--Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society
   
Status & Comments
Year 2026 (records 41through ...)

 2026-41 Lark Bunting

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 14 Jul 2026 Acc Media and description confirm the species.
Max M. 29 Jul 2026 Acc Good documentation and photos
Keeli M. 21 Jul 2026 Acc Photos are diagnostic of breeding male.
Bryant O. 17 Jul 2026 Acc I think this species doesn't qualify for review since its still an annual migrant in decent numbers. It is declining and becoming harder to find, but still seen more than Casually, therefore review seems unnecessary. I realize I'm the one who proposed we add it, but it was more of an open ended discussion on how to deal with rapidly declining birds that used to nest here but no longer do, which may be beyond the scope of the UBRC to track? But we want to catch them in review before they complete disappear, unlike we did for the INDO or the Veery. So where do we draw that line? I don't know.
Kris P. 20 Jul 2026 Acc  
Mark S. 31 Jul 2026 Acc Unmistakable photo and good write-up. This area can be irruptive for Lark Buntings, with the species appearing to be abundant in some years.
David W. 17 Jul 2026 Acc Good photos and writeup of a distinctive species. Nice to see three males like that.
Kevin W. 31 Jul 2026 Acc Photo shows distinctive black bird with white wing patch of Lark Bunting.

 

2026-42 Hooded Oriole

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 15 Jul 2026 Acc The description lacks some key traits. There is no mention of the bill shape and color pattern, coverts, or graduated tail feathers. However, the images show a male Hooded Oriole with the right facial and underside plumage, bill, and tail feather traits. I cannot speak to the bird hidden in the tree because no field notes have been shared and the bird is too obscured in the images.
Max M. 29 Jul 2026 Acc Looks good for Hooded
Keeli M. 2 Aug 2026 Acc Photos support ID.
Bryant O. 17 Jul 2026 Acc Photos leave no doubt
Kris P. 26 Jul 2026 Acc I'm voting to accept this record conditionally for one adult male Hooded Oriole, clearly depicted in the photo and showing the black face and bib; black graduated tail; clean, orange-yellow breast; and lacking a black crown. The minimal description barely supports this ID, but fails to rule out several other orange and black orioles. I can't tell if the observer meant the "white arm bars" were a single bar on each wing totaling to two (meaning it could also have an orange median bar that other species show), or the bird had two white bars on both wings.

The second bird was not described nor is visible enough in the photo to accept the record of it. I can't even conclude that the bird is an oriole from the photo. Had the observer seen it well enough to ID it as a Hooded, he would have been able to sex it definitively as either a male or a female based on the presence or absence of the black throat.
Mark S. 31 Jul 2026 Acc Scant description, but the main subject of the photo is unmistakable. The second bird in the photo is less clear, but the bill shape would be consistent with Hooded Oriole.
David W. 17 Jul 2026 Acc Combination of photos and writeup appear to eliminate the other oriole species. Nice record.
Kevin W. 31 Jul 2026 Acc Photos show oriole with distinctive bib of Hooded Oriole

 

2026-43 Chihuahuan Raven

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 28 Jul 2026 No, ID For this first-round vote, I considered the standards that were applied to previously vetted records for the species (i.e. 2010-14 and 2013-70). What appears to be white-based throat feathers and seemingly long nasal bristles are intriguing as they appear to point to Chihuahuan Raven. However, pale gray can appear white in sunlight or imprecise exposure. Also, nasal bristle length seems to vary by individual in both Chihuahuan and Common Ravens. I believe the bristles and bill of this bird fits within the range of Common Raven. Some Common Ravens show bristles going beyond the half-way point of the bill, even to where the culmen begins to curve downward. I see images online that are labeled as Common that appear to show white at the base of contour feathers when exposed by wind and sun. Records for this species that have been previously vetted by this committee have treated both the base feather color and bristle length as variable and not completely reliable in photos, so considering other differentiating traits becomes necessary for a full vetting. This record does not account for crown shape (flatter or more gently rounded like a CHRA or more rounded with a peak at center like a CORA), tail shape (slightly wedged like a CHRA or really wedged like a CORA), vocalization, or size relative to a nearby Common Raven. It is not clear if a Common Raven was present for direct comparison during the observation of this individual, but as I read the record, the observer seems to be generalizing size from experience with ravens he d previously observed in the area. In the balance, I prefer more information on these unaddressed traits before saying that the species can be confirmed.

2nd round:

24 Aug 2026 No, ID No change from my first-round opinion.
Max M. 29 Jul 2026 To 2nd Interesting record, however without vocalization and the quality of the photo, I am hesitant for a first state record. Establishing size of a lone bird can be difficult. Nasal bristles look long but I think this is a difficult thing to distinguish from Common. The base of the neck feathers do appear white, but it also looks like it may be an injury or something with the odd coloration in the middle? Seems very similar to a previous Utah submission for Chihuahuan Raven. Interested in hearing others thoughts on this one.

2nd round:

3 Sep 2026 No, ID Looks like most agree with my first round concerns, agree with David - maybe isn't enough for a state first
Keeli M. 2 Aug 2026 To 2nd Photo does seem to show white bases of neck feathers, and the nasal bristles do seem to extend beyond the middle of the bill, but wondering if the ID can be definitive without hearing the call?

2nd round:

13 Sep 2026 No, ID Continuing to agree that reasonable doubt exists and CORA has not been completely eliminated.
Bryant O. 17 Jul 2026 No, ID This is an extremly difficult ID, and with no other raven around to give a direct comparison or vocalizations even harder. The white feather base seems be the main feature, but that can actually be very misleading. CORA have very pale gray feather bases that in bright sun can look white. The bill does not give me the CHRA bill shape, it looks to long and narrow with a substantial part past the nasal bristles. In CHRA the nasal bristles cover 3/4 of the upper mandible and the curve of the culmen starts under them. Also a species not know to wander out of range much.

2nd round:

21 Aug 2026 No, ID No one really made a strong argument for CHRA and many share my concerns. When in AZ, I see a lot of Ravens that show intermediate characteristics, which I call Raven sp. Its got to check all the boxes for me to call it one or the other. This is a Raven sp. to me. Maybe CHRA, but not absolute. I don't think reasonable doubt has been eliminated.
Kris P. 25 Jul 2026 No, ID I don't think there's enough information here to make this ID. I commend the observer for digging around and finding the Sibley article, but then he didn't use the guidance Sibley offered in ID'ing the bird.

2nd round:

9 Sep 2026 No, ID No change of opinion from the first round. The information presented here is just not definitive enough in multiple ways to support this ID.
Dennis S.2nd: 3 Sep 2026 No, ID Sorry I missed the first round! But I would not then have voted to accept. To accept as a First-of-State a more clearcut "no question" record must be entered. This record has some questions when comparing bill size and shape, bristles, head shape, and neck feathers to the Common Raven. The photo doesn't help much.
Mark S. 31 Jul 2026 Acc Good written description, and the photos show diagnostic features of white feather bases, thick, blunt-tipped bill, and rictal bristles extending over half the length of the bill.

