Records Committee Utah Ornithological Society Web Site

--Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society

Status & Comments
Year 2025 (records 46 through 77)

2025-46 Upland Sandpiper

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	16 Sep 2025	Acc	I do not have field experience with Upland Sandpiper, so I spent time researching field guides and online resources such as the Macaulay Library. The record provides sufficient information for me to believe that an Upland Sandpiper was observed and recorded. Similar and more expected species seem to be sufficiently eliminated. However, one note in the record that has me a little puzzled is included in the section for eliminating similar species. It was noted that the reported bird's legs could be seen extending beyond the tail. I haven't seen a field guide or online photo that shows the legs of an Upland Sandpiper extending beyond the tail when the bird is in flight. That makes me think of yellowlegs, godwit, and curlew. However, the record eliminates these species pretty well. The audio and spectrogram appear to be a match for Upland Sandpiper. Noting the white outer primary seems to point to curlew and Upland Sandpiper. The reported bill length and audio point me back to Upland Sandpiper.
Max M.	16 Sep 2025	Acc	Audio is very distinct - matches UPSA
Keeli M.	16 Sep 2025	Acc	Excellent thorough discussion in the write-up. White outer primary, lack of white rump, and recorded audio are supportive of ID.
Bryant O.	12 Sep 2025	Acc	Despite the lack of photos, one of the best put together records I have seen, which is pretty classic John Neil style. Also the recordings are Upland Sandpiper flight calls.
Dennis S.	16 Oct 2025	Acc	An interesting record! Even though the only observation was the flying bird at some distance away, I believe the excellant written report summarizing the observers thoughts and experiences with this bird, along with the repeated recorded calls adequately point to the bird in question
Mark S.	16 Sep 2025	Acc	Excellent written documentation; the recorded calls are distinctive, and diagnostic.
Kevin W.	3 Oct 2025	Acc	I wish there were photos or better details, but the description seems to eliminate other possibilities and the recording matches Upland Sandpiper.

2025-47 Scarlet Tanager

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	16 Sep 2025	Acc	In reviewing this record and the eBird record, I noticed that the observation date varied between the two records. The eBird checklist has a date of August 19, 2018. The observation date noted in this record is September 19, 2018. I'm not sure what explains the two different dates, but the image shows a male nonbreeding Scarlet Tanager based on the yellow-green coloration, pale peach/orange bill, and black wings that lack wingbars.
2nd round:	16 Sep 2025	Acc	Same vote as first round.
Max M.	16 Sep 2025	Acc	Looks good for SCTA
2nd round:	4 Nov 2025	Acc	As others have noted, despite a lack of detail or additional information on eliminating similar species, the photo does show a Scarlet Tanager. Continuing to accept.
Keeli M.	16 Sep 2025	To 2nd	While I'm not seeing any wing bars in the photo, the lack of discussion about how WETA was eliminated gives me pause.
2nd round:	11 Nov 2025	Acc	Still wishing for more details in the report, but as other committee members have noted, photo shows a SCTA.
Bryant O.	16 Sep 2025	Acc	Basically all we have here is a photo, a date and a vague location of "Antelope Island SP" with no details. However the photo is of a Scarlet Tanager with black wings and no wing bars, so despite the lack of any details I have to accept with bare minimum details provided, but enough.
2nd round:	27 Oct 2025	Acc	Poor record that leaves all the work on us to eliminate similar species, so I understand the to 2nd vote, but photo does show a SCTA. Looking on eBird, the dates do actually match, 9/18/25 on both the eBird and UBRC record. https://ebird.org/checklist/S265332172
Kris P. 2nd:	14 Nov 2025	Acc	Yes, the photo documents a male Scarlet Tanager. What a profoundly disappointing record.
Mike S. 2nd:	20 Nov 2025	Acc	The photo shows a Scarlet Tanager. I do have some concerns about old records of very rare species that make no effort to assure us that the location was indeed accurate (always wonder about photo-mixups from other locations, which is something I've seen more than once). The observers appear to live in Maine, which is also somewhat concerning since that would be within the expected range of a SCTA. Having said that, I believe the bird in the photos is perched on a Russian Olive, which would be an expected species for Antelope Island, and (to my understanding), not a species commonly found in Maine. So I've decided to accept and give the observers the benefit of the doubt. Regarding the date discrepancy on eBird, it appears that one of the observers corrected the original eBird checklist with an updated date, but the other observer did not, so there is currently both an 8/19/2018 checklist AND a 9/19/2018 checklist. Would probably be good for the local reviewer to reach out to them and get that straightened out?
Dennis S.	16 Oct 2025	Acc	Skimpy report, but photo leaves no question.
2nd round:	13 Nov 2025	Acc	No change in views from 1st round.
Mark S.	16 Sep 2025	Acc	Photo shows hatch-year male Scarlet Tanager.
2nd round:	5 Nov 2025	Acc	Photo is definitive.
Kevin W.	3 Oct 2025	Acc	The dark wings of the tanager in the photo indicate it is a Scarlet Tanager rather than a Summer Tanager.
2nd round:	12 Nov 2025	Acc	Continuing to accept.

2025-48 Yellow-throated Vireo

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	28 Sep 2025	Acc	The description of observed field marks matches the reported species rather well despite not seeing the topside. I'm satisfied with the information provided to eliminate similar species.
Max M.	3 Oct 2025	Acc	Good write-up eliminates similar species (with the exception of Verdin), but other field marks notes seem to adequately eliminate other possibilities.
Keeli M.	21 Oct 2025	Acc	Observer does an adequate job of ruling out similar species and describing identifying characteristics. The yellow spectacles, white under tail, and vireo bill are all supportive of ID.
Bryant O.	26 Sep 2025	Acc	Descriptions seems spot on for a YTVI, which is pretty distinctive. Timing seems to match most other fall records as well. Pine Warbler, which is most similar, seems to be a later fall/winter wanderer to the SW, and this would be very early for one. I also feel the description did a good job ruling PIWA out.
Kris P.	4 Nov 2025	Acc	A solid record, even without a photo.
Mike S.	29 Oct 2025	Acc	Good written documentation establishes the ID.
Dennis S.	16 Oct 2025	Acc	This is a close call, but the good desriptions of th e distinctive characters, especially the yellow spectacles, tipped the scales to acceptance. If it had been heard calling, or of course a photo is always great but not always possible.
Mark S.	6 Oct 2025	Acc	Very good description; eliminates possible similar species.
Kevin W.	3 Oct 2025	Acc	The combination of characteristics including the yellow spectacles and white belly contrasting with the yellow breast eliminate other species.

2025-49 Ovenbird

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	28 Sep 2025	Acc	Photos show a deceased Ovenbird.
Max M.	3 Oct 2025	Acc	Photos show deceased Ovenbird. Bummer
Keeli M.	21 Oct 2025	Acc	Sad but photos support positive ID.
Bryant O.	28 Sep 2025	Acc
Kris P.	4 Nov 2025	Acc	No question. I hope this surveillance program results in actions we can take to reduce window strikes. We learn about it through Bryant when the specimen is rare, but don't have insight into the toll window strikes take on common species.
Mike S.	29 Oct 2025	Acc	Photos leave no doubt. Great overall documentation.
Dennis S.	16 Oct 2025	Acc	I guess a dead bird still is a valuable record. No question about Id.
Mark S.	6 Oct 2025	Acc	Old school! Specimen in hand - no room for doubt in this.
Kevin W.	3 Oct 2025	Acc	Photos show definitive characteristics of an unfortunately dead Ovenbird.

2025-50 Vermilion Flycatcher

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	28 Sep 2025	Acc	The record describes a juvenile Vermilion Flycatcher and sufficiently eliminates similar species. Photos confirm the written description.
2nd round:	14 Nov 2025	Acc	Mark's remarks about the possibility of a Western Kingbird revived some of my initial thoughts as I reviewed this record in the first round. It would have been helpful to confirm streaking in the chest, but I can see how that would be hard to confirm based on the distance to the bird and the images we have, but I can see the structure of a Vermilion Flycatcher in the images.
Max M.	3 Oct 2025	Acc	Good write-up and photos eliminate other species
2nd round:	17 Nov 2025	Acc	Thanks to Bryant for his follow up - I agree the bird structurally doesn't look right for WEKI and think it continues to look good for VEFL.
Keeli M.	21 Oct 2025	Acc	Photos and description are supportive of an immature VEFL.
2nd round:	11 Nov 2025	Acc	No change in vote. Photos, description, and Bryant's follow up explanation support ID and eliminate similar species.
Bryant O.	28 Sep 2025	Acc
2nd round:	7 Nov 2025	Acc	To address Mark's concerns. As I mentioned in the original record, Western Kingbird was assessed in the field and eliminated. This flycatcher was notably smaller. Specifically we had just seen a Say's Phoebe on the same fence line and this flycatcher was notably smaller, WEKI would be notably larger. But the overall structure was also off for a WEKI. WEKI are longer tailed and more slender in proportion with a bigger rounded head and stouter bill. Also the yellow on the belly is more extensive and brighter. Although juvenile WEKI can have scaling on the back, they do not show true wingbars which this Flycatcher clearly had. Overall it was tiny, compact, small billed with dull yellow limited to the lower flanks, slightly crested. Which the photos do show even though poor. The streaking can be hard to see at that distance and I did not note that in the field. [updated 10 Nov 2025]
Kris P.	4 Nov 2025	Acc	Thorough; excellent species elimination.
2nd round:	2 Dec 2025	Acc	Continuing to accept. I'm satisfied that Bryant eliminated the Western Kingbird.
Mike S.	29 Oct 2025	Acc	Photos combined with great written description establish the ID.
2nd round:	20 Nov 2025	Acc	Continue to believe the totality of the documentation establishes the ID. As Bryant mentioned, the structural details (short tail, etc.), are consistent with a VEFL.
Dennis S.	16 Oct 2025	Acc	I can see why this bird was a question when viewing only with binocs! From a distance it looks like many species. Quesion- could you notice any breast streaking? But enough identifying characters were mentioned to leave little questions.
2nd round:	7 Nov 2025	Acc	Still think enough for acceptance.
Mark S.	6 Oct 2025	To 2nd	While I'm inclined to agree that this is probably a young Vermilion Flycatcher, my examination of the (poor) photos doesn't give me anything to definitively eliminate a fledgling Western Kingbird. Although the date is late, it's not outside of the possible window for a fledgling kingbird. Lacking enough detail in the photos, I looked for something truly distinguishing in the written description, and came up empty there, too. I would expect a description of streaking on the breast (none can be seen in the photos), and perhaps a description of distinctive behavior, such as tail-pumping. I just can't see anything here to comfortably eliminate fledgling Western Kingbird. Perhaps Bryant could share some more details with us to help me feel more comfortable with my vote.
2nd round:	5 Dec 2025	Acc	Thanks, Bryant, for the additional information. I feel more comfortable accepting this record now.
Kevin W.	24 Oct 2025	Acc	Photos show plump flycatcher with yellowish belly and white throat characteristic of female or juvenile Vermilion Flycatcher.
2nd round:	12 Nov 2025	Acc	Continuing to accept.

