|
|
Proposal 1:
I would like to formally propose we remove
Vaux's Swift from review in all of Utah. Looking at records, if we
included all the eBird reports and unaccepted records it has reached the
threshold of more than 2 per year for the past 10(24+ records). Certainly
we have had a flood of these records this spring which is unusual, but the
overall pattern is they are a regular expected migrant in Utah that occurs
annually in both spring and fall migration.
Clearly the main issue we have with so many of these records, especially
without photos, is the difficulty of eliminating Chimney Swift, which are
extremely similar. However, since there are only 2 all time accepted
records of Chimney Swift in Utah, separated by 107 years, that alone
doesn't seem to be a sufficient reason to keep Vaux's on the the review
list. There are a number of other birds with a similar pattern of
migration through Utah, that have a similar species they could easily be
confused with, but are not on the review list. For instance, it can be
very difficult to tell Cassin's Vireo from Blue-headed Vireo, and many
birds cannot be safely assigned in the field where they do overlap, yet we
know that Cassin's is an annual migrant through Utah. Blue-headed
therefore becomes a cryptic migrant that could occur, but it is outside
their normal pattern, but a few could pass through and not be detected
because observers are calling them Casin's. However, the burden of proof
lies on the observer to eliminate Cassin's to prove a Blue-headed, not to
eliminate Blue-headed to prove a Cassin's since Cassin's is expected. Just
like CAVI, VASW nest directly to our north in Idaho and Montana, whereas
CHSW nest east of the Rockies and are rare west of the continental divide,
like BHVI, and like CAVI, Utah is within the known and expected migration
path of VASW migrating to and from its nesting and wintering range.
We also have the safeguard of eBird to continue to vet records of VASW,
even though expected they will still be flagged as rare in all of Utah, as
they should be. That could potentially catch any well documented Chaetra
swift that could be a CHSW, which I think we all agree would have to be
well documented to be accepted anyway. But since we aren't due for another
CHSW for 101 years, eBird should be sufficient.
But continuing to reject VASW because of the incredibly unlikely
possibility it could be a CHSW seems like a waste of everyone's time,
observers and committee members alike.
Discussion of this proposal
|