showing messier white markings, at least in the middle and/or lower portions of the back. Perhaps streaking referred to vertical rows as we often see on RNSA. When eliminating RNSA, the records states that RNSA would show a messy patterned, white on black back . I associate that description with YBSA instead. Consequently, I m interpreting the record as describing head traits of a YBSA and back traits of a RNSA. I m left unsure of which species was observed.

2nd round:

1 May 2025 Acc McKay is a conscientious birder, so the back description in the record gave me pause when it sounded more like that of a RNSA. When I initially asked if the record was written as intended, he also had some hesitation. However, based on the head and chest description, I will change my second round vote to accept.
Max M. 1 Apr 2025 Acc Good description and elimination of similar species

2nd round:

4 May 2025 Acc I think the back pattern description may have been a bit confusing. I took it to mean that the horizontal lines were fairly even, which is evident in some adult YBSA (even in Sibley's) but as Bryant noted, it may be a bit subjective and isn't necessarily a diagnostic field mark. I think the throat pattern and the lack of red in the nape are enough. Continuing to accept.
Keeli M. 15 Apr 2025 To 2nd Description of throat and nape color and patterning support ID as YBSA, but the back patterning description is a little unclear to me and doesn't really add anything to support the ID.

2nd round:

12 May 2025 Acc Glad to see others shared my confusion with the back patterning description. Agree that McKay is a conscientious and experienced birder, accepting based on description of diagnostic field marks.
Bryant O. 16 Mar 2025 Acc Diagnostic field marks noted

2nd round:

30 Apr 2025 Acc IMain features, throat and nape, seen well. Back pattern could be subject to interpretation, both could be described as neat or messy. Also male YBSA can have a RNSA like back pattern
Kris P. 15 Apr 2025 Acc I'm accepting this record grudgingly because the back pattern described in the Field Marks section and the pattern used to defend against the Red-naped in the Similar Species section seem to be the opposite of what they should be. A Yellow-bellied having a "neatly patterned, and straight white on black streaking" would be atypical, while the defense against a Red-naped in Similar Species says Red-naped would show "a messy patterned, white on black back..." which I don't believe is true unless the bird is fresh and young or just got out of the bathtub and needed to preen to put feathers back where they belonged. In truth, an adult Red-naped should look fairly crisp and neat in March and not messy. Given the observer didn't obtain a photo, I wonder if he got mixed up in what he saw regarding the back pattern.

I did find a single image of a South Carolina Yellow-bellied male with fairly neat, white, chain-like stripes down the black back, which seems much more Red-naped-like than Yellow-bellied, so there's one anecdote of support for overlap between the species with this neater back pattern.

The only feature I think is a strong endorsement of the Yellow-bellied conclusion is the description of the throat pattern since the lack of red on the nape is not diagnostic.

I'm willing to accept this record by a hair because Kaufman suggests that a Red-naped female with a full red throat and no red on the nape would be very unlikely.

2nd round:

24 Apr 2025 Acc I'm continuing to accept due to the absence of red anywhere except the throat, which I think eliminates the possibility of anything but a Yellow-bellied male. About 10 percent of female Red-naped show full red throats, but that's the maximum red for females. Not to have any on the nape Oct-May before wear becomes pronounced during breeding season would be the minimum for a female Red-naped with even average red on her throat. The two extremes on the same bird in March raise the unlikelihood factor way beyond the bird's just being a Yellow-bellied male. This is not a crazy-rare species for our state. The maximum-minimum red combination also makes a hybrid less likely than a pure Yellow-bellied male. I don't have any fresh thoughts about the back pattern being off, but noted that the observer didn't describe it as either wide or extensive, and multiple circumstances could lead to those feathers not appearing neatly ordered.
Mike S. 18 Apr 2025 No, ID The description sounds mostly good for a Yellow-bellied Sapsucker. However, I have concerns about the neatly-patterned back, which sounds better for a Red-naped. This makes me wonder about a potential hybrid, if not just a RNSA. The observer s understanding of the back messiness between the two species seems to be reversed. It would also be nice to have a description of more subtle features, such as the overall thickness of black and white on the head.

2nd round:

19 May 2025 Acc I still have some concerns with the described back pattern and the observer's apparent confusion with YBSA vs. RNSA as it relates to that feature. However, as noted by others, back pattern can be quite variable on an adult YBSA, and what is described likely falls within expected range of variation. The description is otherwise a good match for YBSA, so I've decided to change my vote to accept.
Dennis S. 24 Mar 2025 Acc Good description of separating characters from RNSA.