2nd round:

31 Aug 2026 Acc I'm obviously the Don Quijote on this record, so my vote won't matter, but I have to wonder if we're all looking at the same photo.

I also see perhaps too much faith placed in the David Sibley article, and his new *proposed* field marks, that even he states in the article are provisional, and subject to verification. It's useful information, but I can't see it overriding the classic, well-established features for identifying these species. And even there, I can't see that the head shape is clear cut against the i.d. Yes, the photo angle makes it difficult to assess, and head shape is highly dependent upon posture and "emotional state" of the individual (as Sibley covers in his article), but to me it looks closer to what he describes for CHRA than CORA.

But the bill shape and nasal bristles are what look 100% CHRA to me. The bill is thick and short, with and extremely steep culmen taper at the tip - classic CHRA. And my calipers (okay, a toothpick) have those nasal bristles at at least 2/3 of the bill - too long for CORA. The neck feathers look quite white, and not "blended" as mentioned in Sibley, even considering the caveats of lighting and exposure.

We don't have a photo with size comparison, but the observer does describe this, along with the general structure as being slimmer. Have CORA for comparison strengthens this description.

The observer also has experience with this species.

I see no compelling reasons to not accept this record.
David W. 17 Jul 2026 To 2nd I am getting conflicting signals on this raven. I initially thought this bird was a CHRA, but I'm not so sure after a more thorough examination of the photo. Of course, this is a notoriously subtle ID unless a variety of field marks are observed. It is very unfortunate the voice was not heard and the tail not described. Additionally, the base of the bill is funky, appearing almost plucked, which messes with the GISS. This may indicate a juvenile bird.

Pro:
-- The bird was said in the writeup to be smaller than surrounding ravens (though, of course, this is not evident in the photo, one way or the other, since it only shows the one bird).

Neutral:
-- Head shape doesn't seem to rule out either species. It is fairly rounded but perhaps a bit flat on top. I don't see a clear peak in the rear of the head nor the top of the head. Overall, though, the head may look fairly large proportionally, vaguely supporting the CHRA ID. The observer notes that the bird's head is not observed head-on in the photo (which negates this analysis). Also, Sibley points out, regarding this field mark: "Individual photographs can be misleading and difficult to identify, but extended observation or a series of photos should reveal the distinctive head shape of each species." So I guess this goes in the neutral column...
-- The pale bases to the neck feathers appear to be whitish rather than gray. But they are not bright white as shown on many photos for a CHRA. This might just be a trick of the light, but doesn't strike me as supporting either species definitively. I also get the impression from the photo that the pale area boundary is blurry rather than sharp, which would support a CORA ID. However, that blurriness is a vague impression.
-- The degree of neck scruffiness is unclear due to the nature of the wind fluffing.

Con:
-- The bill looks too long, though that may be due to the aforementioned oddly bare gape. Also, the shape doesn't fit the CHRA very well (not noticeably thicker at the base).
-- The length of the nasal bristles, as measured from the forehead rather than the aforementioned odd gape, appears to be in the 50-60% range (I measured it twice at different magnifications and got 50% and 51% -- not the 3/4 reported in the writeup). That 51% would be in the overlap zone, though far closer to CORA than CHRA. Not definitive, but not supportive of the CHRA ID. According to Sibley's article in the ABA website, (https://www.aba.org/identification-of-chihuahuan-raven-and-its-status-north-of-mexico/) the range of the CORA is up to 60%, the range of the CHRA is 50 and above.

Overall, I'd say I'm leaning against this ID (in the category of "not proven beyond doubt"), and perhaps toward a juvenile Common raven. However, I'm curious whether others have a more convincing take on this bird. Perhaps some of you have better calipers or bill measuring skills than do I.

2nd round:

20 Aug 2026 No, ID Well, the first round comments of others have only confirmed my aforementioned lean away from a vote to accept. I'll settle on a vote of "maybe," which is a No, ID.

[I would only like to facetiously add that I may not have considered the opposite possibility when I said the funky, plucked-looking feathers near the base of the bill might indicate a juvenile. Extrapolating from myself (as an avian metaphor), I would point out that this might also be an old geezer Common raven based on long nasal bristles and scruffy face.]
Kevin W. 31 Jul 2026 No, ID I think that the field marks shown in the photos do not support Chihuahuan Raven. The bristles above the bill appear to only extend halfway to the tip (should be 60% or more for Chihuahuan), the bill seems pretty long, the head- although mostly rounded, seems peaked in the middle rather than the back, and the obvious lighter-colored feather patch in the neck, although showing white, is not as contrasty as I expect in a Chihuahuan. I think it may be a factor of lighting or overexposure.

2nd round:

8 Sep 2026 No, ID This is a tricky identification, as other reviewers have noted. I stand by my first round comments that it leans more toward Common Raven.

 

2026-44 Blue-winged Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 31 Jul 2026 No, ID I feel like I'm having to puzzle over this one a bit than I prefer, so I'm uncomfortable with confirming the species based on the details we have. The black eyeline seems to be a significant trait for the species. I think that noting thick dark/black lores along with the thin eyeline behind the eye in the description would have swayed me over to accepting the record. The overall color pattern, compact structure (short tail?), and black eyeline seem to be a good fit for the species. Description of the white undertail coverts seem to eliminate the possibility of an Orange-crowned, which can also show a thin/dark? eyeline. Prothonotary is a consideration except for the black eyeline being a significant trait in the description of the bird under review. The shorter tail that is implied for the record bird along with the lack of streaking on the underside seem to eliminate hatch-year Tennessee Warbler, which shows an eyeline of sorts. The indistinct wingbar trait doesn't see m to help much with the ID since I was able to see great variation in white, yellow-tinged, and indistinct wingbars for the species during my online research. I m hung up on what the dark/black eyeline really looked like since noticeably dark lores are associated with the species in the many online resources I studied.

2nd round:

1 Sep 2026 No, ID No change from the first round.
Max M.    2nd: 3 Sep 2026 No, ID Not sure what happened to my first round comments but looks like most folks agree with my sentiments.
Keeli M. 15 Aug 2026 To 2nd Some inconsistencies in the description, especially about the bill size (BWWA would have a noticeably large black bill for a warbler). Immature YEWA could show some of the described characteristics.

2nd round:

13 Sep 2026 No, ID No change from first round.
Bryant O. 17 Jul 2026 No, ID Several listed field marks don't add up to BWWA, most importantly the description of faint wingbars and yellow color like a female Yellow Warbler. BWWA of any age and sex are a striking brilliant yellow, and always have 2 bold white wing bars, one of which is more of a white wing patch. He also made no mention of the color blue in the wings or tail. Given how rare this species in in Utah, and the very odd time of year, there is nothing to really stand on to accept this record. Its also a time of year that many warblers are fledging chicks and juvenile warblers can be very confusing. I don't what they saw, but BWWA has not been proven here.