2025-51 Blackpoll Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	10 Oct 2025	Acc	Notes and images document a Blackpoll Warbler.
Max M.	6 Oct 2025	Acc	Great photo documentation and write-up
Keeli M.	21 Oct 2025	Acc	Great photos and write-up supportive of ID as BLWA
Bryant O.	6 Oct 2025	Acc	Photos show diagnostic yellow feet of a Blackpoll, and overall streakiness as well.
Kris P.	6 Nov 2025	Acc	I'm impressed with how thorough this record is. Connie did a great job with the documentation, research and anaylsis, supported by Esther. I can't see the mantle streaking as described in field guides in any photo, which is important in this ID, but variable. The overall weight of other features from plumage details to structure clinch the ID, however, especially those yellow toes.
Mike S.	11 Nov 2025	Acc	Excellent photos and written documentation!
Dennis S.	16 Oct 2025	Acc	Great photos - leave no question! Excellant details in report - field Id characters, compaison with other similar warblers.
Mark S.	6 Oct 2025	Acc	Those yellow feet! Excellent photos and written description.
Kevin W.	24 Oct 2025	Acc	Photos show distinct characteristics for this species including the orange-yellow feet, and combination of narrow dark eyeline, wing-bars, and tail pattern.

2025-52 Vermilion Flycatcher

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	10 Oct 2025	Acc
Max M.	6 Oct 2025	Acc	Good photo documentation and write-up
Keeli M.	21 Oct 2025	Acc	Would have preferred more discussion on how other species were eliminated, but size difference and comparison with a SAPH was implied and photos support ID.
Bryant O.	6 Oct 2025	Acc	I admit I struggled with this one a bit and the original 1st photo looked very Rock Wren like, but the 2nd photo does show a female VEFL. A bit out of range but they do occur in that vicinity with some regularity, especially in the fall.
Kris P.	4 Nov 2025	Acc	Record does the job; experienced observer and photos. I would wish for a more robust species elimination section. This sighting may validate the species' recent addition to the review list outside of Washington County since there are only a few others in Kane County.
Mike S.	11 Nov 2025	Acc	Photos show a Vermilion Flycatcher.
Dennis S.	16 Oct 2025	Acc	Good photos.
Mark S.	6 Oct 2025	Acc	Photos are definitive.
Kevin W.	24 Oct 2025	Acc	Photos show plump flycatcher with pinking belly and white throat characteristic of female Vermilion Flycatcher.

2025-53 Magnolia Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	15 Oct 2025	Acc	The original observer's field notes and record details support the ID and the photos provided by subsequent observers confirm the original observer's keen notes for a first-year Magnolia Warbler.
Max M.	22 Oct 2025	Acc	Very well documented bird and good write-up
Keeli M.	21 Oct 2025	Acc	Excellent supportive photos of an immature/female MAWA that was observed by several birders over a few day period.
Bryant O.	24 Oct 2025	Acc	Photos leave no doubt
Kris P.	9 Nov 2025	Acc	Many subsequent observers with excellent photos clinched this one. Lance didn't mention the diffuse gray throat band, and it doesn't sound like he had the vantage to see the distinct under-tail pattern. But the village came through.
Mike S.	11 Nov 2025	Acc	Great photos show a Magnolia Warbler, apparently observed by many.
Dennis S.	16 Oct 2025	Acc	Lots of observers. Good photos available.
Mark S.	5 Nov 2025	Acc	Decent write-up from the original observer, and photos from eBird confirm the i.d.
Kevin W.	24 Oct 2025	Acc	Photos show characteristics for Magnolia Warbler including distinct tail pattern, yellow throat and breast with gray necklace between, white undertail covert, and narrow wing-bars.

2025-54 Blue-headed Vireo

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	14 Nov 2025	Acc	Before seeing McKay's images of the same bird in a subsequent record (2025-54m), I had the following thoughts on Kaleb's record. The description is solid, but the lone image that was provided looked more like a CAVI, perhaps because of focus and exposure. I do not see the greenish secondaries nor the line between the blue-gray head and the greenish back. The strong contrast between the blue-gray neck and white throat are not apparent in the single image. However, knowing that McKay and Esther photographed the same bird at the same basic time, I am accepting this record.
2nd round:	30 Nov 2025	Acc	I'm still voting to accept despite the original confusion around this record. McKay's supplemental images of the same bird (2025-54m), photographed at the same time as the image provide by Kaleb, help to confirm BHVI.
Max M.	4 Nov 2025	Acc	This is sort of a strange record. It sounds like the observer originally dismissed this bird as a bright Cassin's Vireo but then later consulted with another observer who observed the same bird on the same date and changed their mind? The one photo looks pretty good for BHVI but has some color coming through the leaves reflecting off the bird so it is hard to get a true feeling for back color and the one angle shows not the strongest contrast between the hood and throat. I am pretty sure the other observer has some additional photos that would be helpful to see. After seeing this photo, hoever, I think there is a pretty good chance that this may indeed be the same bird that we observed a week later but hard to tell for sure. For now I am accepting but I am interested to hear other committee member's thoughts and hopefully additional photos will be provided.
2nd round:	19 Dec 2025	Acc	With the additional photos and record 2025-54m I think this seals the deal for BHVI - I don't believe that Cassin's show that much contrast between the green back and the head. The additional photos are in bright sunlight and maybe a bit overexposed which might make the contrast between the throat and head not as clear but I still think this is good for BHVI. Continuing to accept
Keeli M.	11 Nov 2025	Acc	The distinction between a bright CAVI and BHVI is tricky. However, based on the singular photo, this bird really seems to have very contrasting head and back colors, white throat contrasting with head, and distinct brightness overall which I believe supports ID as BHVI.
2nd round:	15 Dec 2025	Acc	Record 2025-54m has additional evidence that continues to support ID. Continuing to accept.
Bryant O.	27 Oct 2025	to 2nd	photo does look ok for BHVI, perhaps same bird seen later? I am troubled they only made the ID afterward based on pics, yet only 1 was provided? I hope they look at more than 1 photo?
2nd round:	6 Dec 2025	Acc	Accept-2nd record, 2025-54m, has a much better assessment and photos which support the ID of BHVI
Kris P.	11 Nov 2025	Acc	I'm accepting this record all the while still having grains of doubt about the crispness of this individual, particularly the border between white throat and gray auricular. This may specifically be due to the bird being in somewhat diffuse light, making it look less sharp. But the balance of the other features support Blue-headed well and the observer did a good job of describing their differences from Cassin's.
2nd round:	10 Dec 2025	Acc	Still a ticklish record even with the addition of 2025-54m, but I think the descriptions and evidence are sufficient to accept.
Mike S.	24 Nov 2025	to 2nd	I'd like to see some discussion on both of these Blue-headed Vireo records. For this particular record (2025-54), while the photos are decent, I'm not sure there's quite enough detail to show us everything we need for a definitive ID. Some of the photos appear to show good contrast between between the back and head (shown in the second photo set). However, I'd like to see a bit more to assess the head/throat contrast (photo 1 looks promising, but is it enough?). The question that needs to be answered for any BHVI record in Utah is whether a bright Cassin's can definitively be ruled out, and I'm not sure that's the case here.
2nd round:	26 Dec 2025	No, ID	While these two Blue-headed Vireo records are likely the same individual, since they are separate records, I'm only considering the documentation provided in each record on its own merits... For the original record, I simply am not certain a bright Cassin's can be ruled out based on the documentation provided. Honestly, I think this is probably a Blue-headed Vireo and I do like the head/back contrast shown in most of the photos, but I'm not seeing enough to assess the contrast between the hood and the throat. While this is mentioned in the written description, this can be quite subjective. I support combining these two BHVI records if they are accepted, which leads me to the question of whether they should have been combined to begin with?
Dennis S.	7 Nov 2025	to 2nd	This is a messy pair of records. Not easy to follow! The basic question is are the photos all of the same bird? If not ( and it appears to me they are not) then how do we go from here? The bright coloration, dark gray head, and strong contrast border between the gray head cheek and white throat is manifested in photo B-I in 54a and not so much in other birds. Which tends towards BHVI. I guess for now I need to hear in 2nd round where we go from here!
2nd round:	7 Dec 2025	Acc	If the photos are of the same bird,then the additional photos and the Committee comments tipped the scale to accept.
Mark S.	5 Nov 2025	Acc	Good description; photo supports the i.d.
2nd round:	5 Dec 2025	Acc	Photos still look definitive on both of these.
Kevin W.	12 Nov 2025	Acc	The photos of this bird made me look into some of the detailed differences between Blue-headed and Cassin's. I believe that the contrast between the head and back, as well as the contrast between the mustache and breast all indicate Blue-headed. One website also indicated that the loral line on Blue-headed is less contrasty with the crown than that of the Cassin's so that seems to match this identification as well. I'm definitely interested in discussion on this identification if other reviewers have more insight.
2nd round:	3 Dec 2025	Acc	I think that the 2nd set of photos helps to confirm the id, as they further emphasize the distinguishing