2nd round:

22 Apr 2025 Acc No change in my thoughts.
Mark S. 10 Apr 2025 Acc I'm a little confused by the description of the back markings, with no mention of whether it was divided into two haves or not, either in the primary description, or in the similar species section. But given that the description of the head and facial markings are consistent with a non-hybrid YBSA, I'll give this a soft accept.

2nd round:

19 May 2025 Acc I appreciate the discussion, and will continue to accept, based upon the description given.
Kevin W. 4 Apr 2025 Acc The description given, including the black border of the white throat, barring on the back, and lack of red in the nape, rule out Red-naped Sapsucker and hybrid Red-naped x Yellow-bellied Sapsucker.

2nd round:

2 May 2025 Acc I think that there are enough details here to support this identification.

 

2025-13 Bendire's Thrasher

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 3 Apr 2025 Acc After reviewing the record, I am comfortable with ruling out Sage and Crissal Thrashers, the most likely for the date and location. If the observation had been made in the fall, I would wonder if a vagrant juvenile Curve-billed Thrasher had been sufficiently eliminated since they also have a shorter decurved bill and bland overall coloring along with similar chest markings and eye colors. However, given the date of this observation, I believe that similar species have been adequately eliminated.

2nd round:

1 May 2025 Acc Same vote as first round for the same reasons.
Max M. 1 Apr 2025 Acc I think there is enough here to safely eliminate other species. Habitat/range is good for BETH, description does a decent job of eliminating SATH (which you would also expect to see at this location), it would have been nice to have a bit more detail on eliminating CBTH but range does support BETH or CBTH. My experience has been that the bill base of BETH is noticeably paler and the shape of the spots are more triangular. I could be swayed otherwise but I am fairly comfortable accepting this record.

2nd round:

4 May 2025 Acc I agree that it would be nice to have a bit more information to rule out Curve-billed Thrasher, but I think there is still enough here to accept (although somewhat soft - as others have noted).
Keeli M. 15 Apr 2025 Acc Description supports ID for me, although there were some details that I wish had been included or emphasized in the write-up. There have been a few observations over the years in this area, so it is not outside the realm of possibility.

2nd round:

12 May 2025 Acc Continuing to accept for same reasons
Bryant O. 16 Mar 2025 To 2nd No discussion of wingbars or outer tail feathers, not sure SATH has been completely eliminated but like to see others thoughts

2nd round:

30 Apr 2025 Acc Changing my vote to a soft accept. Sage Thrasher probably eliminated, Curve-billed unlikely and observer at least discussed it. I do truly struggle with those 2, still have photos I can't call either way. However, CBTH does not wander out of range, and we know BETH nest in this area so. We could probably exempt BETH from review for lowlands of Washington co.
Kris P. 15 Apr 2025 To 2nd I'm comfortable that the observer defended the Bendire's ID adequately against the Sage Thrasher, but there's very little to distinguish this bird from a Curve-billed, perhaps always the challenge between those two species. The defense boils down to the impression of the bill length and curve, and the birder may have been unduly influenced by seeing Crissal Thrashers earlier in the day. Wouldn't most Utah thrashers, including a Curve-billed, look "proportionately normal" after seeing a couple Crissals already that day?

I'm not comfortable with how little there is to go on and the words "proportionately normal" are too subject to interpretation for me, so I'm sending this record to the second round with the hope of gaining more insight from everyone else's wisdom.

2nd round:

18 May 2025 Acc It looks like there's a consensus here regarding the minimal information, which seems to be just enough. I defer to the majority vote and will accept this record as well.
Mike S. 18 Apr 2025 Acc This written description appears to describe a Bendire s Thrasher and it s difficult to find much to nit-pick so I am fine accepting this record, mostly based on the underparts and bill description. Despite my somewhat hesitant acceptance of this record, there is more I d like to say about this and similar species that has been on my mind with these recent records.

Broadly speaking, I do have some concerns/skepticism regarding the recent BETH reports on the Beaver Dam Slope. First, Sage Thrashers are quite common (perhaps more common that people realize) in this area. I followed up on one of these recent BETH reports and only found a SATH. That should be considered the default thrasher species (along with the easier to ID CRTH), and I m not sure it s always treated that way. In addition, it seems like it s very rare for BETH reports to be supplemented by photos, which only adds to my concerns. I suppose I am only bringing this up as a point of caution going forward.