2nd round:

10 Sep 2026 No, ID Too vague details for this level of rarity,
Kris P. 2 Aug 2026 No, ID I don't think the observer proved this ID well enough to accept, despite the amount of detail he provided. "Darker shades above" is not specific enough to know that the bird is olive on at least part of the crown and back, and it's not at all clear how Paul arrived at sexing the bird as a female. Sexing the bird implies seeing more detail than was reported. The "curved arcs/crescents/semi-circles bracketing the throat and upper breast" is a mystery to me and I can't find any source that implies a subtle pattern like that is possible on a Blue-winged Warbler. While the black eye-line and white under-tail is intriguing, the rest of the bird is not described specifically enough to ID it to species.

I think this record also needs to address a hybrid with a Golden-winged. While that hybrid may be even less likely than a Blue-winged in Utah, it's very likely for the species itself.

Finally, I'm concerned that this is a single-observer anecdotal record by a birder not very familiar with the species and the details don't quite fit.

2nd round:

9 Sep 2026 No, ID I see no reason to change my vote.
Dennis S. 19 Aug 2026 To 2nd A very detailed report, almost too much!! Am on the fence for this record and am interested in what others think.

2nd round:

6 Sep 2026 No, ID Am now passed the point of acceptance. There are just too many missing parts and additional questions brought out in this too detailed and wordy report.
Mark S. 18 Aug 2026 No, ID I don't think there's enough here to definitively identify this as a Blue-winged Warbler. The black bill would signify an adult bird, and I would expect the wing bars of even a female to be more obvious than implied here. Also, an adult female would be brighter yellow. I can't say that either Tennessee Warbler, or even Orange-crowned Warbler are completely eliminated.

Maybe he saw a Blue-winged Warbler, but this description doesn't establish that he did.

2nd round:

31 Aug 2026 No, ID As per my first round comments.
David W. 21 Jul 2026 To 2nd I'll be honest, I don't know what to think of this record. Overall, yes, it appears to be a decent description of a BWWA (which is very rare in Utah!). But the degree of some of the field marks is a bit hard to discern:
-- In what manner were those wing bars indistinct? Were they large but diffuse as a molting member of a species with prominent wing bars? Were they thin like an Orange-crowned warbler's?
-- What were those arc-shaped, dark smudges on the flanks(?) and sides of the throat?? How vague/diffuse were they? This field mark has me utterly baffled as applied to a BWWA.
-- Did the thin, dark eyeline go all the way through the eye or was it just confined to the lore area in front of the eye?
-- What shade of gray were those wings? Were they olive-gray? Blue-gray? Slate-gray? "Gray" is one of those color adjectives which is used very differently by different people.
-- Was the bird short-tailed or long tailed?
-- Did the observer note the white flashes in the tail when it flew in? Seems like a prominent field mark in a BWWA.

I do not want to nitpick this record, and I want to give the observer the benefit of the doubt, but I'm having a hard time visualizing the bird he saw. Maybe others can help me. The reason I mention some of the abovementioned vagaries in the description is because I want to eliminate other possibilities, like maybe the two below.

The most prominent field mark mentioned repeatedly by the observer was the bright yellow of the undersides contrasting with the mostly white of the undertail. That narrows down the options quite a bit. However, there are other birds with those field marks that are not addressed in the similar species section. Both the Pine and Prairie warblers seem to fit the description of what the observer said he saw about as well or better than the BWWA (depending on which field marks one emphasizes). They too have white undertails contrasting with yellow underparts, black bills, thin black eyelines, gray wings with wingbars (white on one, yellowish indistinct on the other). The thing that these two species have that the BWWA does not is the line of dark streaking along the flanks and throat (which appears to be a field mark mentioned by the observer).

2nd round:

2 Sep 2026 No, ID Okay, well, nothing anyone said helped resolve this vague description into a definitive Blue-winged Warbler for me. So "vague" in the first round becomes "No" (not proven) in the second round. The description in the record just doesn't consistently gel into a BWWA.
Kevin W. 31 Jul 2026 No, ID I think between the short duration of view of this bird, as well as the lack of distinctive characteristics and implied uncertainty of the observer about the identification that this record does not meet the criteria to accept.

2nd round:

8 Sep 2026 No, ID No change from 1st round.

 

2026-45 Red-throated Loon

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 31 Jul 2026 Acc The written record and images document a first-summer Red-throated Loon.
Max M.      
Keeli M. 25 Aug 2026 Acc Bill shape and head posture are consistent with RTLO ID.
Bryant O. 17 Aug 2026 Acc Great record and write up. It will be interesting to see if it spends another winter on the Bay, seems to be sticking around with sightings this week.
Kris P. 2 Aug 2026 Acc  
Dennis S. 29 Aug 2026 Acc What a sorry looking bird - but still it's a loon! Everything points to a RTLO. Photos certainly helped mostly!
Mark S. 18 Aug 2026 Acc Good documentation and photos.
David W. 7 Aug 2026 Acc I don't think I've ever seen such a juvie Red-throated loon -- very interesting. Despite the scruffy, vague plumage, the structure of this bird supports the ID. Well described and photographed.
Kevin W. 31 Jul 2026 Acc Thin bill tilted upwards and general body structure confirm Red-throated Loon.

 

2026-46 Parasitic Jaeger

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 1 Sep 2026 Acc The tail with the pointed central rectrices eliminates Pomarine. The broad white wing flashes documented in the record are characteristic of Parasitic so that eliminates Long-tailed. Parasitic seems to be the best ID for this bird.

2nd round:

12 Sep 2026 Acc Continuing to accept in this round.
Max M. 3 Sep 2026 Acc Although media isn't great, between the write-up and the photos I think there is enough here to confirm PAJA and eliminate other jaeger species.

2nd round:

21 Sep 2026 Acc I agree with Kris's analysis of eliminating both POJA and LTJA, and photos show characteristics that support the ID. Continuing to accept.
Keeli M. 7 Sep 2026 Acc Breastband, short rectrices, and more white flash all point to PAJA ID to me.

2nd round:

13 Sep 2026 Acc Continuing to accept. Tail, plumage, and build all point to PAJA.
Bryant O. 17 Aug 2026 Acc Photos and video poor but do show an adult(or at least not a 1st year) Jaeger with shortish pointy tail plumes and a collar plus white flash on underwing which add up to Parasitic. I agree with their assessment that it lacks the bulk of a POJA.

2nd round:

10 Sep 2026 Acc Still think the tail and overall plumage and structure favor PAJA.
Kris P. 9 Sep 2026 Acc What crazy timing for any jaeger to be in Utah. This team did a great job of sussing out the Parasitic ID even though the audience with the bird offered trying light conditions and resulted in marginal media. I don't quite understand the conclusion in the Species Elimination section that "this bird was a non-breeding plumage adult" as the plumage claim isn't supported and July would be a very weird time for an adult jaeger to be in non-breeding plumage. An intermediate-age jaeger inland (or maybe in the Northern Hemisphere) would also be weird. However, Parasitic traits either explained or visible that rule out Long-tailed or Pomarine include the non-crisp black cap; breast band; pale areas on the underwing; reasonably streamlined and non-bulky body and long pointed tail feathers.