2025-54a Blue-headed Vireo

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	24 Oct 2025	Acc	I appreciate that my request to separate Kaleb's record (2025-54) from Max's record (2025-54a) was honored. It seemed to me that Kaleb's image from the September 13th observation was a different individual from the one photographed and reported a week later on September 20th by Max, Esther, and Patrick. The written description by Max and images from Max, Esther, and Patrick support the Blue-headed Vireo ID. With the images, I see the difference in color between the gray (blue) hood and the greenish back as well as the relatively sharp contrast between the gray hood and white throat. Esther's Photo J shows the greenish back and green-edged secondaries pretty well, but those traits are also relatively apparent in other images, despite lower exposure, when comparing the shade of the back and secondary edges (both the same shade) to the color/shade of the hood. The degree of yellow and its intensity on the sides and flanks varies among the images, but overall I think we have what we need to confirm Blue-headed Vireo.
2nd round:	30 Nov 2025	Acc	Same vote and reasoning as provided in the first round.
Max M.	22 Oct 2025	Acc	While this is a difficult ID and with potential overlap with a bright CAVI, I believe this bird is a BHVI for the reasons discussed in my record write-up.
2nd round:	19 Dec 2025	Acc	I understand Mike's hesitancy, and I think the photos (largely in the shade) show quite a bit of variation with field marks depending on the angle and light. Photos L-P probably show the best what we saw in the field with strong back/head contrast with green/gray-blue. I continue to support my record write-up and believe this is a BHVI
Keeli M.	11 Nov 2025	Acc	I appreciate the range of photos of the bird in different lighting and positions. Based on the photos and description, I think this bird is a strong candidate for BHVI. There's a defined contract between the head and the back and between the head and the throat and the bird is pretty bright overall.
2nd round:	15 Dec 2025	Acc	Continuing to accept for same reasons.
Bryant O.	24 Oct 2025	Acc	Although this is a very difficult ID, I think this bird checks all the boxes for a BHVI. I particularly like the contrast of the head from the back and solid throat border for BHVI over CAVI on this bird. I did probably relocate this bird the next day and was struck by its contrast and brightness, but my photos were inconclusive to prove that it was the same bird.
2nd round:	5 Dec 2025	Acc	I still think sufficient photos and description to prove BHVI beyond a reasonable doubt
Kris P.	11 Nov 2025	Acc	No doubt on this vote due to the many photos and Max's extensive experience with the species.
2nd round:	10 Dec 2025	Acc	I'm comfortable with this one and will maintain my accept vote.
Mike S.	24 Nov 2025	to 2nd	This may be the same individual as 2025-54, but the record is much stronger overall. Having said that, I'm still not certain a bright Cassin's can be ruled out. There's no question this individual would be on the brighter/contrasty end of the spectrum for a CAVI, but only Photo N appears to show the head/back contrast that I'd expect for a Blue-headed. I believe the head/throat contrast appears to be within range for a BHVI, but in some photos the line of demarcation is not quite as clear as I'd like it to be. I'm not sure how I'll ultimately vote on this record, but I'm very interested to see comments from others.
2nd round:	26 Dec 2025	Acc	After reading everyone's comments, I've come around to accepting, and I do believe this bird shows features that are mostly consistent with a Blue-headed Vireo. Max's extensive experience with this species is helpful. My biggest question with this bird remains whether the contrast between the gray head and greenish back is adequate, and some of the photos do appear to show more of a gradient rather clean contrast. However, I reviewed lots of photos in the Macaulay Library and it appears that some individuals can show some grayish in the back. Looks like this record is headed for unanimous (or near-unanimous) acceptance in the second round regardless of my vote, so while I cannot say I'm 100% confident, I'm still fairly confident, and happy to give Max the benefit of the doubt given his experience with this species.
Dennis S.	7 Nov 2025	to 2nd	This is a messy pair of records. Not easy to follow! The basic question is are the photos all of the same bird? If not ( and it appears to me they are not) then how do we go from here? The bright coloration, dark gray head, and strong contrast border between the gray head cheek and white throat is manifested in photo B-I in 54a and not so much in other birds.Which tends towards BHVI. I guess for now I need to hear in 2nd round where we go from here!
2nd round:	7 Dec 2025	Acc	Same comments as 2025-54.
Mark S.	5 Nov 2025	Acc	Photos are definitive.
2nd round:	5 Dec 2025	Acc	The additional photos help confirm my initial take on this record.
Kevin W.	12 Nov 2025	Acc	The excellent photos and angles of this bird show the distinct contrast between the mustache and throat, and the crown and back, as well as distinct color difference on the loral line from the crown. I would say this bird is a great example of Blue-headed.
2nd round:	3 Dec 2025	Acc	Continue to think the characteristics of this bird are good for Blue-headed Vireo.

2025-55 Gunnison Sage-Grouse (Undisclosed observer is McKay Olson)

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	24 Oct 2025	Acc	Broad white barring in the tail feathers and extensive black filoplumes confirm the species and eliminate Greater Sage-Grouse. The description of display call matches the species as well. The images confirm the identifying field marks.
Max M.	4 Nov 2025	Acc	Good photos and description eliminating similar species.
Keeli M.	11 Nov 2025	Acc	Known range for this species. Photos demonstrate more white barring in the tail than is seen in GRSG and long filoplumes.
Bryant O.	24 Oct 2025	Acc	Great photos
Kris P.	14 Nov 2025	Acc	The location alone validates the ID given the Gunnison and Greater Sage-grouses' ranges don't overlap, but the photos also show the thicker black filoplumes and wide pale tail bands of the Gunnison. The observer's description of the consistently bubbly call is also a good fit for the Gunnison.
Mike S.	24 Nov 2025	Acc	Photo shows a Gunnison Sage-Grouse
Dennis S.	7 Nov 2025	Acc	There is no range overlap in this area with GRSG. NIce photos! Lots of head filoplumes are distinctive.
Mark S.	5 Dec 2025	Acc
Kevin W.	12 Nov 2025	Acc	Location alone is probably sufficient to rule out Greater Sage-Grouse, but the photos also show the thicker plumes and broad light-colored bars on the tail of Gunnison Sage-Grouse.

2025-56 Bronzed Cowbird

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	14 Nov 2025	No, ID	This is a record where I know that the observer is a skilled birder and may have very well observed a Bronzed Cowbird, but the documentation doesn't meet the bar for acceptance. Observing the red irises or capturing a recording would give me more confidence in saying that the record sufficiently documents the species.
2nd round:	7 Dec 2025	No, ID	No change from the first round vote.
Max M.	4 Nov 2025	To 2nd	This is a well written record doing a good job eliminating other species based on what was observed in the field in not ideal conditions. However, I am not sure there is enough here to completely eliminate all other potential options. Blackbirds in general make all sorts of weird confusing calls that often still leave me baffled even after years of experience. While Bronzed Cowbirds have relatively heavy bills, I don't know if I would compare them to a grosbeak bill. Can we rule out a melansitic grosbeak or a grackle or blackbird molting its tail feathers? I think if we had a little more information (was the eye actually red, or a recording of the call) that it might help put this at the level that is needed to accept this record. Given the location and timing being very odd for this species, I don't know if I am comfortable accepting this record but look forward to hearing other committee member's thoughts.
2nd round:	19 Dec 2025	No, ID	It appears that other committee members shared my concerns about this record. I don't think there is quite enough here to fully eliminate other potential species.
Keeli M.	25 Nov 2025	Acc	As tough a call as it is to make on a record like this without photo support, I think observer makes a solid case to support ID and rule out similar species, noting the squirrel like call notes and the physical characteristics of the bird supporting ID as BRCO
2nd round:	2 Jan 2026	No, ID	Reviewing the rest of the committee's comments, I realized that I did not hold this record to the standard required. Changing my vote in agreement, Other possible species were just not adequately ruled out without seeing eye color or getting a better look at the bird.
Bryant O.	24 Oct 2025	No, ID	I think the observers ID sits mainly on the call, visual description could be any Blackbird. Red-wings make so many weird calls I'm not convinced it has been rules out.
2nd round:	12 Dec 2025	No, ID	Kris put it best and I agree, not enough to ID to species. Of note, he did leave it as Blackbird sp. on his eBird list, pending our verdict, which means he's not even confident in his ID, so how can we be?
Kris P.	14 Nov 2025	No, ID	Not enough information to support this ID including time observed, lighting, physical evidence or experience with the species. This is basically a GISS ID by a person who has no library of previous impressions stored in his memory bank on which to base this call, and the species would be wildly out of range. Jumping to making GISS IDs must be based on experience. And while I agree that pursuing unusual or unfamiliar bird sounds often results in finding rarities, the birder actually has to find the rarity and observe specifics to validate that the different-sounding call is, in fact, a rare bird. Comparing the memory of a sound to recordings in Merlin, even if done immediately, is not a substitute. While I believe in the sincerity of this observer, this bird should have been left unidentified in the field.
2nd round:	10 Dec 2025	No, ID	Same opinion as in the first round. The burden of proof to support this ID is significant and the observer didn't achieve it.
Mike S.	24 Nov 2025	No, ID	The observer may have seen/heard a Bronzed Cowbird, but I don't believe the documentation here is quite solid enough to establish the ID for such a rare species. I do appreciate his extensive write-up here, but I think the encounter was too brief to definitively rule out other options.
2nd round:	16 Dec 2025	No, ID	No change of opinion.
Dennis S.	7 Nov 2025	No, ID	Would like to accept as a BRCO and it could very well have been, but not enough slam dunk evidence to remove all shadow-of-doubt from other black colored birds.
2nd round:	7 Dec 2025	No, ID	I'm still not convinced. Whenever a call is the most important piece of evidence with no or only a brief unconvincing observation it leaves a large shadow of doubt.
Mark S.	5 Dec 2025	To 2nd	This is an interesting record, with an extensive description from a careful observer, but apparently with no previous experience with this species. Given the poor lighting conditions, with the red eye not visible, I'm not sure there's enough here to accept a record this rare. I see many, many Bronzed Cowbirds here, and while the bill is noticeably heavier than that of a Brown-headed Cowbird, I'm not sure that I'd characterize it as a "grosbeak-like" bill. I'm left wondering if perhaps he saw a back-lit Blue Grosbeak. Blue Grosbeak wasn't considered, and maybe enough color was seen to eliminate that. Blue Grosbeak does have a call similar to the noted call of Bronzed Cowbird. It's possible that this was a Bronzed Cowbird, and I'm not entirely opposed to accepting this record if the rest of the committee has no problem with it. I'm just not sure that the evidence presented here is sufficient to support a record this unusual, especially from an observer with no prior experience with the species.
2nd round:	9 Dec 2025	No, ID	As per my first round comments, the excellent and detailed description falls short of the necessary evidence for such a rare sighting, especially from an observer with no prior experience with the species.
Kevin W.	3 Dec 2025	No, ID	I appreciate the details included in the report and attempt at identifying the observed bird, but I'm not sure that there are enough details to definitively call it. The observer only got a few seconds look, which was backlit, obscuring what would have been definitive features. His analysis of the calls seems less than definitive, as the observer only indicates that only a couple calls somewhat matched. I wonder if the thoughts of the observer wondering if it was a Bronzed Cowbird influenced the nature of the details of the observation (as many weird bird sightings do).
2nd round:	22 Dec 2025	No, ID	No change of opinion

2025-57 Parasitic Jaeger

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	14 Nov 2025	Acc	Well-written record for documenting the species and eliminating other possibilities.
Max M.	4 Nov 2025	Acc	Felt lucky that this bird didn't disappear after the initial sighting.
Keeli M.	7 Dec 2025	Acc	While the photos are a little cryptic, I believe this record has enough support to establish ID as PAJA.
Bryant O.	7 Nov 2025	Acc	Photos and Video show enough to prove the ID. Dark collar and pale under wing eliminate adult LTJA, pointed tail feathers and limited paleish cap eliminate POJA. Adults Jaegers are an especially rare treat in Utah.
Kris P.	2 Dec 2025	Acc	Great work to observe and document this bird.
Mike S.	11 Dec 2025	Acc	Great written documentation combined with photos establish the ID.
Dennis S.	8 Nov 2025	Acc	Good descriptive observations when resting, preening, flying, and chsaing gulls. Photos helped.
Mark S.	5 Dec 2025	Acc	Good description, and the poor photos do tend to support the i.d., in spite of being too far to be definitive by themselves. It would have been great to see a video of the bird in flight, but the description of the flying bird is good, and consistent with the i.d.
Kevin W.	3 Dec 2025	Acc	The written description details the necessary features to distinguish this species from other jaegers, and the photos (though not great) support this identification.