2nd round:

18 May 2025 Acc Still have some concerns, especially given the overall lack of physical documentation of this species (despite semi-regular reports from the Beaver Dam Slope). However, since the field marks seem to eliminate everything except for the much less likely CBTH, I'll continue to accept.
Dennis S. 24 Mar 2025 Acc This was a close call. With the close appearence ofseveral thrashers makes doubt always creep in. But I think the report was adequate for acceptance and covers the questionable areas.

2nd round:

22 Apr 2025 Acc Still a close call, but about 80/20 for accepting.
Mark S. 10 Apr 2025 Acc Another soft accept, as there's nothing in the description that raises any red flags - habitat, behavior, and appearance as described fits this species.

2nd round:

19 May 2025 Acc See no need to change my soft accept - it appears we're all one the same page here.
Kevin W. 4 Apr 2025 Acc The description given, particularly the shorter, curved bill, lightly streaked breast, and plain tail, rule out other similar species.

2nd round:

2 May 2025 Acc Continuing to accept, although I wish there was more evidence.

 

2025-14 Brown-capped Rosy-Finch

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 3 Apr 2025 Acc KC and Clarissa s prior experience with Gray-crowned and Black Rosy-Finches, the opportunity that they had to compare the record species to the other two species on the spot, and the field notes they observed and documented regarding the record species make me comfortable with confirming the record. The last paragraph of the section for eliminating similar species contained a typo regarding Black Rosy-Finch and a sentence that was a little confusing to me, but that did not sway my opinion.

2nd round:

6 May 2025 No, ID After submitting my second round vote yesterday, I learned that an expert opinion was obtained regarding the difficulty of this ID for immature birds. I am changing my vote based on that input. I ask that expert opinions be shared with Committee members in a timely manner as noted in the Bylaws so they can be considered prior to casting votes when possible.

(First 2nd-round vote -  5 May 2025 - accept)
I could easily take a hardline approach to this record, but I'm going to take what I think is a practical approach. While this record lacks photos to let us vicariously observe what they observed to help confirm the ID, I still feel that the preparatory research they did on the species, the opportunity they used to compare the target bird with first-year Gray-crowned individuals that were present at the time of the observation, and the extensive review of images of first-year Gray-crowned individuals documented in the Macaulay Library after the fact are sufficient for accepting their ID. Two experienced birders appear to have intentionally checked one another while observing the bird. I understand that they delayed reporting because of a cautious approach to confirming their impressions from the observations. I agree that photos would make our job easier, but not all birders are photographers. And lots of photographers miss their opportunity to document a rarity for various reasons. It is a tricky Id to make, but I'm sticking with my first-round opinion on this one.
Max M. 8 Apr 2025 Acc Kind of odd that this particular group of birders didn't post it on any of the alerts/groups, but the description is good and adequately eliminates similar species.

2nd round:

4 May 2025 No, ID After reaching out to a bander in NM for a different bird, I have learned that young Rosy-Finch ID is much more difficult and nuanced that I first thought. I can pass his email along to anyone who is interested, but given that even WITH photos the ID was a challenge, I am changing my vote on this one. I think it is too difficult to rule out a young female GCRF.
Keeli M.  2nd: 12 May 2025 No, ID Sent to 2nd because of my doubts about description adequately ruling out GCRF and my personal experience with the ID of some of the paler/immature/female rosy finches. Observers are experienced, but lack of photo support makes this a difficult ID and leaves too much doubt for me.
 [1st round vote and comments can not be found].
Bryant O. 1 Apr 2025 To 2nd I'm hesitant to accept records of this species without photos and by people not experienced with the species. I want to here some others thoughts, but the description does checkout

2nd round:

5 May 2025 No, ID Given recent discussion off thread of some difficult to ID Rosy-Finches and an expert bander even struggling with some birds, I think this ID should not be taken lightly without photos to examine. 1st year birds are particularly problematic and I see birds that are very Brown-capped like every year at Alta, but in the end they end up being GCRF. Not to say some don't occur here and they can't be IDed, but experience and photos are needed to confirm.
Kris P. 28 Apr 2025 No, ID I don't think a second-year Brown-capped can always be ID'd conclusively given the similarity with second-year Gray-crowns and the variability in both species' appearances, which may cause an overlap in visible characters. Add to the challenge a 2-minute view and the tendency of the flock to be in constant motion swarming over the ground makes getting good looks difficult. I'm not surprised Casey's camera wouldn't focus on the subject bird. Unless a bird takes a spot on the feeder or a branch, confirming subtle details can be out of reach. I think it's really important for this age of bird to have photos or the bird in hand by banders, and even then there's overlap with Gray-crowns. I also think field guides have a difficult time showing the subtleties of color, which may put field birders at a disadvantage.