I don't think the September 3 sighting listed on the cover page for the record is the same bird. While that bird is also a Parasitic, it's clearly a juvenile.

2nd round:

14 Sep 2026 Acc I'm certainly not the person David referred to as having more jaeger experience and knowledge than he does, but I'd like to comment on his question anyway. I think the photos can be trusted in their showing the bird's structure and stronger plumage features. But the photos are so poor and the vantage seems to be looking into the light that I didn't place a lot of faith on subtle light and dark areas to debate the ID. Kaufman addresses the unreliability of the double flash in juvenile Parasitics (i.e., that it may be present), but he doesn't address whether a Parasitic in more advanced plumage could show a subtle double flash. And honestly, I can't see that this bird is a perfect fit for a 4-year adult given the quality of the photos. That the bird has even a single flash eliminated Long-tailed for me; the long pointed tail feathers and non-bulky body eliminated Pomarine, and so I'll maintain my vote that the bird is a Parasitic.
Dennis S. 6 Sep 2026 Acc The report adequately pointed out the distinctive characteristics that separate the PAJA from the other two Jaegers - short central rectrices dark cap, long narrow bill, breastband, and prominent white wing flashes. Photos helped in showing these characters.

2nd round:

12 Sep 2026 Acc No change from 1st Round thoughts!
Mark S. 18 Aug 2026 Acc Good documentation, and the photos and videos, though poor, support the identification. Overall shape/flight behavior, the wing flashes, tail streamers, and bill shape all support Parasitic.

2nd round:

23 Sep 2026 Acc I'll continue to accept this record, while taking into account David's question regarding the wing flashes. The photos are not good enough to ascertain with much confidence the nature of the "double flash," and it may be an artifact of lighting. Rather than ask if it's in range for Parasitic, the better question would be is such a weak flash in range for Pomarine, and to my eye it's not. Given that all other structural and behavioral information points clearly to Parasitic, I think that is the correct call for this bird.
David W. 24 Aug 2026 To 2nd I am leaning toward Accept on this one, but I am conflicted. The slender shape and description of pointed central rectrices are right for a Parasitic. But the double white flash in the underwing seems brighter than what I would expect for that species. I know there are folks on the Committee who have more experience and knowledge with jaegers than I do, so I look forward to reading whether they think the extent of the double white flash is within the expected range for a a Parasitic jaeger.

2nd round:

22 Sep 2026 Acc I appreciate the discussion from my fellow Committees.
Kevin W. 8 Sep 2026 Acc Well-written record points out good characteristics and has supporting photos. I think the longish bill and amount of white in the primaries as shown in the photos support this identification.

2nd round:

28 Sep 2026 Acc Continuing to accept.

 

2026-47 White-rumped Sandpiper

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 24 Aug 2026 Acc Based on the observer's previous experience with the species and confirming the diagnostic white rumps three times during the observation, I am inclined to accept this record. Similar species have been sufficiently eliminated in my opinion.
Max M. 3 Sep 2026 Acc Very well written description eliminating other possible species. Wish I would have had time to go look for these birds.
Keeli M. 13 Sep 2026 Acc IDing sandpipers while in flight seems a little bit of a bold move, however it does seem like there's enough here to support ID as WRSA. I would have liked a little more discussion about other species considered and eliminated (such as Stilt Sandpiper, which also would show a white rump.
Bryant O. 17 Aug 2026 Acc Reluctantly accept because the write up is spot on and observer well experienced. All to often WIPH get called WRSA at GSL, however this observer did a good job eliminating that species. Do I wish we had some physical evidence? Absolutely, but this write up can stand on its own.
Kris P. 13 Sep 2026 Acc I'm filing an uncomfortable Accept vote for this record because I think this observer's seeing the diagnostic white upper-tail coverts paired with the dark tail, and the size in comparison to the Western Sandpipers he identified in flight with these two birds are just enough. My discomfort comes from the brief sighting, no photo, single observer and not seeing these birds standing so he could report long wingtips, pale area on the lower mandible, find breast and side streaking, etc--the "usual" field marks and longer sightings. But the observer's reasoning and experience are also solid and so I'll vote yes.
Dennis S. 6 Sep 2026 Acc Even though the observation was only of birds in flight, the report was adequate enough for acceptance. The clearly observed and noted white-rump patches on the two sandpipers with a comparison of the four accompanying Western Sandpipers- size, plumage, and wing and tail patterns was convincing.
Mark S. 18 Aug 2026 Acc Description is adequate to establish the i.d.
David W. 20 Aug 2026 Acc A refreshingly well-written record. I appreciate the inclusion of the Curlew sandpiper.
Kevin W. 8 Sep 2026 Acc Description including the size, white-rumps, and long wings fits White-rumped Sandpiper.

 

2026-48 Long-tailed Jaeger

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 24 Aug 2026 Acc Well documented by written description and media.
Max M. 3 Sep 2026 Acc Well-documented, long-staying bird
Keeli M. 13 Sep 2026 Acc Photos and description show neat cap that extends below gape, smallish bill, and long central tail feathers that support ID as LTJA.
Bryant O. 19 Aug 2026 Acc Great find by Yuanhang! She texted me there was a Jaeger at Rockport so I pursued. Immediately found a Long-tailed foraging on the mudflats upon arrival. Mostly in adult plumage but has some white feather edging on underwing coverts, not sure if this is age or wear related, it could be an advanced 3rd? cycle bird? Tail plumes fairly short for this species, but I've seen adult LTJA in the arctic with similar short plumes, again not sure if this is an age or wear related issue? So either adult or advanced subadult.
Kris P. 9 Sep 2026 Acc Yuanhang did a nice job thoroughly documenting this record. It was a pleasure to see this bird.
Dennis S. 3 Sep 2026 Acc Even without the written report and the four dozen or so observers (over a span of a week) the submitted excellent photos were more than adequate to make the correct identification - LTJA.
Mark S. 19 Aug 2026 Acc Excellent documentation. Can't argue with the photos.
David W. 20 Aug 2026 Acc Jaegers are never easy for me, but this one appears to be a solid Long-tailed jaeger (LTJA). Pomerine jaeger is out of the question because of both structure and plumage field marks. The Parasitic jaeger (PAJA) is a harder call. I thought the written portion of the record was a bit weak on differentiating between LTJA and PAJA, but the record has excellent photos from both Ethan and Bryant attached. Based on those photos, here is my reasoning:
-- the tail projections are definitely on the upper end for a PAJA, better for a subadult LTJA
-- the bill is a tough call, but definitely rules out POJA
-- the black forehead/base of bill is good for LTJA, not PAJA
-- the lanky structure seems best for a LTJA
-- the two bright white shafts on the outermost primaries (upper surface) are best for LTJA
-- the lack of dark breast band strongly supports adult/adultish LTJA
-- the grayish tone of brown upperparts supports a LTJA
Kevin W. 8 Sep 2026 Acc Well-written record and excellent photos show distinctive characteristics, particularly the black cap extending below the cap as a Parasitic Jaeger would have.