2025-58 Winter Wren

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	14 Nov 2025	Acc	I really appreciated the audio files during my review of this well-written record.
Max M.	7 Nov 2025	Acc
Keeli M.	7 Dec 2025	Acc	Photos show pale-ish wren with contrasting throat, clay-colored eyebrow, dark and light barring consistent with WIWR.
Bryant O.	7 Nov 2025	Acc	As is usually the case with this species, the Audio recording makes the ID and proves the it too. This bird has been relocated by many, including myself, and this location seems to be a fairly regular spot for them, if we can access it. the past few years they have closed this area to the public for Christmas light installation much to our misfortune.
Kris P.	3 Dec 2025	Acc	1-3 meters! That bird wanted a piece of the recorded voice bird. An excellent record and very thorough through observed details, evidence and subsequent observers.
Mike S.	11 Dec 2025	Acc	Nice record with definitive audio.
Dennis S.	8 Nov 2025	Acc	Good convincing photos and call recordings.
Mark S.	9 Dec 2025	Acc	Excellent documentation - nice to have both definitive photos and audio recordings.
Kevin W.	3 Dec 2025	Acc	I think the photographs of the bird show it to be more tannish-gray than rufous, with a contrasting lighter throat more like a Winter Wren. The call also seems to match those of Winter Wren better, being lower pitched.

2025-59 Anna's Hummingbird

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	14 Nov 2025	Acc	Looks good for a female Anna's Hummingbird with that red patch of feathers on the throat.
Max M.	1 Dec 2025	Acc	Great spot by Bryant who was reviewing SL County photos and noticed this bird didn't look right for a Black-chinned.
Keeli M.	7 Dec 2025	Acc	Photos show immature male or female ANHU.
Bryant O.	7 Nov 2025	Acc	Photos show an Anna's with the pink throat and green scaling on the flanks.
Kris P.	3 Dec 2025	Acc	I like this observer's clear telling of the story. Good catch, Max. The species elimination section is thorough and probably gave the submitter new insight into hummingbird ID. I often wonder how many Anna's we'd host in Northern Utah annually if the whole backyard birding community would maintain the feeders until December 1 every year. I think most Anna's find feeders left out by accident; what would we learn about the occurrence of this species if we all left them out on purpose?
Mike S.	11 Dec 2025	Acc	Diagnostic photos.
Dennis S.	8 Nov 2025	Acc	Good photos and honesty in report and decision making.
Mark S.	9 Dec 2025	Acc	Photos show Anna's Hummingbird, that is also the most likely species for this date and location.
Kevin W.	5 Dec 2025	Acc	I mostly just accept that any hummer still hanging around is most likely an Anna's. But to verify, I think the short, thick, straight bill, lack of rufous on the flanks (or anywhere), and the patch on the throat eliminates the other possibilities.

2025-60 Tennessee Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	26 Nov 2025	Acc	I hesitated while thinking about voting for this record, wanting a few more points to be mentioned, but the description of the face pattern, back coloring, and white undertail coverts is accurate for Tennessee Warbler. The white undertail coverts eliminate Orange-crowned Warbler.
2nd round:	16 Dec 2025	Acc	As I noted in my first round vote explanation, I hesitated on voting to accept this record because some important field marks were not specifically noted as the record was written. The initial "blue-gray" color description threw me at first, but then Glenn stated that he saw green on the back later in the observation. One trait that was not specifically noted in the record related to the description of the head/facial markings. No eyeline was mentioned, but when I considered that the head was described as gray with a white supercilium (e.g. long white line above the eye) and white below the eye (just below the eye?), those two white markings on a gray face would result in a gray line through the eye as illustrated by Sibley for an adult breeding male, which also has a very pale underside. Glenn's elimination of a vireo in the Similar Species section seemed necessary because the observed bird's face must have superficially resembled our typical Warbling Vireo (not specifically mentioned) with a pale supercilium, line through the eye, and some white under the eye. Regarding structure of the bird, it was noted that the bird was more compact than nearby Yellow Warbler, which was the immediate comparison in the field and TEWA would be smaller/more compact that YEWA. I agree that this record could have been written more clearly to prevent us from piecing things together, but Orange-crowned is the most similar species and it was eliminated by the notes regarding a white supercilium rather than white eye arc above the eye and white undertail covert feathers where an Orange-crowned would show yellow undertail feathers. I'm still comfortable with voting to accept this record.
Max M.	7 Nov 2025	Acc	Unless I am missing something, description seems to adequately eliminate potential other species, although adult males seem exceedingly rare in Utah in fall migration.
2nd round:	22 Dec 2025	Acc	I still think the description fits for adult male Tennessee Warbler. I have photos from early September in MN of adult males largely in breeding plumage and I would describe them very similarly to how it is described in this record. Despite how rare adult TEWA's are in Utah I think the description is adequate. Continuing to Accept.
Keeli M.	7 Dec 2025	Acc	It's hard to come up with anything other than TEWA that matches the described characteristics. Would have preferred a little more in depth discussion of how other species are ruled out, but the pale supercilium and white underneath including under the tail with a grey head and greenish gray back are pretty diagnostic. Is it possible this was a really pale male?
2nd round:	2 Jan 2026	Acc	Despite some questions about the description, I still think the observer's narrative adequately rules out other species and fits for a TEWA. Continuing to accept.
Bryant O.	7 Nov 2025	Acc	The description does seems to eliminate all other warblers. This observer has good track record of find adult male plumage TEWA in Utah. It be nice to have some photos, but description is sufficent.
2nd round:	19 Dec 2025	Acc	Continue to think the observers description matches an adult male TEWA, which is not a frequently seen plumage in Utah, most being fall immature, but distinctive if the back can be seen as described here.
Kris P.	4 Dec 2025	No, ID	There's not enough here for me to conclude confidently that this observer saw a Tennessee Warbler. - No mention of a dark eye-line, which should be one of the features that defines the face pattern and distinguishes the species from an Orange-crowned Warbler. Since the observer saw both a white supercilium and white below the eye, he could have seen a dark eye-line, but didn't report it - The mention of white below the eye is unclear. I don't know if the observer meant the bird had a white eye-arc or not. While he described the face as gray, which is helpful to narrow this down a bit, not using the term eye-arc leaves this feature open to interpretation. - No mention of the structure of the bird that might help shore up the lack of detail given both the bird's plainness and not noting either the dark eye-line or a yellow wash. The bird should have appeared stubby in relation to the other small birds nearby due to a slightly short tail, long primary projection and long under-tail coverts. While I find the lack of even the smallest amount of yellow (like a wash on the upper breast) and the description of the under-parts as all-white to be surprising, photos of September males in Macaulay Library show that a male can appear all-white below. Given that the observer said he had good views, I accept the fact that this subject might have been one of those all-white below birds. But that less likely appearance in combination with the problems with the face pattern and lack of report of the stubby structure lead to my not being able to embrace the Tennessee Warbler ID.
2nd round:	21 Dec 2025	No, ID	Same opinion as in the first round. I wish the observer had also reported the dark eye-line and the short-tailed structure. This was the additional information that would have made me feel confident of his ID of this plain species showing up in a less common molt status in the fall. The observer was in a position to see that eye-line and I'd like to think that a 5-minute view, an eternity in warbler-viewing time, would have afforded a look at the subtle short-tailed structure that's important in Tennessee Warbler ID. So my Not Accept vote is really about not seeing enough, rather than being convinced that the ID is wrong.
Mike S.	11 Dec 2025	No, ID	I'm mostly a bit concerned by the mostly blue-gray appearance above. Even in breeding plumage, most TEWA would show more of a greenish back and more of a blue-gray head. However, at this date I wouldn't expect much blue-gray on any individuals, except for potentially the crown. Since this bird was apparently seen in good light, I'm especially concerned by that description. The description otherwise seems mostly good for this species (and can't really say something else is definitively a better match), but I'm curious to hear what others have to say about this one.
Dennis S.	8 Nov 2025	No, ID	Not convinced. Too much variation in breeding to fall birds. This bird should probably have changed into non-breeding plumage and exhibit more yellow in breast and overall plumage. Several 1st year warblers could be possible.
2nd round:	23 Dec 2025	No, ID	No change from original thoughts.
Mark S.	9 Dec 2025	Acc	Good description eliminates similar species. I would have liked a mention of eyeline, but in a fall bird is often less obvious. Bill shape and plumage described eliminates other species.
2nd round:	28 Dec 2025	Acc	As I mentioned in my first round comments, there are shortcoming in the description that I wish the observer would have addressed. But given the totality of the description - greenish back, gray head, pale supercilium, sharp bill, compact structure (and compared to YEWA), white underparts and vent, I fail to see what a reasonable alternative i.d. would be, nor do I see anything inconsistent with fall TEWA. I see many fall and winter TEWA here that have no notable yellow underneath, nor even an obvious eye-line. They can be very drab this time of year, but the features described here, in the aggregate, really only fit TEWA.
David W. 2nd.	5 Dec 2025	Acc	On balance, this record appears to describe a Tennessee warbler. I give this an unenthusiastic Accept. Although the description is not as detailed as I would like, and the lack of yellow wash is bit troubling for a fall bird, the description of the face pattern, white undersides, greenish back, and bill seem to eliminate other reasonable options. I suppose early September is transitional for this species because it is known that some birds begin their southern migration before molting into their winter plumage. That means that some Tennessee warblers retain their breeding colors well off of the breeding grounds. That could explain the lack of yellow wash.
Kevin W.	5 Dec 2025	No, ID	The description might fit any drab-looking white-bellied fall warbler; in fact, the white belly should eliminate the possibility of it being a Tennessee Warbler as submitted..
2nd round:	22 Dec 2025	No, ID	I just don't think other species are eliminated well enough.