I'm pointedly not suggesting that this crew mis-identified this bird, only concluding that a 2-minute view of a 2nd-year bird in a swarming flock without photo evidence or seeing the bird in-hand is not enough to make this difficult ID. I strongly believe the species is possible at Powder especially in late winter and spring when birds are on the move from southern wintering areas. I had watched the flock closely a few days before this sighting, and watched especially carefully the day after the sighting because Casey had given me a heads up about the candidate bird as the group of birders was leaving the site. Repeating a sighting is also hit-or-miss because the flock can change hourly.

As recently as yesterday, I photographed a bird in the flock with a very diffuse crown pattern and little contrast of gray at the back of the crown; it was also a young bird that didn't show the cinnamon-brown of a Gray-crowned adult, and I couldn't gain enough detail to confidently say which species it was. It's a tough call.

2nd round:

10 May 2025 No, ID I'm keeping the same vote. I don't see anything compelling enough here to embrace the Brown-capped ID while eliminating the Gray-crowned.
Mike S. 29 Apr 2025 Acc Separating BCRF from some first-winter GCRF can be challenging so I think this record should be approached with caution. However, I do believe the observer hits on most of the main points for the most ID, particularly the limited gray in the head and lack of brown/gray contrast. As a refresher, I reviewed many photos of our three rosy-finch species and couldn t find a good match for GCRF or BLRF based on the description here. Still interested to see what others on the committee think of this record.

2nd round:

2 Jun 2025 No, ID  I'll change my vote to match what appears to be a second-round consensus. However, I will note that the described extent of gray in the crown appears to be more limited than what would be expected on an immature GCRF on this date. At the same time, I am thrown off by the description of "faint gray near the forehead" as the only obvious gray area (if anything, I would expect there to be more gray above/behind the eye and towards the rear-crown area).

All things considered, there is probably too much uncertainty to accept, although I appreciate the efforts by these observers to document this bird. Thanks to Max for passing along the discussion/expert opinion on the Alta bird from April.
Dennis S. 27 Apr 2025 Acc The detailed description of chacteristics observed along with the separation of the other two Rosy-Finches answered most ID questions and leaves only a small amount of doubt. A photo sure would have been nice!

2nd round:

13 May 2025 No, ID Even though I liked the initial detailed report, I am now more hesitant to accept the bird based mainly on the NM bander who elaborates how difficult it is to separate young Rosy-Finch, even when in hand.
Mark S. 11 Apr 2025 To 2nd This is a tough call, given only a written description from observers with no experience with the species. I'm not sure that their description adequately rules out a first year Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch. Especially with the pink on the sides described as paler than the other birds, I think a first winter bird is quite possible, making this i.d. more challenging.

I'd like to see if others share my reservations, or have other points to add.

2nd round:

19 May 2025 No, ID I see that others share my concerns, and I think that the threshold for acceptance has not been crossed for this record. There's simply not enough evidence to make this i.d. conclusive.
Kevin W. 4 Apr 2025 No, ID The Rosy-finch is well described and I commend the observer for the details that were noted. The bird observed may well have been a Brown-capped Rosy-Finch, but the lack of photos and difficulty of separating first year Brown-capped Rosy-Finches from other species makes me wonder if this bird may just not have enough evidence to confidently identify.

2nd round:

2 May 2025 No, ID Again, I think that the observers may have observed a Brown-capped Rosy-Finch, but along with my previous thoughts, I agree with Kris that this is a difficult bird to positively identify given the circumstances and variability in 2nd year birds between species.

 

2025-15 Bendire's Thrasher

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 1 Apr 2025 No, ID A one-second observation from a top view of a flying bird makes it difficult to confirm a rare bird while eliminating similar species. Crissal Thrasher, for example, would be more likely, but the record does not consider nor eliminate that possibility. Without a confirmation of the bill, throat, or vent traits, it is hard to confirm one species and rule out others.