 

2026-49 White-winged Crossbill

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 24 Aug 2026 Acc The description and images document an adult and juvenile with broad white patches in the wings.
Max M. 3 Sep 2026 Acc Pretty straight forward
Keeli M. 20 Sep 2026 Acc Photos show crossed bills and white wing bars and are supportive of ID
Bryant O. 21 Aug 2026 Acc Photos looks good for a female WWCR, descriptions seems OK for juvenile as well. RECR can show weak wingbars, but they are never as bold, thick and usually not 2 of them as seen here. The color and streaking, plus overall structure also look better for WWCR.
Kris P. 22 Aug 2026 Acc A straightforward record with excellent supporting photos and audio.
Dennis S. 7 Sep 2026 Acc No question! Photos show crossed bill/white-wing bar.
Mark S. 31 Aug 2026 Acc Photos show diagnostic wingbar pattern.
David W. 20 Aug 2026 Acc Writeup and photos well document the case.
Kevin W. 18 Sep 2026 Acc Photos show crossbill with white wings

 

2026-50 Lark Bunting

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 24 Aug 2026 Acc Description and images confirm the species.
Max M. 3 Sep 2026 Acc Photos show a LARB
Keeli M. 20 Sep 2026 Acc Photo shows a female/immature male type LABU with the characteristic white wing stripe.
Bryant O. 21 Aug 2026 Acc Photos show a LARB
Kris P. 22 Aug 2026 Acc A nice find for Grand County. Photos show the species' large, bluish conical bill, the diagnostic white wing patch and virtually no primary projection.
Dennis S. 7 Sep 2026 Acc No question! Photos show distinctive large white-wing patch and large blue/gray finch-like conical bill.
Mark S. 31 Aug 2026 Acc Photos show a Lark Bunting.
David W. 21 Aug 2026 Acc Good photos and writeup capture the key field marks
Kevin W. 18 Sep 2026 Acc The thick bill and dark-patterned wing with large white patch identify this as a Lark Bunting.

 

2026-51 Ruddy Turnstone

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 24 Aug 2026 Acc Accept based on the documentation and media I shared in my submittal.
Max M. 3 Sep 2026 Acc Nice photos, seems like decent number of records for these guys now at Utah Lake
Keeli M. 20 Sep 2026 Acc Well documented. Photos show a medium small shorebird with orange legs and diagnostic plumage coloration and pattern that support ID as RUTU.
Bryant O. 10 Sep 2026 Acc Great photos
Kris P. 23 Sep 2026 Acc Nice work by Jeff to get closer views and confirm the leg color, get better photos and also to age the bird.
Dennis S. 7 Sep 2026 Acc No question! The orange legs, distinct facial and upper chest pattern, and short black pointed bill, shown in the photos left no doubt.
Mark S. 31 Aug 2026 Acc Good documentation; photos unmistakable.
David W. 24 Aug 2026 Acc You had me at "Turning stones along the shoreline."
The writeup and excellent photos clearly indicate a Ruddy turnstone.
Kevin W. 18 Sep 2026 Acc Photos show distinctive characteristics of Ruddy Turnstone.

 

2026-52 Hooded Oriole

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 5 Sep 2026 Acc The written record and images confirm the species.

2nd round:

27 Sep 2026 Acc Continue to accept from the first-round vote.
Max M. 3 Sep 2026 Acc Photos show a Hooded Oriole

2nd round:

5 Oct 2026 Acc No change in opinion from first round
Keeli M. 20 Sep 2026 Acc Soft accept on the one. The bill looks long enough to rule out an immature male OROR, and HOOR would be more likely in UT, but there's no discussion of how OROR was ruled out.

2nd round:

30 Sep 2026 Acc No change in vote based on photos, and sounds like other committee members shared my same concern with written record over lack of discussion of how OROR was ruled out.
Bryant O. 10 Sep 2026 Acc Clear photos show a HOOR

2nd round:

29 Sep 2026 Acc Photos eliminate OROR even if discussion didn't, long tail, long decurved bill, narrow black throat etc..
Kris P. 25 Sep 2026 Acc Described and photographed well enough to accept as ID'd, and I appreciate the observer's late submission after his discovering this species recently fell into the review list's exceptional category for reporting.

I wish Pat had eliminated the most-similar 1st summer male Orchard Oriole; however, his photos included in the record and/or other observer's photos not part of the record do show the Hooded's significantly curved bill, single white wing bar and graduated tail tip, all features the Orchard doesn't show.

2nd round:

16 Oct 2026 Acc Continue to accept for the same reasons supporting my first round vote.
Dennis S. 8 Sep 2026 To 2nd The written report is rather weak in several respects. More attention should be directed to the closely resembling orioles. In the photos the tail appears to be shorter than it should be for a HOOR. Also, the black bib doesn't look to be as extensive as it normally is. Maybe it's just photos. What do other members think?

2nd round:

6 Oct 2026 Acc OK! I accept.
Mark S. 9 Sep 2026 Acc Good documentation, photos diagnostic.

2nd round:

15 Oct 2026 Acc As per my first round comments.
David W. 22 Sep 2026 Acc I am not entirely sanguine about this record because the observer did not address the most obvious similar species in the Similar Species section -- the Orchard oriole. The bird does look pretty slim and petit, with a limited bib.

However, after looking at the bill shape in this record and the other two referenced eBird lists, I'm leaning toward accepting this as a Hooded oriole. The description of the call also helps.

2nd round:

14 Oct 2026 Acc Per first round.
Kevin W. 18 Sep 2026 Acc The black bib on this yellow Oriole is a good field mark for Hooded Oriole.

2nd round:

2 Oct 2026 Acc Continue to accept

 

2026-53 Red-shouldered Hawk

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 5 Sep 2026 Acc Another Red-shouldered Hawk for Utah County.
Max M. 3 Sep 2026 Acc Well documented
Keeli M. 20 Sep 2026 Acc Excellent photos and write-up support ID. Checkerboard back, black and white shorter banded tail.
Bryant O. 10 Sep 2026 Acc  
Kris P. 28 Sep 2026 Acc Nice find, Bryant.
Dennis S. 7 Sep 2026 Acc The photos showing the black and white banding, and the overall brown spotting of a juvenile bird, with a few reddish feathers appearing in the shoulder area left no question.
Mark S. 9 Sep 2026 Acc Excellent documentation and photos.
David W. 2 Sep 2026 Acc Description and photos match this species.
Kevin W. 18 Sep 2026 Acc The yellow cere, reddish shoulders, and the banded tail are all good field marks for Red-shouldered Hawk.