2025-61 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	16 Nov 2025	Acc	This bird was originally reported as a Red-naped Sapsucker when it came into my eBird queue for review. As I looked at the two original images attached to the checklist, the extent of randomly placed white markings across the back and apparent all-white throat caused me to consider Yellow-bellied. I asked the observer to attach more images to help with the review process. The additional images also supported Yellow-bellied, so I asked the observer to change the species and submit the record to the UBRC. Blame me if we got it wrong. While the red-crown is more advanced than is typical for this time of year for a juvenile, the white throat and black frame around the throat support female Yellow-bellied. Photo A appears to show a gray smudge in the white throat, but that may be an image artifact due to poor lighting. Photo C shows some brown spotting on the right side of the head behind the eye that may appear to include red. I think that also is an image artifact as a result of soft focus and underexposure.
2nd round:	12 Dec 2025	Acc	Same vote as first round.
Max M.	12 Nov 2025	Acc	Juvenile plumaged sapsucker in November seeems good for YBSA
2nd round:	22 Dec 2025	Acc	Maintaining my first round vote
Keeli M.	7 Nov 2025	Acc	Photos show juvenile plumage with messy back. Timing of retained juvenal plumage supports ID as YBSA.
2nd round:	2 Jan 2026	Acc	No change in vote, continuing to accept for reasons stated previously.
Bryant O.	12 Nov 2025	Acc	Looks like a juvenile female YBSA. RNSA should show some red on nape and some red in throat. Retained juvenile plumage this late also consistent with YBSA
2nd round:	12 Dec 2025	Acc	Molt of this Sapsucker best matches YBSA not RNSA. RNSA juveniles complete there 1st formative molt before migrating in Sept., YBSA suspend molt in Sept and then resume in spring, meaning any Sapsucker in juvenile plumage after Oct. 1st is likely a YBSA. Even hybrids usually have the RNSA molt cycle and would be in more advanced plumage. The solid white throat is also not seen on RNSA or hybrids, only female YBSA have a white throat. There is some brown in the center of the throat, but that looks more like juvenile feather tips and not red. I see not sign of hybrid, and molt cycle matches female juvenile YBSA.
Kris P.	4 Dec 2025	Acc	A very straightforward Yellow-bellied including juvenile plumage in November (although this bird's molt is somewhat more advanced than most juveniles this early in the fall); the all-white throat, the back heavily covered in white wavy bars and spots; and the nape lacking red.
2nd round:	21 Dec 2025	Acc	Same vote as in the first round.
Mike S.	11 Dec 2025	Acc	Good photos show a juvenile Yellow-bellied Sapsucker. Not seeing any signs of hybridization.
2nd round:	16 Dec 2025	Acc	No change of opinion. Clearly there is going to be a range of molt variation among these juvenile sapsuckers at this time of year, but I believe this individual is firmly within the expected range for a YBSA.
Dennis S.	26 Nov 2025	No, ID	Plumage variation in the two closely related RNSA and YBSA especially in juvenile female sapsuckers makes positive ID not safely possible in many cases and I think this bird falls in this category. The messy back is still somewhat present in juvenile RNSA in late Fall. By late Fall juvenile YBSA have normally lost most of its plumage and looks more like an adult. Not convinced!
2nd round:	23 Dec 2025	Acc	After reviewing comments and discovering the correct molting sequence it fits better for a YBSA. I'll concede my vote to accept.
Mark S.	9 Dec 2025	Acc	Adequate documentation and good photos - checks all the boxes for Yellow-bellied Sapsucker.
2nd round:	28 Dec 2025	Acc	As per my first round comment.
Kevin W.	5 Dec 2025	Acc	I think that this bird shows enough of the favored characteristics to be called a Yellow-bellied: broad black and buffy back, no red in nape, juvenile plumage in November. It's hard to tell much about the throat border as it's not completely filled in yet.
2nd round:	22 Dec 2025	Acc	Same vote as first round.

2025-62 Tennessee Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	26 Nov 2025	Acc	In eliminating similar species, the record states that a dark eyeline rules out OCWA, but OCWA can also show a dark eyeline. However, the overall description of the bird fits Tennessee Warbler.
2nd round:	22 Dec 2025	Acc	After reading comments from the first round, I agree that there are inconsistencies in color descriptions that cause concern. Length of bill and size of the bird, however, can be very subjective and don't carry as much weight from my perspective in this case. This observer very well knows the difference between a warbler and a vireo, so vireo is not a consideration for me. And yes, the writing and submission of the record was delayed, which can make details fuzzy. However, I know that the observer does not enjoy writing up records, so I appreciate that despite the stress it causes him he still makes efforts to comply with our process. The observer does indicate that the back was green in his identifying marks section. Regarding brightness of the yellow color, I looked at many female TEWAs in the Macaulay Library that were photographed in May over the past few years and easily found females that showed yellow on the throat, chest, and even into the belly. The facial pattern and the white UTCs noted in comparison to a nearby OCWA count for TEWA. Based on the observer's experience with the species in Utah and noticing that his other records with photos were indeed TEWAs (not misidentified), I am still comfortable with voting to accept the record in this round.
Max M.	1 Dec 2025	Acc	Description eliminates similar species
2nd round:	22 Dec 2025	Acc	I think the description of bright lemony yellow is subjective, and some spring females can be fairly bright. Overall I think the record is adequate to eliminate similar species, the observer has seen many TEWA in Utah this year, I give him credit for trying to submit records for all review species even if they are after the fact. Continuing to accept.
Keeli M.	12 Dec 2025	Acc	Characteristics all fit and they were able to directly compare to an OCWA.
2nd round:	15 Jan 2026	No, ID	Really tough TEWA records and while I trust in the observer's skill and believe it was likely a TEWA, interpretation of color can go a lot of different directions. I agree there seem to be some inconsistencies in this record with the color descriptors used and that coupled with some other inconsistent descriptions brings enough doubt into the record to lead me to change my vote.
Bryant O.	22 Nov 2025	Acc	Good description by observer experienced with this species
2nd round:	19 Dec 2025	No, ID	After reading the 1st round comments, I re-read the record and concur the description is inadequate. I'm particular concerned by the description of bright yellow, spring TEWA, even females, are anything but bright, When I see them on their wintering range in the tropics, I'm most struck by their extreme dull drabness, with an almost colorless dingy white underparts. You have to get a view of their back to see any color, which is usually dull olive or gray, not bright. Since no description of the back and or the lack of wingbars is provided, I agree this record just doesn't add up. Its incompleteness and filled out months after the fact again doesn't help it. Great example of why prompted records with a fresh account and are so important. I don't know what they saw, but TEWA hasn't been proven here.
Kris P.	4 Dec 2025	No, ID	Accepting this record is not warranted due to: - Multiple inconsistencies in the bird's description from any field guide description -- Describing the bird as a medium size warbler: The Tennessee is a small warbler, with only the Lucy's and the two parulas being smaller -- Describing the bill as long, twice. The Tennessee does not have a long bill. The bill is also slightly shorter than the Orange-crowned's, and given that an Orange-crowned was present, the impression of the bill length should not have been 'long'. -- Describing the back as yellow in the Overall Pattern section, then as greenish in the Field Marks section, then the bird as overall lemon yellow in the Similar Species elimination section. Which was it? - Reporting white under-tail coverts and the appropriate face pattern for a Tennessee is not enough to offset the inconsistencies, above - Fields not filled out on the form imply this record was created from memory 6 months after the sighting, and the observation lasted only 10-15 seconds - Very unusual spring timing. Ebird documents only four previous May Tennessee Warbler sightings in Utah (and only six total, April-June), which raises the bar on the quality of information that needs to be reported for a credible record - Record does not eliminate vireos
2nd round:	21 Dec 2025	No, ID	Again, I can't cherry-pick the details that are correct to justify an Accept vote because there are too many other details that aren't correct: Medium-size warbler; long bill; yellow head and back; overall bright yellow; and overall lemon yellow. I mentioned in my first round comments what medium-size warbler and long bill mean to me, so I won't repeat those. The description of a yellow head brings to mind Prothonotary, Yellow and Blue-winged Warblers. Lemon yellow as a body color is not a good fit for a Tennessee. My research here involved taking a lemon out of my refrigerator and assessing the color, which was a good match for the brightest adult male Lesser Goldfinch's breast and belly on a feeder outside my window at the time. The brightest yellow on a Tennessee Warbler may be on a fall bird, not a spring adult female, and I still don't think even a fall bird should be described as overall lemon yellow. I may have been nit-picking in my first round comments by the time I listed 'Record does not eliminate vireos', because the phrases "yellow ... head, yellow back" in the record's Overall Pattern Section and "overall lemon yellow" in the Species Elimination Section eliminate vireos, but those phrases also eliminate the Tennessee Warbler. The impression I gained from the whole record is that it was documented hurriedly 6 months after a sighting that may have lasted only 10 seconds, and either the bird wasn't seen well, the details are clouded by time or there are some misconceptions of a Tennessee Warbler's features.
Mike S.	15 Dec 2025	No, ID	During my two terms on this committee, I've found TEWA records with no photos to be consistently some of the most challenging to assess. For this record, I'm not certain Blackpoll & Bay-breasted Warblers can be ruled out. I wish there was at least a mention of the lack of wing bars. I assume this feature would have stood out alongside the nearby OCWA, but I don't want to jump to any conclusions. I'm simply not certain other reasonable possibilities have been thoroughly ruled out.
2nd round:	29 Dec 2025	No, ID	No change of opinion. I still don't believe the written documentation (including similar species section) is thorough enough to accept. The fact that this was a brief observation submitted months later with no mention about whether the write-up is based on notes, memory, etc. only adds to my concerns. I believe this is a competent birder who very likely saw a Tennessee Warbler, but the documentation provided falls just short of what I'm confident accepting.
Dennis S.	26 Nov 2025	Acc	Good comparison of closely appearing OCWA at time of sighting. White vs Yellow undertail coverts is critical in this identification.
2nd round:	23 Dec 2025	No, ID	After studying the first round comments my acceptance became more shaky and agree there are several characters that aren't supportive of a TEWA.
Mark S.	18 Dec 2025	Acc	Description adequately notes the important features to establish the i.d.
2nd round:	28 Dec 2025	Acc	It is possible to pick this description apart for inconsistencies and imprecise language. In the overall pattern he calls the back yellow, and describes it as overall bright yellow, but then mentions greenish on the back. But dark eyeline, pale supercilium, white lower belly and UTC´s, and lack of any streaking on breast and flanks are mentioned, and in direct comparison to OCWA. I'm not sure that "lemon yellow" in bird plumage would always fit with dyed grocery store lemons. I usually think of it as a pale, but non-greenish yellow. This would fit for many spring TEWA. Although perhaps a bit softer than my first round vote given the concerns expressed by other committee members, I think there's enough here to continue to accept.
Kevin W.	5 Dec 2025	Acc	Detailed report indicates necessary characteristics and eliminates similar Orange-crowned Warbler.
2nd round:	29 Dec 2025	No, ID	After reading other reviewers' perspective and re-assessing the record, I agree that details are lacking or inconsistent.