2nd round:

4 May 2025 No, ID Same vote as first round for reasons stated.
Max M. 8 Apr 2025 No, ID One second look as it flew across a wash? I know I personally wouldn't feel comfortable making that ID call. Interesting that he submitted a record with the expectation it would not be accepted?

2nd round:

4 May 2025 No, ID No change in opinion on this one.
Keeli M. 15 Apr 2025 No, ID Not enough support for how other species were eliminated. No discussion of bill shape/size. Length of time observed leaves questions about reliable observation.

2nd round:

28 May 2025 No, ID No change of opinion and same concerns
Bryant O. 1 Apr 2025 No, ID 1 second look, no discussion of Crissal Thrasher which is common here and has the same field marks. Both SATH and BETH have white corners on the tail. Someone needs to tell him just because an eBird reviewer ask you submit a record, doesn't mean you have too. This is not a valid record and the observer knows it based on their own comments in the record.

2nd round:

5 May 2025 No, ID No change of opinion, seems others had similar concerns and brought up more.
Kris P. 15 Apr 2025 No, ID One second is not enough time to make this ID
- Did not observe two of the most important characteristics, the bill and the possible breast spotting
- Failed to eliminate the most similar thrasher species, the Curve-billed, however, there's little about these details that narrows the ID down to the thrasher family
- The description easily fits the Abert's Towhee (reported on the Beaver Dam Slope in the past) in size, color, pattern and behavior, and given the observer didn't see the bill, breast spotting or white tail tips, a case can't be made for either the Bendire's or any thrasher

2nd round:

3 May 2025 No, ID No change in opinion.
Mike S. 1 May 2025 To 2nd The written description seems to adequately rule out everything except for a Curve-billed Thrasher. While BETH is clearly much less likely, there is a CBTH ebird record from 2020 just outside of Scenic, AZ (not very far from the Beaver Dam Slope). By itself, that isn t a reason to reject this record but it shows there may be an occasional wandering CBTH in this vicinity.

I will note that I do have some skepticism because (similar to the other birder mentioned), I followed up on the report from this location and only saw a Sage Thrasher. As I mentioned previously, it would be nice to have some photo-documentation with some of these BETH records just as a reality check that wishful thinking isn t getting the best of us ( us as in the birding community). Still, these concerns aside, the written description is fairly solid and I ll be open-minded in the second round.

2nd round:

2 Jun 2025 No, ID Similar to Kevin, I previously overlooked the part about the duration of this record only being one second. This makes me hesitant to completely rule out the possibility of a SATH or CRTH. I would like a better/longer view and more detailed written description to be confident about the ID.
Dennis S. 27 Apr 2025 No, ID Am not satisfied with the discussion of the identifying characteristics, such as bill characters. A one second flight observation seems a little lacking for positive ID, especially for this rare to uncommon species of this area.

2nd round:

13 May 2025 No, ID No new thoughts on my first round comments.
Mark S. 11 Apr 2025 Acc Description seems to fit the species, in behavior, appearance, and habitat. Although it may not eliminate an even-rarer Curve-billed Thrasher, so consider this a soft accept.

2nd round:

19 May 2025 No, ID Changing my vote, that was very soft, in light of the apparent consensus of the committee that this record lacks adequate evidence.
Kevin W. 4 Apr 2025 No, ID The bird observed may have been a Bendire's thrasher, but the observer didn't see the bill, and most of the description indicates things that weren't seen, even though the observer admits that he didn't get good looks because it was so close to the ground. I feel that the description lacks characteristics that would have confirmed its identification.

2nd round:

21 May 2025 No, ID Same feelings as before; and I hadn't even noticed in the first round that the observer only saw the bird for one second. Just not enough surety to accept.

 

2025-16 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 11 Apr 2025 Acc The red throat that is completely contained within a black frame, including a noticeably thick black malar stripe, and clean white nape are characteristic of Yellow-bellied Sapsucker. While the white markings on the back seem a bit more clean like a Red-naped, with two distinct rows, it appears to be within range of Yellow-bellied with the appearance of some white markings straying from the rows on the lower portion of the back.

2nd round:

6 May 2025 Acc Same vote as first round.
Max M. 8 Apr 2025 Acc I struggle with the red on this species group - but I do not see any red in the nape or any signs of hybridization in the throat, but happy to be proven wrong.