 

2026-54 Orchard Oriole

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 27 Sep 2026 Acc It would have been nice for the written record to include more detail regarding the identifying characteristics, but the measurements and images point toward the species. I'm not confident about the audio file, but the observer's significant experience with both Hooded and Orchard carry some weight in my vote. The more dark/olive crown and nape, somewhat brighter wingbars, and tail shape point toward the ID.
Max M. 21 Sep 2026 Acc Wish there was a little more detail that a reference to the measurements, but photos support OROR
Keeli M. 20 Sep 2026 Acc Excellent photos show a female OROR with a decurved bill, white wing bars. Measurement support ID.
Bryant O. 10 Sep 2026 Acc Can't argue with the Pyle
Kris P. 25 Sep 2026 Acc Rio Mesa snags some great species. The photos and Orchard Oriole field marks that show make up for where a written description is lacking. I especially appreciate the care given in eliminating the Hooded Oriole.

A side issue irrelevant to the ID and accepting the record was how this bird was sexed as a male since that's not overtly addressed. The crew's banding reference, Pyle, says "Most juveniles are reliably sexed by wing if fully grown" and gives these ranges:
juv/HY females less than or equal to 74 mm
juv/HY males greater than or equal to 74 mm
and since this bird's wing chord was 75 mm, that means the bird is a male regardless if he's fully grown.
Dennis S. 7 Sep 2026 Acc As noted by the banding team if the body part measurements fall clearly within only OROR ranges then there should be little question concerning identification. But, just looking at the bird in hand it's not totally evident what it is. Even the workers were not sure. But we should just let the decision be in the "hands" of the researchers!
Mark S. 9 Sep 2026 Acc Hard to get better documentation, short of a museum specimen. And given the audio, even that might not be as good. I've started to hear that call outside my bedroom window over the past few weeks, as the Orchard Orioles are arriving here.
David W. 22 Sep 2026 Acc Who am I to argue with a bird in the hand (of experts)? I also appreciated the recording of the call.
Kevin W. 28 Sep 2026 Acc Short beak, greenish color, bold wing bars, and documented smaller size separate this from other species. The recording of the Chuk call also matches well.

 

2026-55 Red-shouldered Hawk

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 13 Sep 2026 Acc The written record and images document the key traits for the species, including the white crescents at the base of the primaries in the flight images.
Max M. 21 Sep 2026 Acc  
Keeli M. 20 Sep 2026 Acc Photos show bold wing and tail patterns and warm brown underwing coloration characteristic of RSHA.
Bryant O. 14 Sep 2026 Acc Photos leave no doubt
Kris P. 28 Sep 2026 Acc Good catch on this birder's part given his limited experience. His capturing multiple photos in his limited audience with the bird was really helpful, especially those that show the white wing crescents since he didn't mention them.
Dennis S. 12 Sep 2026 Acc No question. Very nice photos!
Mark S. 23 Sep 2026 Acc Good documentation; diagnostic photos.
David W. 22 Sep 2026 Acc Nice photos show key features. Good description as well.
Kevin W. 28 Sep 2026 Acc Bands in wings and tail, reddish in shoulder, yellow cere all point to Red-shouldered Hawk.

 

2026-56 Blue-headed Vireo

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 27 Sep 2026 To 2nd I'm not sure that we can eliminate a bright CAVI with this one. The more I look at images in the Macaulay Library the more overlap I see. The written record hits good points for BHVI, but the images could also fit a bright CAVI from my perspective. The lores seem noticeably darker than the crown rather than similar as expected for BHVI. The contrast between the white throat and the auriculars also seems within range of a CAVI. I was leaning toward no on the ID, but I would like to hear thoughts from other voting members.
Max M. 21 Sep 2026 Acc Nice brightly marked individual. Great County record

2nd round:

14 Oct 2026 Acc I still think this is a darn good looking individual for BHVI, contrasting back, very contrasty individual, bright lemony underparts, good contrast between back and head. Everything to me still points to BHVI over a bright CAVI
Keeli M. 20 Sep 2026 Acc Great photos showing contrast between dark face and white throat and bold wing bars.

2nd round:

19 Oct 2026 Acc Appreciate the detailed discussion on this one and still think the contrasting colors sufficiently support ID as BHVI.
Bryant O. 24 Sep 2026 To 2nd The question we always have with these is not does it look good for a BHVI, which it does, but rather it is 'is it out of range of what a CAVI can look like?' That I'm not sure about. I think we need some discussion on this one just to rule out a bright CAVI.
Kris P. 29 Sep 2026 Acc Matt's diagnostic photos make up for the limited written detail and show especially well the head color and contrast where it counts to distinguish the bird from a Cassin's. The side/flank color intensity may overlap that of a bright Cassin's, so I put less stock in that feature than in the features of the head. The white wing bars also seem thick, as Matt noted.

2nd round:

18 Oct 2026 Acc I leaned heavily on a 1996 ABA article titled "Field Identification of the Solitary Vireo Complex" to reach my first-round accept vote, and I continue to think this bird is a Blue-headed despite its not being the darkest and most colorful candidate. While author Matt Heindel detailed many subtleties and secondary characteristics between the Blue-headed and the Cassin's, he also stated "The key identification criteria between Blue-headed...and Cassin's Vireo, in order of importance, are as follows: cheek/throat contrast, head color, crown/back contrast and the extent of white in the tail." The photos show only the first three features, and photos B and D aren't all that helpful because the lighting is poor, but I think the three photos show the three features. Heindel also said  secondary features (color of wing-bars, extent of yellow on the vent, and the whiteness of the breast) are obvious only on the most boldly-marked birds, but there's too much variation on intermediate birds for secondary characters to be helpful. Additional features in favor of Blue-headed in Photos A and C include the snowy white throat (Blue-headed) and the lack of any green on the crown or nape (Cassin's) producing a contrast with the gray-blue head and the green back. I think the balance of the features are Blue-headed and will continue to vote in favor.
Dennis S. 22 Sep 2026 Acc Nice photos show distinguishing characters: Dark slaty head, green back, yellow/green sides, white throat. Overall bright, contrasting plumage.

2nd round:

7 Oct 2026 Acc It's a bit borderline with a CAVI, but the overall brightness of the distinguishing plumage colors still makes it lean towards a Blue-headed.
Mark S. 23 Sep 2026 Acc The photos provide diagnostic evidence showing overall brightness, malar contrast, blackish lores, and although the view isn't complete, what appears to be strong contrast from head to back.

2nd round:

15 Oct 2026 Acc Too many features inconsistent with a bright Cassin's to make this anything other that a Blue-headed.
David W. 22 Sep 2026 Acc Man, a bit borderline, but I think the fairly sharp contrast between the throat and face combined with the amount of yellow on the flanks point to a Blue-headed.
Kevin W. 28 Sep 2026 Acc The greenish back contrasting with the gray head and the more distinct contrast between the cheeks and throat are good traits to distinguish this from Cassin's Vireo and Plumbeous Vireo.

2nd round:

9 Oct 2026 Acc I think that all the characteristics add up to a good Blue-headed. I appreciate others' notes on field marks that I didn't list, including the dark lores and bold wing bars.