2025-63 Tennessee Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	26 Nov 2025	Acc	In eliminating similar species, the record states that a dark eyeline rules out OCWA, but OCWA can also show a dark eyeline. However, the overall description of the bird fits Tennessee Warbler.
2nd round:	22 Dec 2025	Acc	I can appreciate the various perspectives on this record, especially concern with the mention of a "yellow head", but it seems that the overall head color of first-winter birds lean more yellow than the green/gray crowns of adults of the species. I still believe that the observer saw a TEWA based on an overall combination of plumage traits that point TEWA and eliminate similar species.
Max M.	1 Dec 2025	Acc	Description eliminates similar species
2nd round:	22 Dec 2025	Acc	Similar to the other record, I think maybe folks are reading too much into the details. "Long point bill" and "medium sized warbler" are all sort of subjective, especially in the field. Unless you are reading the exact lengths/size descriptions in a field guide I think the description generally fits all warblers. I think the important field marks are addressed. Continuing to accept.
Keeli M.	15 Dec 2025	Acc	Other likely species ruled out by the lack of wing bars and white under tail. Direct comparison with OCWA.
2nd round:	15 Jan 2026	Acc	While reviewing photos of TEWAs, it did seem to me in many of them, without anything to compare size to, it could look like TEWA has a longer bill, so that doesn't seem like a deal breaker for me. I think there's still enough to support ID. Continuing to accept.
Bryant O.	22 Nov 2025	Acc	Good comparison of closely appearing OCWA at time of sighting. White vs Yellow undertail coverts is critical in this identification.
2nd round:	19 Dec 2025	No, ID	After reading the 1st round comments, I re-read the record and concur the description is inadequate to rule out other warblers, Particularly no mention of that lack of wingbars on the back opens a whole can of worms of other warbler possibilities. Pieced together with many incomplete views doesn't do a good job of a solid ID. The fact it was written months later and incomplete doesn't strengthen the record either. I guess the onslaught of reviewing 4 records of the same species by the same observer biased my original vote.
Kris P.	4 Dec 2025	No, ID	Several details are not correct for a Tennessee Warbler, even though a few other details are right. I can't ignore the wrong details, which include: - Medium size. The Tennessee is actually one of our smaller warblers at only the same length as the Wilson's. - Long bill, mentioned twice. The Tennessee doesn't have a long bill. Warblers with long bills include Black-and-White, Yelllow-throated, Prothonotary and a few others. Tennessees are way out of that league. - Yellow head. The Tennessee doesn't have a yellow head. It may have a yellow throat and supercilium (supercilium not reported in this record), but the crown and nape are always going to be olive or gray, possibly tinged with yellow, as are the auriculars. While the submitter's describing an eye-line, white under-tail coverts and a short tail are key for the Tennessee, putting together a bird with all the reported details would yield a species that doesn't exist.
2nd round:	21 Dec 2025	No, ID	I agree with Mike S. that this record is stronger than 2025-62, and I especially appreciate that the observation was significantly longer. The problem for me remains that the details reported are a mix of right and not right for the species. My gut says that this bird was probably a Tennessee Warbler and the observer just described it wrong. But I have to vote on what he said, and he emphasized the bird had a long bill, a yellow head and an overall lemon yellow color. Those details don't match a fall Tennessee Warbler.
Mike S.	15 Dec 2025	Acc	Overall I believe this record is more solid than 2025-62. The side by side comparison with OCWA is helpful, and this time we have mention of Bay-poll (and lack of wing bars), some structural details, etc. Comfortable accepting based on this combination.
2nd round:	29 Dec 2025	Acc	I still feel better about this record compared with 2025-62. I understand Kris's concerns, but I believe the combination of short tail, white undertail coverts, dark eyeline, lack of streaking, and lack of wing bars rule out other options.
Dennis S.	26 Nov 2025	Acc	Good comparison of closely appearing OCWA at time of sighting. White vs Yellow undertail coverts is critical in this identification.
2nd round:	23 Dec 2025	Acc	It's still a close call but I still think enough evidence for acceptance.
Mark S.	16 Dec 2025	Acc	Description adequately notes the important features to establish the i.d.
2nd round:	28 Dec 2025	Acc	Again, while there are imprecise statements and judgements in the description, the important features for establishing the i.d. are mentioned, and most of the inconsistencies are subjective judgements of things easily misjudged in the field. For example, the "long bill" is a frequent impression with TEWA due to the bill shape and finely sloped forehead that gives the impression of a bill longer than it actually is. I still think the i.d. is adequately supported here.
Kevin W.	5 Dec 2025	Acc	Although the submitter admits that views were pieced together and the bird was never observed well, I think he describes enough important characteristics to accept.
2nd round:	29 Dec 2025	No, ID	I still think that the observer probably saw a Tennessee Warbler, but in looking at the details in the submission, I agree that there are inconsistent and lacking details to be accepted.

2025-64 Tennessee Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	16 Nov 2025	Acc	The images, showing the white vent area, help to document the species. While not mentioned in the similar species area, the white vent eliminates the superficially similar-looking Orange-crowned Warbler as well.
Max M.	17 Nov 2025	Acc	Photos show a TEWA
Keeli M.	15 Dec 2025	Acc	Photos are supportive of ID.
Bryant O.	22 Nov 2025	Acc	Good photos and description
Kris P.	5 Dec 2025	Acc	The photo with this record shows a Tennessee Warbler and corrects two of the inaccurate written details including long bill and yellow head. A third inaccurate detail listing the size of the warbler as medium can't be corrected by the photo, but I can ignore this given that the photo clearly depicts a Tennessee Warbler.
Mike S.	15 Dec 2025	Acc	Nice photos show a Tennessee Warbler.
Dennis S.	26 Nov 2025	Acc	Photos leave little doubt.
Mark S.	16 Dec 2025	Acc	Photos show first year Tennessee Warbler.
Kevin W.	12 Dec 2025	Acc	Photos show the lemon-yellow coloration and white undertail coverts for a Tennessee Warbler.

2025-65 Tennessee Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	16 Nov 2025	Acc	Description and image document the species.
Max M.	17 Nov 2025	Acc	Photos show a TEWA
Keeli M.	15 Dec 2025	Acc	Photos just barely show what appears to be the white under tail coverts. Description and photos support ID.
Bryant O.	22 Nov 2025	Acc	Good photos and description
Kris P.	5 Dec 2025	Acc	The photo is very helpful and the Field Marks section is written accurately. Those two features of this record offset the consistent errors in reporting by this observer in describing the species as a medium size warbler, the bill length as long and the head as yellow. This is also not the first Tennessee Warbler I've seen with diffuse blurry streaks on the upper breast (see record 2022-42) even though the observer says in the species elimination section that the bird doesn't have them.
Mike S.	15 Dec 2025	Acc	Another good TEWA record with photos capturing critical field marks.
Dennis S.	26 Nov 2025	Acc	Again photos along with report leave little doubt.
Mark S.	16 Dec 2025	Acc	Good documentation.
Kevin W.	12 Dec 2025	Acc	Again, photos show distinctive traits of Tennessee Warbler

2025-66 Little Gull

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	16 Nov 2025	Acc	Great observation by McKay. The record documents the species very well.
Max M.	17 Nov 2025	Acc	Well documented bird and great record
Keeli M.	25 Nov 2025	Acc	Excellent supporting photos show partial hood (dusky hood), rounded wings, and dark underside of wings on a small gull, which all support ID as LIGU.
Bryant O.	15 Nov 2025	Acc	Nice adult. I saw this bird myself on 11/14 at the same location.
Kris P.	6 Dec 2025	Acc	An excellent find and a nice record.
Mike S.	15 Dec 2025	Acc	Great record with diagnostic photos.
Dennis S.	23 Nov 2025	Acc	Good report and excellant flight photos showing distinctive dark under wings leave no question.
Mark S.	16 Dec 2025	Acc	Excellent documentation.
Kevin W.	12 Dec 2025	Acc	Great photos show distinctive dark underwing for Little Gull.

2025-67 Thick-billed Longspur

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	26 Nov 2025	Acc	This is a well-documented record that includes the details to separate it from other longspur species.
Max M.	1 Dec 2025	Acc	Photos and description match TBLO
Keeli M.	15 Dec 2025	Acc	Solid identifying marks support ID as TBLO
Bryant O.	22 Nov 2025	Acc
Kris P.	6 Dec 2025	Acc	Nice, complete record.
Mike S.	16 Dec 2025	Acc	Great documentation leaves no doubt.
Dennis S.	23 Nov 2025	Acc	Excellant report and supporting photos leave no questions.
Mark S.	22 Dec 2025	Acc	Excellent documentation.
Kevin W.	12 Dec 2025	Acc	Photos show heavy, pink bill, black crescent on chest, and rufous shoulder patch characteristic of Thick-billed Longspur

2025-68 Ancient Murrelet

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	26 Nov 2025	Acc	Right place and time. What a great observation with documentation sufficient to confirm the species.
Max M.	1 Dec 2025	Acc	Crazy record and documentation shots. Wonder where this thing ended up
Keeli M.	15 Dec 2025	Acc	Great photos supportive of ID, showing pale bill and overall football shaped tiny alcid. "The size of a nice hoagie sandwich" love it. Great find.
Bryant O.	22 Nov 2025	Acc	Well documented
Kris P.	8 Dec 2025	Acc	A fine, fine record and perhaps a heart-stopping experience for KC and his crew. I wouldn't mind enjoying a nice hoagie sandwich like this one.
Mike S.	16 Dec 2025	Acc	Great record with diagnostic photos! Awesome find by KC & company.
Dennis S.	23 Nov 2025	Acc	Wow! What a find! Great detailed obbservation record and unquestionable photo of Ancient Murrelet. Seen by several lucky birders. (not me - made 3 trips to area so far - no luck!)
Mark S.	22 Dec 2025	Acc	Good documentation and photos. Remarkable record.
Kevin W.	12 Dec 2025	Acc	Amazing record! Black face and pale bill eliminate other ridiculously improbable possibilities.