2nd round:

31 May 2025 Acc Continuing to accept given the responses by the rest of the committee.
Keeli M. 15 Apr 2025 To 2nd Questioning whether the photo and video show a complete black boundary on the throat or not. If there's any bleeding of the red in, I would say this bird might be a hybrid. Otherwise, characteristics support ID as YBSA

2nd round:

12 May 2025 Acc I missed the video the first round. Agree that characteristics support ID as YBSA.
Bryant O. 5 Apr 2025 Acc Looks good for a male YBSA

2nd round:

17 May 2025 Acc Photos and video check all the boxes for a YBSA, which is basically an annual winter resident in Utah in small numbers. No sign of any hybrid characteristic, so I see no reason this isn't a YBSA, and a well documented one at that.
Kris P. 15 Apr 2025 Acc It was very helpful to have the video with this record and stop the tracking when the bird stretched his head and neck high and tipped to the right to get a complete view of the uniformly thick black malar joining the black breast patch.

2nd round:

10 May 2025 Acc No change in opinion.
Mike S. 5 May 2025 Acc While I wish we had some additional photos showing a more complete view the back, overall I believe this looks like a pretty solid Yellow-bellied Sapsucker. The thickness of the white facial stripe, plus the red throat with a complete black border are features that point to a YBSA. I might be seeing the slightest tinge of red in the nape, although that may be an artifact or my eyes playing tricks on me (and wouldn t necessarily be a dealbreaker for a YBSA if real).

Overall I think the evidence here points towards a Yellow-bellied. As usual with these, I guess the question is whether the possibility of a hybrid can be definitively ruled out. I m comfortable accepting for now but I m willing to reconsider if someone feels strongly that this is not a normal YBSA individual.

2nd round:

3 Jun 2025 Acc No change of opinion...appears to be a pretty solid adult Yellow-bellied Sapsucker.
Dennis S. 27 Apr 2025 No, ID The variation of characters between this species and RNSU always raises concerns. The amount of black border in throat, lacking of red in nap, and extent of barring on the back leaves questions in positive ID of this record entry.

2nd round:

13 May 2025 No, ID I'm still not totally convinced on the ID of this bird. It could very well be a YBSU but just like so many of this species record entries there's still enough concerns to not accept it.
Mark S. 11 Apr 2025 Acc The photos and especially the video appear to show a Yellow-bellied Sapsucker. I can't see the back well enough to score that on the hybrid chart, but everything else would score as a non-hybrid Yellow-bellied Sapsucker.

2nd round:

19 May 2025 Acc Staying with my first round vote.
Kevin W.  2nd: 21 May 2025 Acc The lack of red on the nape and the red throat patch being completely surrounded by black are good marks for Yellow-bellied Sapsucker to me.

 

2025-17 Gray Hawk

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 11 Apr 2025 No, ID The blocky head, dark cap, pale nape, reddish irises, pale throat, tubular torso, and black and gray tail look good for a Cooper's Hawk.
Max M. 15 Apr 2025 No, ID Coop
Keeli M. 12 May 2025 No, ID I'm not getting GRHA from this photo, and without more information in the write-up I'm agonizing over ID. Might be the tricky light, but this bird seems to have a pale nape of neck and a black and gray banded tail, not black and white.
Bryant O. 12 Apr 2025 No, ID Photo shows a Cooper's Hawk
Kris P. 28 Apr 2025 No, ID It looks like this homeowner sustained a visit from an Accipiter.
Mike S. 11 May 2025 No, ID Photos show a Cooper s Hawk.
Dennis S. 27 Apr 2025 No, ID It appears to be an accipiter (probably Coopers).
Mark S. 11 Apr 2025 No, ID With description mostly non-existent, the only evidence is the photo. It shows tail banding that isn't correct for Gray Hawk, and is consistent with American Goshawk, which is what it looks like to me.

  

2025-18 Vaux's Swift

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 1 May 2025 Acc Description, elimination of Chimney Swift, experience with species, timing, and several other experienced birders observing the species at the location give me reason to accept this record.
Max M. 4 May 2025 Acc Seen by multiple observers, and the pale rump noted. I still think this ID is a bit more difficult than most folks realize, and yes VASW is much more expected than CHSW, but it would be nice to have audible confirmation. I still think this is a decent record.
Keeli M. 12 May 2025 Acc I think there's enough evidence here to support ID with description of pale rump and throat and overall size and behavior observations.
Bryant O. 30 Apr 2025 Acc None of these records do a good job eliminating CHSW, however I think its probably a safe assumption that any Chaetura swift in Utah is a VASW until proven otherwise. We know they migrate through in decent number every year, maybe consider removal from review?
Kris P. 1 May 2025 Acc The primary factors in my accepting this record are the date of the sighting combined with one observer reported seeing two swifts. Alone or together, those two factors increase the likelihood that these birds were Vaux's rather than the less-likely Chimney Swift.