 

2026-57 Hepatic Tanager

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 29 Sep 2026 To 2nd My field experience with this species is limited to one male in Madera Canyon and one female in Salt Lake County, so I've spent a fair amount of time reviewing field guides and images of both HETA and SUTA in the Macaulay Library to become more familiar with the species. I look forward to a discussion in the second round, so here are some points for a HETA ID: The rounded crown lacking a peak, the gray-brown auricular or cheek area and dark lores, what appears to be a stout darkish bill, and the overall soft reddish wash that isn't a mix of bold red and yellow feathers as expected for a molting male SUTA. I haven't seen SUTAs that molt without showing patches of yellow and red or full red on the head by this stage. The following points are in favor of SUTA. Darker bills are not uncommon for a SUTA (and may be caused by poor lighting in this case), the bill shape appears within range for SUTA in terms of size and shape. It also lacks that noticeable tooth that often shows on the edge of the upper mandible for HETAs, the red on the crown and throat are not noticeably brighter as expected for a HETA.
Max M. 5 Oct 2026 To 2nd I admittedly do not have a lot of experience with HETA, and the pictures/lighting are a little tough. I feel like I do see a dark loral area and cheek, and the color seems off for any sex/age of SUTA but I am also R/G colorblind. I wish we had a better view of the wings. The bill looks a little large and pale and maybe better for SUTA? Seems like HETA has more of a black/silver bill. Interested to see what others think with more experience with this species.
Keeli M. 30 Sep 2026 Acc Photos show a pale washed out end of summer bird with a dusky cheek, slightly darker hints on the wings (but not black), and a stout bill with a little projection/tooth on the end. These all support ID as HETA.

2nd round:

19 Oct 2026 Acc Continuing to accept. None of the features added up for SUTA for me, but I was able to find similar photos of pale HETA similar to this bird.
Bryant O. 24 Sep 2026 Acc I wish we had at least a description of the voice, but photos is all we have. It does have the gray auriculars, dark bill and dull red color of a HETA so I think that must be what it is.

2nd round:

17 Oct 2026 Acc No need to over think this one, good photos of a pretty typical straight forward Hepatic to my eye. This species should be more abundant here that the few records indicate, based on records in NV & CO.
Kris P. 30 Sep 2026 Acc Structure, bill, lores color and auricular color are all right for the Hepatic and not for the Summer. What a yard bird!

The dearth of sightings of this species in Utah mystifies me give its near proximity in Arizona. Even Canada has three records.

2nd round:

18 Oct 2026 Acc I see neither structure, plumage pattern or color of a Summer Tanager in this bird. Beyond the bird having the appropriate dull red, gray/darkish lores and gray auricular patch, it's of importance to me that the areas of the breast and belly strongly lit in full sun are also dull red. An adult male Summer Tanager should be brilliant red in good light, or as others have mentioned, a second-year bird should be blotchy red and yellow. The dull color shown in those brightly-lit spots are the truth-tellers, in my opinion, and clear away any perceived overlap in bill color, structure, or dimly lit plumage. Thanks also to Mark for the compelling analysis.
Dennis S. 23 Sep 2026 To 2nd Not quite sure of ID. Tough to be sure it isn't a summer tanager! After studying dozens of photos of both species there seems to be a "gray" area where their characters overlap. A friend in Arizona said he leaned more towards a summer, but the call was close. Need to see what others have found out.

2nd round:

7 Oct 2026 No, ID After reading the committee members comments in the 1st round, there seems to be valid questions even with some of those who voted to accept. One major question has to do with the bill - just how large and dark it is. It seems we can't even agree on this separating character. the literature points out there is overlapping in the bill characteristics and with this problem and several others I can't in good conscience vote to accept.
Mark S. 23 Sep 2026 Acc The photos show a typical second year male Hepatic Tanager. The overall structure, and especially bill size, shape and color support Hepatic over Summer. The dull reddish plumage, with gray feather edgings is a distinctive Hepatic feature for fresh basic plumage, and not found on Summer Tanager. First year Summer Tanager would appear yellowish, similar to the female. Older males would be brighter red than this individual. But Hepatic Tanager uses a "wear molt" to attain breeding plumage, thus the gray edgings to the feathers (that wear off during the winter) that produces this muted color. Dark wings, grayish auriculars and dark gray eyeline/lores also support Hepatic.

The only feature that caused me doubt is the prominent pale eye ring, that is not typical of the older adult males I see in Mexico. But a search of Macaulay Library photos show a number of individuals, probably younger males, with similar eye rings. This was more frequent in northern birds photographed in Arizona than elsewhere.

2nd round:

15 Oct 2026 Acc I have no doubt about the identification of this one. The odd appearance of the plumage is unique to a fall male Hepatic Tanager, and completely wrong for any age or sex of Summer Tanager. Only Hepatic Tanager undergoes a wear molt, and thus only Hepatic Tanager has the gray feather edges that gives this bird the dull wash, muting the reddish color, and even making the auriculars and wing color less obvious. Everything else about bill shape/color, head shape, and overall structure is also well within the range for Hepatic.

Nothing in this bird clearly points to Summer Tanager, and the plumage alone rules it out.
David W. 29 Sep 2026 No, ID Boy, I am torn on this one. On the one hand, the face does seem to have a vaguely gray cheek patch (though it is hard to be certain just how much of one because the photos are all in the shade). On the other hand, the bill is within the range of the Summer tanager both in color and shape (and, indeed, seems to lack the so-called "tooth" seen on many Hepatics). The pale bill edging (what looks like the "lips," if we are using "teeth") appears yellowish rather than silvery gray, which points to a Summer tanager.

BTW, examples of a really robust bill and how dark the bills can appear on a Summer tanager can be found at:

https://faculty.ucr.edu/~chappell/INW/birds7warbTanIct/summertanager.shtml

When I first glanced at this record, I started off thinking "nice Hepatic." But the more I looked at it, the less I thought so. I am voting NO in the first round, though I am willing to reconsider the vote if others offer compelling reason(s) as to why it should be a Hepatic.

Either way, nice photos. I wish there had been one showing the face in the sun, though.

2nd round:

15 Oct 2026 No, ID I still think this bird falls in the overlap zone between a Summer and a Hepatic. That makes it a "maybe" in my book. As such, I will vote NO because I don't think the case has been made definitively.
Kevin W. 2\8 Sep 2026 Acc This is an interesting bird! I don't like how rosy-pink the throat and belly look, and I can't find any images of any tanager that are similar. I also think the whole head looks more brownish than red, so it's hard to distinguish a gray cheek patch that should be more obvious on a Hapatic Tanager. If this were a juvenile bird, I would expect it to be more blotchy red and yellow (not pink). But the bill is dark, and does seem to have the tomial tooth (at least it seems like it on photo B) that Hepatics have. The eye ring also seems to be more full like a Hepatic than a Summer or Scarlet. Basically, I've decided that I don't know what this is, but it looks more like a Hepatic Tanager than anything else.