2025-69 Chestnut-sided Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	29 Nov 2025	Acc	Description and images confirm the species. Once again, Bryant's birding by ear skills led to a great observation.
Max M.	5 Dec 2025	Acc	Very nice pictures of one of my favorite warblers
Keeli M.	15 Dec 2025	Acc	Photos show a first winter bird with bright yellowish green plumage on head and back, complete white eye-ring, white under tail and clean underneath, and yellowish wing bars. All supportive of ID as CSWA.
Bryant O.	29 Nov 2025	Acc
Kris P.	11 Dec 2025	Acc	Yes. Described or portrayed the diagnostic combination of lime/yellow-green upper-parts, yellow-tinged wing bars, complete white eye-ring and cocked tail/drooping wing tips posture. The description of the call note also corroborates the ID.
Mike S.	16 Dec 2025	Acc	Photos clearly show a Chestnut-sided Warbler. Excellent documentation.
Dennis S.	7 Dec 2025	Acc	No question about ID. Great photos and a thorough report from an experienced birder with this species leaves no doubt.
Mark S.	22 Dec 2025	Acc	Excellent documentation; photos are diagnostic.
Kevin W.	22 Dec 2025	Acc	Photos clearly show eye-ring and wingbars, and very distinctive greenish head.

2025-70 Red-throated Loon

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	29 Nov 2025	Acc	Description and images confirm the species. Many birders, including this one, followed up on the initial report and had the pleasure of observing the rare visitor to Utah Lake. What rarity will Bryant turn up next?
Max M.	5 Dec 2025	Acc	While the pictures aren't the best, very well written record with further documentation by many.
Keeli M.	15 Dec 2025	Acc	Dark neck line, smaller bill, and upturned head angle
Bryant O.	29 Nov 2025	Acc
Kris P.	12 Dec 2025	Acc	Mostly a structure ID due to the distance, but straightforward. Other species are thoroughly addressed and eliminated.
Mike S.	26 Dec 2025	Acc	Nice record, combination of excellent write-up with distant (but still helpful) photos establishes the ID.
Dennis S.	7 Dec 2025	Acc	Good convincing report comparing other loons, along with a bunch of distant photos was adequate for acceptance. Many observers over two day period.
Mark S.	22 Dec 2025	Acc	Good written description; photos marginal, but support the i.d.
Kevin W.	22 Dec 2025	Acc	Description and photos show delicate loon with head tilted up, lack of barring on back, and lack of strongly contrasting neck to eliminate other species.d.

2025-71 Chihuahuan Meadowlark

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	7 Dec 2025	No, ID	I tried to gather some context on this record since it is lacking details and does not explain why it is being submitted as a Chihuahuan Meadowlark. I learned that a local birder saw the image in the Macaulay Library and thought it might be a candidate for Chihuahuan Meadowlark. That birder reached out to another birder hoping to be connected to Craig for additional photos and information on the bird. Neither of those birders knew how to contact Craig, so one reached out to Miranda, who knows Craig. While Miranda is listed in the record as one who also identified the bird, she confirmed with me that she did not see the bird, that she was just passing along questions and information from the first two birders without an opinion on the species. Regarding my thoughts on the image for this record, the apparent white malar is intriguing. The markings on the sides and flanks aren't definitive because a search of images of Western Meadowlark in the Macaulay Library show many birds with marks similar to this bird. The extent of yellow on the underside during breeding season seems to vary greatly among individuals birds. I would want to know that several traits check the list for Chihuahuan. For example, I would want to know that the cheek is pale, the post ocular stripe is highly contrasting, and the four outer rectrices are white before confirming Chihuahuan Meadowlark. A recording would also help distinguish between Western and Chihuahuan. It's a no-vote for this round with the single photo we have.
2nd round:	1 Jan 2026	No, ID	No change from the first round vote.
Max M.	5 Dec 2025	No, ID	This is a very interesting looking bird, I do not have much experience at all with the new CHME, and overall this bird looks decent for one. Pale malar, faint streaking on sides, somewhat reduced yellow. However, this write up is as skimpy as it gets, and without seeing the spread tail or an audio recording, for a first state record I don't think we can rule out a pale Western or even an Eastern Meadowlark from this single photo and lack of other details. Look forward to seeing if I am totally off base with my analysis from folks on the committee who may have more experience with this new species.
2nd round:	31 Dec 2025	No, ID	Looks like most share my concerns about this record. No change in opinion from first round.
Keeli M.	7 Dec 2025	No, ID	Record does not show adequate picture of the tail or provide audio recordings that could be used to differentiate between Western/Eastern/Chihuahuan Meadowlark. There's no discussion of how other species were eliminated.
2nd round:	2 Jan 2026	No, ID	No change from first round vote for reasons discussed.
Bryant O.	5 Dec 2025	No, ID	No discussion of field marks or similar species, just an ID by a 3rd party with unknown experience with the species. Yes the malar is white, but that does not eliminate Eastern Meadowlark and my understanding is some Western can have a pale malar in basic plumage. No discussion of tail or voice, so this falls far short of being sufficient for a 1st state record.
2nd round:	2 Jan 2026	No, ID	No discussion of Eastern or Hybrids(EAME X WEME or CHME X WEME or EAME X CHME), nothing about voice or view of the tail. I think Kris's comment about molt and wear are relevant, but regardless this is a Meadowlark Sp. Timing also isn't great, as that is not the season one would wander, although this species is mostly non-migratory and not inclined to wander. There are lot of problems with this record and no real answers.
Kris P.	14 Dec 2025	No, ID	Did not report either of the two most reliable ID characteristics, the voice and the white in the tail on a notoriously tricky ID, along with all other even more challenging ID features - The mid-June date of the photo means this bird is as worn and faded as it will be prior to its pre-basic molt, and the photo is both over-exposed on the face and the views of the bird are obscured - Several features are intermediate, if they can even be judged - The head pattern doesn't seem bold enough for either Chihuahuan or Eastern, but better for a Western - The white malar and pale ground color of the flanks are not enough to distinguish this bird from a Western given a Western can show both - Yellow belly is extensive, better for a Western than a Chihuahuan - Black streaking on sides seems too dark and coarse for a Chihuahuan, but is also likely worn - It's rather curious to me that the submitter made no attempt to analyze the bird from his own evidence
2nd round:	31 Dec 2025	No, ID	No change in opinion from the first round. Dennis' and Keeli's succinct comments are a good fit for this record
Mike S.	30 Dec 2025	No, ID	I don't believe there is enough evidence presented for a potential state first. The most promising 'potential' feature of a Chihuahuan Meadowlark is the limited extent of yellow on the throat with a white malar. However, it's my understanding that Western Meadowlarks can appear this way while molting. (Having said that, molt timing may be a bit early for that species and I'm curious if anyone else has better insight into that?) Regardless, I'd expect a Chihuahuan Meadowlark to have a paler face with a more boldly contrasting eyeline. Additional important features are impossible to assess based on this single photograph, especially since there is basically no written description. Without audio, I believe a spread tail photo to assess extent of white on rectrices would be needed to establish the ID. Even if we had some of these details, we'd still need to rule out the possibility of an Eastern Meadowlark... To summarize, the documentation provided is simply not extensive enough to accept, and I believe this individual is most likely a Western Meadowlark.
2nd round:	31 Dec 2025	No, ID	No change of opinion.
Dennis S.	8 Dec 2025	No, ID	Inadequate report. No discussion of distinguishing characters differing from Eastern or Western Meadowlark.
2nd round:	5 Jan 2026	No, ID	No change in thoughts from 1st round - No ID.
Mark S.	22 Dec 2025	To 2nd	This is a tough call. The written description is of no help, but the photo may show a Chihuahuan Meadowlark, based upon the facial markings and flanks. But the most definitive diagnostic feature, the tail, is not visible. Additionally, we have no vocalizations or recordings. I'm hesitant to approve a record of this rarity with the most valuable pieces of evidence missing.
2nd round:	31 Dec 2025	No, ID	I see that most of the committee shares my concern over inadequate evidence here to establish the identification of a record this rare. "Almost" isn't enough here..
Kevin W.	29 Dec 2025	Acc	I know that we've reviewed and rejected other reports of this species previously, but I feel that the photo documentation on this is sufficient to accept. Good characteristics observed int he photo include: white malar stripe, lack of introgression of the black streaking into the yellow breast, restricted black chevron, and reduced yellow belly. The photo doesn't show the white outer tail feathers because of angle, but I think the other features are sufficient.
2nd round:	30 Jan 2026	No, ID	I'll change my vote. I still think this may be a Chihuahuan Meadowlark, but agree with other reviewers that there aren't enough distinct characteristics to rule out other Meadowlark species completely.

2025-72 Red-throated Loon

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	12 Dec 2025	Acc	The description and structural features from the images are in line with Red-throated Loon.
Max M.	2 Jan 2026	Acc	(Apologies I thought I already voted on this record). Description and photos support RTLO
Keeli M.	15 Dec 2025	Acc	Photos are a little tough and have lots of light artifacts, but I think there's enough there to support ID with upturned head angle, flatter head, white throat with dark underneath.
Bryant O.	12 Dec 2025	Acc	Photos and description consistent with RTLO
Kris P.	12 Dec 2025	Acc	Just as in 2025-70, the ID necessarily relies heavily on structure because the bird remained far off-shore. Good job here describing features, capturing photos and eliminating similar species.
Mike S.	29 Dec 2025	Acc	Good written documentation rules out other species. While the photos are quite poor, they do give the structural impression of this species.
Dennis S.	9 Dec 2025	Acc	Good comparative evaluation of other loons. Photos showing bill chacteristics helped - upturned bill!
Mark S.	26 Dec 2025	Acc	Reasonably good description, given the conditions and distance, and covers the essential features for identification. Similarly, the photos are poor, but show sufficient detail to support, in aggregate, the identification. Seems like this is an irruptive year for this species in the interior west.
Kevin W.	29 Dec 2025	Acc	Photos, though not the greatest, show a delicate-looking loon that points its bill upward and lacks the contrasting neck that a similar Pacific Loon would show.