The defense of the species is not great. While noting a pale throat and rump contrasting with the dark upper-parts is important, the potential overlap of the paler features with what Chimney Swifts show always makes using those features as the sole distinguishing factors shaky. And one observer said the bird(s) were the same size as Violet-green Swallows when they should appear slightly smaller with a good view; the other observer didn't compare the size at all even though he noted his swift was associating with Violet-greens.

Defending this ID just plain takes more care in observing and reporting and the species doesn't always get it, which would make accepting records easier. I would call my vote an uneasy acceptance.
Mike S. 28 May 2025 Acc Written description establishes the ID. Always difficult to definitively rule out a (much less likely) Chimney Swift. However, I believe the pale rump combined with probability provide solid justification for acceptance.
Dennis S. 18 May 2025 Acc Good written description and comparison with other similar species. Having others oberved bird helps varify identification.
Mark S. 20 May 2025 Acc Good documentation. Chimney Swift adequately eliminated by visual description and silent flight.
Kevin W. 21 May 2025 Acc I think the observer has done a fair job with the description, and noted the paler rump that would separate it from the similar, but less likely, Chimney Swift.

 

2025-19 Crested Caracara

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 1 May 2025 Acc Great observation by Lizzie. Well documented. No question about this one. Gratefully, I was also able to observe the bird the same day.
Max M. 4 May 2025 Acc Nicely documented bird! Would be interesting to know if this is a different individual or the same one roaming around Utah.
Keeli M. 28 May 2025 Acc Supportive photos. Continuing bird likely from previous record.
Bryant O. 30 Apr 2025 Acc Well documented. I don't recommend speculation if its the same bird seen in Uintah county recently.
Kris P. 1 May 2025 Acc  
Mike S. 28 May 2025 Acc Great record! Quite bizarre to get our first two state records of this species only 8 months apart!
Dennis S. 13 May 2025 Acc I wish all record entries were as easy as this one. No doubt- what a great find. Seen by many observers (myself included - of course!)
Mark S. 20 May 2025 Acc Excellent documentation.
Kevin W. 22 May 2025 Acc Photos show distinctive Crested Caracara.

 

2025-20 Vaux's Swift

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 1 May 2025 Acc  Elimination of Chimney Swift would have augmented the record, but Vaux's is more likely to occur at this time in our state. Previous experience with the species and description of flight style augment the record. Contrasting and comparing with NRWS helps somewhat as well. Soft accept.
Max M. 4 May 2025 No, ID Unfortunately it appears that this record does not consider the possibility of CHSW. Even though it probably was a Vaux's, without consideration of possible field marks to eliminate Chimney Swift I think I am going to have to turn this one down.
Keeli M. 28 May 2025 Acc Would prefer a little more discussion about how other species were eliminated, but I think there s enough detail here to support ID.
Bryant O. 30 Apr 2025 Acc None of these records do a good job eliminating CHSW, however I think its probably a safe assumption that any Chaetura swift in Utah is a VASW until proven otherwise. We know they migrate through in decent number every year, maybe consider removal from review?
Kris P. 1 May 2025 No, ID This bird was probably a Vaux's, but the observer didn't eliminate the Chimney Swift.
Mike S. 1 Jun 2025 No, ID While the observer may have seen a Vaux s Swift, I don t believe similar species have been adequately eliminated.
Dennis S. 18 May 2025 Acc Not the best written description of bird - lacked mentioning several key charcaters- but probably enough. The fact that home state is Washington and experience with species there helped in decision.
Mark S. 20 May 2025 To 2nd The only thing problematic about this record is the missing attempt to separate this from the (much less likely) Chimney Swift. The description of the light throat and silent flight suggests Vaux's, and the timing and location fits the pattern of occurrence for them in Utah, but I'd like to see what the level of consensus on the committee is on this record.

For my own part, I'd be inclined to accept this, especially given that it's consistent with previous records, and thus won't corrupt the data if in error.
Kevin W. 22 May 2025 No, ID Probably a Vaux's Swift, but no details to distinguish it from similar Chimney Swift is made.

