Rec. # 2004-06
Date first observed:
19 Apr 2004
- 19 Apr 2004 - A Brown Pelican was picked up by G. Farnsworth from
along I-15 at the north Beaver interchange. It was rehabilitate
and release at Quail Creek SP.
- 6-10 May 2004 - reported at Newcastle Reservoir by M. Ottenbacher.
- 12 May 2004 - by Kevin Wheeler (photos)
, Charlie Sheard [Record # 2004-06]
- 12 May 2004 - by David Wheeler
- 13 May 2004 - by Merrill Webb and Glenn Barlow
- 15 May 2004 - by Steve Summers
- 17 May 2004 - Kristen Comella, Rick Fridell (photo
Records Committee Review:
|Date Posted (1st round):
||13 Mar 2004
||6 acc, 1 not
|Date Moved to 2nd Round:
||11 Aug 2004
||28 Sep 2004
following is a quote from an e-mail about the Brown Pelican from Rick
Fridell to the birdnet - Sat, 29 May 2004)
Here is some belated information on the Southern Utah Brown Pelican:
A Brown Pelican was reported to the Utah Division of
Wildlife Resources on April 19th. It was grounded along I-15 at the north Beaver
interchange. It was picked up by a Conservation Officer (B. Farnsworth) and
delivered to the UDWR Regional Office in Cedar City. It was inspected and fed,
and since it had no serious injuries, it was transported and released at Quail
Creek State Park (Washington County) by Officer J. Schijf. In early May, between
the 6th and 10th, a Brown Pelican was observed at New Castle Reservoir (Iron
Co.) by Aquatic Biologist M. Ottenbacher. Kevin Wheeler and Charlie Sheard
photographed it on May 12th and posted it to the birdnet. It was subsequently
seen by many individuals and last reported on May 17th.
I'm not sure if it still present.
There has been some confusion on whether or not there
was both an adult and
an immature pelican, however I believe it is the same bird (at Beaver, Quail,
and Newcastle). I've asked several UDWR employees that saw the pelican in the
office and they say it had a brown head (rather than the white head of an
adult). I have heard that one individual thought it was an
adult, but I have not had a chance to contact him.
With excellent photos of the bird there was no question about the ID, but
the record was sent to the next round because of some concern about the origin of the bird. With additional information and exchange of comments the record was
accepted unanimously in the second round.