 

2026-58 Chestnut-sided Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 27 Sep 2026 Acc Description and images confirm the ID.
Max M. 21 Sep 2026 Acc Nice photo documentation
Keeli M. 30 Sep 2026 Acc Photos show what's maybe a 1st winter female with a bright greenish yellow head and back, white eye-ring, and yellowish wing bars supporting ID as Chestnut-sided Warbler.
Bryant O. 24 Sep 2026 Acc Good photos
Kris P. 1 Oct 2026 Acc  
Dennis S. 22 Sep 2026 Acc Nice photos showing lime-green fall plumage coloration of crown and back, eye ring, and whitish under parts leave no question as to ID. Yellow wing bars suggest immature bird.
Mark S. 23 Sep 2026 Acc Photos show a Chestnut-sided Warbler.
David W. 22 Sep 2026 Acc Excellent photo of a distinctive bird. Well-chosen color descriptions.
Kevin W. 2 Oct 2026 Acc Bird shows greenish head and back of a Chestnut-sided Warbler.

 

2026-59 Parisitic Jaeger

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 27 Sep 2026 Acc The written record includes some, but not all, of the traits that point to the ID and away from others. However, the images augment the record sufficiently to confirm the species.
Max M. 5 Oct 2026 Acc This looks identical to the PAJA that was seen maybe a week earlier by some of the same people on the south shore of GSL. Still working on getting those folks to submit a record. Great year for jaegers!
Keeli M. 30 Sep 2026 Acc Wish we had better lighting and better pictures of the back and underwings of this bird (although photos are excellent, don't get me wrong!) The black nail on the beak in most pictures appears to be less than half (1/3ish) of the beak, and I'm seeing 4-5 white shafts on upper primaries. Both of these characteristics support ID as PAJA. Overall this bird is not as cinnamon-toned in most photos as I would expect for a PAJA, and I think the description of sizing comparative to RBGUs is a little off, but I think there's enough evidence here to support PAJA ID and rule out LTJA.
Bryant O. 24 Sep 2026 Acc Looks good for 1st cycle PAJA. overall rusty brown with streaky nape, long narrow bill with small nail.
Kris P. 16 Oct 2026 Acc Kaleb's outstanding photos with a long, close-range observation in great light are the heart of this record and clearly show a Parasitic Jaeger. His describing the pursuit of the Franklin's Gull is also confirming and eliminates Long-tailed. Detracting from the record is that nearly every size estimation or comparison is off and the Species Elimination Section seems like a field guide re-iteration. However, the photos overcome those issues.
Dennis S. 25 Sep 2026 Acc The flying bird sure seems darker than the beach perched one (probably just light levels). But the photos and the written comparisons with other jaegers - especially the Long-tailed - definitely lean towards a parasitic. The slender bill with only the tip being black is a good character. It sure is a light juvenile - without much buffy or cinnamon plumage.
Mark S. 15 Oct 2026 Acc Photos show Parasitic Jaeger; good description.
David W. 14 Oct 2026 Acc One of the clearer jaeger ID I've had to review over the years. Wonderful photos show the salient features -- the distribution of white on the upperwing and underwing, the bill shape and color, and the body shape.
Kevin W. 2 Oct 2026 Acc The streaked neck, long bill, white flash under the wings all point to Parasitic Jaeger. Written submission does well to eliminate similar species.

 

2026-60 Broad-billed Hummingbird

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 27 Sep 2026 Acc Images and description sufficiently support the ID.
Max M. 5 Oct 2026 Acc Nice photos
Keeli M. 30 Sep 2026 Acc Looks good for a sub, but almost fully-adult-plumaged male.
Bryant O. 29 Sep 2026 Acc Odd we mainly see males here, where are the females and juvys?
Kris P. 17 Oct 2026 Acc A nice record with timing consistent with the vagrancy pattern of the species. The observers did well to gather as much info and photos as they did in one minute. The amount of white on the bird's face threw me for a second until I realized the bird is likely an immature male still molting into his daddy's plumage, but still shows vestiges of his mother's female-type plumage between the vague white facial stripes and dull pale belly color, rather than only a spot of white behind the eye and an emerald belly. Still, I don't question the ID.
Dennis S. 6 Oct 2026 Acc Nice close-up photos leave no question.
Mark S. 15 Oct 2026 Acc Photos unmistakable. Second-year male Broad-billed Hummingbird.
David W. 29 Sep 2026 Acc Barring some other Neotropical visitor from much further south, this looks like a slam dunk immature male Broad-billed. I am intrigued that it has retained the pale striping on the face so clearly, despite having so nicely molted in so much of its colorful male body plumage. Wonderful photos.
Kevin W. 2 Oct 2026 Acc Photos show distinctive orange-based bill and blue gorget of Broad-billed Hummingbird.

   

2026-61 Chestnut-sided Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 27 Sep 2026 Acc The images confirm the species.
Max M. 5 Oct 2026 Acc Unmistakable warbler
Keeli M. 30 Sep 2026 Acc Bright greeny yellow head and back, yellowish white wing bars, whtie eyering, all look good for a CSWA.
Bryant O. 29 Sep 2026 Acc Nice photos
Kris P. 1 Oct 2026 Acc  
Dennis S. 6 Oct 2026 Acc Weak written report- never even mentions distinguishing characteristics, but photos were conclusive.
Mark S. 16 Oct 2026 Acc Written description non-existent, but the photos are unmistakable.
David W. 29 Sep 2026 Acc One of the warbler species where the adults don't steal the whole show. That lime-yellow and gray combination and eye ring are quite distinctive. The record is saved by the wonderful photos.
Kevin W. 2 Oct 2026 Acc Photos show greenish head and back, wingbars, and white eye-ring of Chestnut-sided Warbler.

 

2026-62 Ruff

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 29 Sep 2026 Acc No question about the ID with this record.
Max M. 14 Oct 2026 Acc Good documentation by many. Nice female
Keeli M. 19 Oct 2026 Acc Photos show scaled back patterning, floppy tertials, white base of bill and bright orange legs, which all support ID as Ruff. Only point of contention is that Ruff should be slightly larger than the Lesser Yellowlegs, not smaller as described in the write up (although Ruff should have a slightly shorter wingspan than LEYE). Nice photos and find!
Bryant O. 29 Sep 2026 Acc My 3rd on that pond, and my 5th at Farmington Bay.
Kris P. 17 Oct 2026 Acc Thorough record that checks all the boxes, and I saw the bird. Those legs were practically fluorescent hazard orange with the sun shining behind the bird.
Dennis S. 6 Oct 2026 Acc No question. Many observers. Good written report giving observation details. Nice group of photos.
Mark S. 16 Oct 2026 Acc Good documentation
David W. 30 Sep 2026 Acc Not very many shorebirds in Utah with crayon-orange legs. Good photos and description. Nice find subsequently seen by many birders.
Kevin W. 9 Oct 2026 Acc Bright orange legs, thin downcurved bill, and the scaly-looking feather borders all good for Ruff.