 

2025-21 Great Gray Owl

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 28 May 2025 No, ID I'm not reading nor seeing enough information to confidently accept this record. The observer states the lack of tufts, and they are not apparent in the images, so that gives me pause, but the overall shape and posture of the photographed bird seem better for a Great Horned Owl, if it was a large owl. It is more rounded with a hunched profile, seemingly forward leaning, and small-headed where I would expect a Great Gray Owl to look large-headed, more slender, and standing more upright from its perch. The branch on which the bird is perched gives an indication of where the bird's feet are in relation to its tail. Judging from the photos, the feet of the bird seem close to the tip of the tail, as expected for Great Horned and even most smaller owls, where I would expect a Great Gray Owl to have a tail projecting much lower than the feet/perch, causing the branch to appear closer to the belly of the bird. The size listed in the record appears to have been taken straight from a species account, so it doesn't give the impression of how it appeared in the field relative to a known comparison. I reached out to the observer for additional information/clarification, but I did not receive a response from the email listed at the bottom of the record. I'm making a decision based on very limited information and some personal experience with the species, so I welcome additional information and discussion if this goes to a second round.
Max M. 31 May 2025 To 2nd I am struggling with this record. The photo really doesn't help much - kind of shaped like a Great Gray, but too blurry to know if it is an actual bird. 3-year old record? August would likely mean it was post-breeding or bred in the area, which as far as I know hasn't been documented in Utah. Could it be a Great Gray? I guess so - but not sure if this record is adequate and has left me with too many questions.
Keeli M.  2nd:      
Bryant O. 5 May 2025 To 2nd Sparce details and poor photos leave much to be desired, was eye color noted? No discussion of Spotted or Barred Owl, which although also unlikely, need to be addressed. But maybe?
Kris P. 4 May 2025 No, ID I think this bird is a juvenile Great Horned Owl. The ID appears to rest solely on the lack of ear tufts, which is true for young GHOWs. In addition, a Great Gray should show a larger head in proportion to its body, have a more obviously dished face and strongly cowled look to the crown and back of the head.
Mike S. 3 Jun 2025 Acc I feel slightly uneasy about this record, but I do believe this is a Great Gray Owl based on process of elimination. The very poor photo and the written description leaves something to be desired. However, the photo gives the general impression of this species, and I'm having a difficult time coming up with a better alternative. The length of time since the observation presents another concern, but the observer provides coordinates, implying there were notes or at least a recollection of the sighting at a specific location.

I entered the provided lat/long coordinates into Google Earth, and the surrounding habitat appears to be decent for this species with lots of meadows and clearings within a dense conifer forest. The elevation may be higher than what would be considered typical for a GGOW, but the timing is such that it could be a juvenile that has recently dispersed from a nest and has found its way to a somewhat unusual area.

Interested to see what others think of this record.
Dennis S. 13 May 2025 No, ID Many ID concerns with this record - Including distance to bird, "Large Gray Bird" and 2 1/2 years old before reporting. A bird of this rarity status needs much more specific ID descriptions. 
Mark S. 20 May 2025 Acc This is a VERY soft accept, as I'm not sure that the poor photos definitively show Great Gray Owl, and could conceivably be of a Barred Owl, even though that species would presumably be even less likely. There's little in the written description to help differentiate these two species.

I'm willing to pass this based mostly upon probabilities, but could easily change my vote if others find the evidence inadequate.
Kevin W. 21 May 2025 No, ID It's hard to tell any characteristics from the photos. The only feature mentioned in the description that would separate this from a Great Horned Owl is the lack of ear tufts, which isn't always observed with Great Horneds. I'd like a better description with its unique facial disc pattern.

 

2025-22 Blackpoll Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 5 May 2025 Acc Nice documentation of a male Blackpoll Warbler.
Max M. 4 May 2025 Acc Stunning bird - with their migration pattern I don't know if anyone has documented an adult male in spring? Great photos.
Keeli M. 12 May 2025 Acc Excellent supporting photos and details in the write-up.
Bryant O. 5 May 2025 Acc  
Kris P. 4 May 2025 Acc You just can't beat those photos.
Mike S. 3 Jun 2025 Acc Great photos show an adult male Blackpoll Warbler.
Dennis S. 15 May 2025 Acc Good written report and great photos leave no questions.
Mark S. 20 May 2025 Acc Excellent photos unmistakable.
Kevin W. 21 May 2025 Acc Photos show distinct characteristics of Blackpoll Warbler, especially the orange legs!