2025-73 Little Gull

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	12 Dec 2025	Acc	Details and images are well presented and confirm a Little Gull.
Max M.	2 Jan 2026	Acc	(Apologies I thought I already voted on this record). Good documentation and photos
Keeli M.	15 Dec 2025	Acc	Photos support ID and show smaller a more petite bird with smudgy head, dark underwing, pale wingtips on top.
Bryant O.	12 Dec 2025	Acc	Nice find! Only year more than 1 LIGU has been reported, probably not the same bird but who knows?
Kris P.	14 Dec 2025	Acc
Mike S.	30 Dec 2025	Acc	Great written documentation and photos! Nice to have the side-by-side comparison with BOGU.
Dennis S.	9 Dec 2025	Acc	Great photos showing accompanying Bonapart's Gull left no question. Also included very good report covering all aspects of identification.
Mark S.	26 Dec 2025	Acc	Good description; definitive photos.
Kevin W.	29 Dec 2025	Acc	The dark inner-wing eliminates similar Bonaparte's Gull.

2025-74 Chestnut-sided Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	12 Dec 2025	Acc	Carl's details and images confirm the species.
Max M.	19 Dec 2025	Acc	Photos show a CSWA
Keeli M.	3 Jan 2026	Acc	Photo supports ID. Looks to be an adult in nonbreeding plumage.
Bryant O.	12 Dec 2025	Acc	Photos leave no doubt, looks like a basic plumage male
Kris P.	17 Dec 2025	Acc	This record includes all the right stuff from its narrative description of the diagnostic combination of features to the confirming photos of a distinctive species. Clearly a great bird for Carl, and a great one for Carbon County, too.
Mike S.	29 Dec 2025	Acc	Diagnostic photos.
Dennis S.	14 Dec 2025	Acc	Photos leave no question
Mark S.	26 Dec 2025	Acc	Good documentation; photos unmistakable.
Kevin W.	16 Jan 2025	Acc	Photos show distinctive characteristics of Chestnut-sided Warbler, including chestnut sides and greenish-yellow crown and back.

2025-75 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	22 Dec 2025	Acc	Images and description line up well with a juvenile Yellow-bellied Sapsucker. The white throat with a black border is indicative of a female YBSA. This one appears to be much like the reported YBSA we are reviewing under record 2025-61 except that this one has less red in the crown.
Max M.	31 Dec 2025	Acc	Thanks to Bryant, Jack and my dad for helping with this ID.
Keeli M.	20 Jan 2025	Acc	Photo F threw me off a little bit with what looks like a little bit of red behind the eye and a dark throat. None of the other photos show this, but show a sapsucker with retained juvenal plumage in Dec, as well as the white throat with black border, red on the forehead but not back of the head. Characteristics are supportive of ID as YBSA
Bryant O.	23 Dec 2025	Acc	The combination of brown juvenile plumage and no red on the throat or nape rules out even a hybrid
Kris P.	31 Dec 2025	Acc
Mike S.	29 Dec 2025	Acc	Good photos show a juvenile female Yellow-bellied Sapsucker. I agree with Max's analysis and I don't see anything that would indicate hybridization. The only question would be whether there is too much red in the crown at this stage of molt for a pure YBSA. However, I believe this is within an expected range of molt progression. Nice record.
Dennis S.	27 Dec 2025	Acc	Good thorough report and verifying photos.
Mark S.	26 Dec 2025	Acc	The back pattern seems a bit intermediate to me for a pure YBSA, and the red coming into the forehead primarily is more RNSA-like, so there might be some mixed genes here. But the preponderance of the evidence, with molt-timing, lack of red on nape or throat, etc. suggests a pure or nearly pure YBSA. Good documentation allows for detailed analysis, and the preponderance of the evidence supports the identification.
Kevin W.	16 Jan 2025	Acc	Several characteristics, including winter juvenile plumage, the messily-barred back, full borders around the throat, lack of red nape all favor Yellow-bellied Sapsucker.

2025-76 Brown-capped Rosy-Finch

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	1 Jan 2026	Acc	Just as quickly as I got excited about referring to the Brown-capped Rosy Finch expert opinion we received for a previous BCRF record (2025-24), I realized that our expert for that opinion was one of the observers present for this bird. The first trait I checked was the gray-fringed feathers with dark centers along the side of the crown behind the eye. I believe I see such feathers in Photo B. Since this bird was in hand, and possibly banded while GCRF were also being banded, it would have been a bonus to see a photo of this bird next to a GCRF to illustrate the brown color difference between the two, meaning a tanner color for BCRF vs a chestnut color for GCRF. Based on my current resources and understanding of the species, I vote to accept this record.
2nd round:	27 Jan 2026	Acc	I still agree that Brown-capped is the correct ID. Thanks to other Committee members who provided additional insights.
Max M.	31 Dec 2025	Acc	Good pictures
2nd round:	29 Jan 2026	Acc	Thanks to Kris and Bryant for the in-depth analysis. Continuing to accept.
Keeli M.	20 Jan 2026	Acc	Grayish tone to body feather, dark feather centers on crown, and photos all support ID as BCRF.
Bryant O.	29 Dec 2025	Acc	Although I would have liked to see all the measurement number that I know are taken during banding, and a better analysis of why a ASY Female, nevertheless the crown pattern does show a BCRF, especially if it is indeed an adult, which the pink in the wing supports
2nd round:	20 Jan 2026	Acc	Continue to accept. Maybe we should request their meta data from banding? This bird is in basic plumage, all Rosy-Finches have a yellow bill in basic plumage, which is expected plumage at that date. In May the bill will turn dark. Female Rosy-Finches have less pink than males, and although the pink is faint, it is present in all the places we would expect it that we can see, the wing coverts, rump and undertail coverts. Therefore I agree with their statement this is not a Hatch Year bird(which would be pre-basic 1 not juvenile plumage which is molted in Aug.) I think their assessment of AHY is a bit odd, usually they age as HY, SY and ASY, but there is some uncertainty with female Rosy-Finches and I think they were being conservative and not jumping to conclusions. AHY means second year or older. Nevertheless, since it is not in HY plumage, the head pattern we see fits BCRF better then GCRF, which are somewhat expected in that area of Utah. In fact, we could even remove BCRF from review in Grand and San Juan county since they are reported there in decent numbers and probably occur annually.
Kris P.	7 Jan 2026	Acc	Despite how scant the information is in this record, I'm voting to accept it for three reasons: - The bird was aged at AHY rather than HY. This means it went through a complete molt in late summer and presumably is slightly more distinct (pinkish in the right places) than a HY bird would be. A Gray-crowned would also have advanced in distinctiveness toward its own species at that age. It's unfortunate that the hand in the pictures covers some of those feathers, like the belly. - Josh described the dark-centered crown feathers that Jason Kitting told us was so important in his April 25, 2025 message to Max as we struggled with this spring's records at Alta. - Jason Kitting was consulted. I learned from a third party who was present at this banding session that Jason was not there, but Josh sent him pictures after the bird was released. I don't think Danielle was there, either. Their not being at the site wasn't apparent to me from the way the record was presented, but as long as Jason agreed with the ID, I think this record is sufficient.
Mike S.	31 Dec 2025	Acc	This might be nitpicking, but I do wish we had a photo of the underparts. That aside, I believe other features (especially details of the crown) establish the ID as a Brown-capped Rosy-Finch. The bird was banded in the part of the state where this species is most likely to occur.
Dennis S.	27 Dec 2025	Acc	No question with all the convincing photos.
2nd round:	21 Jan 2026	Acc	Even though the written report is somewhat skimpy and more photos would have helped, I have to think the expertise of the banders leaves little question on ID.
Mark S.	26 Dec 2025	To 2nd	This is always a challenging identification, and this individual fits the pattern. I would have liked some discussion as to why they evaluated this as an AHY individual, given the almost complete lack of pink on the belly or wings. This looks to me to be a better candidate for a FY bird, in which case Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch would be a better fit than BCRF, though it might be unidentifiable to species. My inclination is to vote "no," but I'm close enough to being on the fence to want to see what everyone else thinks before deciding.
2nd round:	29 Jan 2026	Acc	Thanks, Kris, for chasing down the additional details from the observer.
David W. 2nd:	22 Jan 2026	Acc	Thank you, Kristin, for providing us with the extra information on the thought process behind this record.
Kevin W.	16 Jan 2025	No, ID	I think the details provided have too little information, and the photos don't show critical details like the pink on the belly or the gray or lack thereof on the nape to identify. The fact that this is a juvenile bird (as indicated by the yellow beak) makes it more complicated. I'm just not sure this bird can be positively identified.
2nd round:	30 Jan 2026	Acc	Thanks to those who provided their insight; I'll change my mind. I always appreciate learning more from these tricky IDs.

2025-77 Chestnut-sided Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Jeff C.	1 Jan 2026	Acc	Description and images are a good fit for first-winter Chestnut-sided Warbler.
Max M.	31 Dec 2025	Acc	Good photos and description, great CBC bird!
Keeli M.	20 Jan 2026	Acc	Photos show a warbler with bright yellowish green upperparts, gray face and underparts, white wing bars and white eye ring which all support ID as CSWA.
Bryant O.	29 Dec 2025	Acc	Photos show a CSWA
Kris P.	7 Jan 2026	Acc	Thorough. The observer both described and portrayed in her photos the diagnostic combination of features for this distinctive bird.
Mike S.	30 Dec 2025	Acc	Photos leave no doubt. Great find for the Christmas Bird Count!
Dennis S.	5 Jan 2026	Acc	Good enough report and substantiating photos make an easy decision.
Mark S.	29 Dec 2025	Acc	Good description, and the photos, while partially obstructed views in all,in the aggregate show all the definitive features for Chestnut-sided Warbler.
Kevin W.	16 Jan 2026	Acc	Photos show distinctive greenish-yellow crown and back and wingbars of a Chestnut-sided Warbler.