3rd Round

6 April 2010
Cliff Weisse--Reject, specific identification not established

same comments

04-14-2010
Doug Ward--Reject, specific identification not established

I remain uncomfortable with this report for the reasons stated earlier.

04-09-2010
Dave Trochlell--Reject, specific identification not established

I still believe that the report doesn't quite convince me that this Sterna tern wasn't a COTE, so I feel compelled to vote "reject" again.

1-B-86
Darren Clark--Reject, specific identification not established

I'm changing my vote to reject based on the variability of wing patterns in Arctic and Common Tern mentioned by other committee members.

15 July 2010
Hardy--Accept

Same comments as first and second rounds.

06-26-2010
Sturts --Reject, specific identification not established

I'm changing my vote. The report makes a good case for this being an Arctic Tern. However, this is a difficult identification to make with two such similar species, Common and Arctic. Plus the fact it was only seen flying. After reading the comments of other Commettee members, I no longer feel comfortable in accepting the identification.

6-26-10
Carlisle--Accept

Though I agree that structure would be nice, the wing description is spot-on and maybe the underside feathers had begun molting (thus less gray) ... it sounds like an Arctic to me.

1st Round

2nd Round

15 December 2009
Weisse – Reject, specific identification not established

1 February 2010
Cliff Weisse--Reject, specific identification not established

I'm still not comfortable that other possibilities are eliminated by this report and I agree with Doug Ward's assertion that structure is important for this identification.

12-16-2009
Doug Ward--Reject, specific identification not established

I’m not comfortable accepting this record based principally on primary patterning. As variable as Common Tern (Sterna hirundu) plumage is within a particular subspecies, let alone between the subspecies groups, I believe a detailed discussion of the bird’s structural characteristics in comparison is required to document the occurrence of an Artic Tern (S. paradisaea) in Idaho.

04-06-2010
Doug Ward--Reject, specific identification not established

While the relative “short and stocky” appearance of a standing Artic Tern (Sterna paradisaea) compared with a Common Tern (S. hirundu) could not be made since this bird was in flight during the full observation, the “short billed / pushed in head” together with flight differences could. Also, from a plumage standpoint, the grayish underparts are an important feature as they typically highlight a white “whisker” under the black cap.

After re-reading the report, and considering member’s comments, I’m going to stick with my initial vote to not accept this record.

12-19-2009
Dave Trochlell--Accept

I'm convinced.

02-12-2010
Dave Trochlell--Reject, specific identification not established

Although I voted to accept this one in the first round, Cliff and Doug made convincing cases for rejection, which I also now believe after doing some further research on ARTE/COTE identification.

12-27-2009
Darren Clark--Accept

The description supports Arctic Tern and eliminates Common and Forsters Terns.

03-09-2010
Darren Clark--Accept

I still feel confident that the observer describes an arctic tern

21 December 2009
Hardy--Accept

This is an identification challenge, but report describes diagnostic upper- and under-wing patterns. Direct comparison with COTE convincing.

3 February 2010
Hardy--Accept

Same comments as previous.

12-20-2009
Sturts --Accept

The description and the fact that it was with Common Terns for comparison is convincing.

02-28-2010
Sturts--Accept

I'm staying with my first round vote for the same reasons.

1-31-10
Carlisle--Accept

good description of an apparent adult still retaining breeding plumage

2-25-10
Carlisle--Accept

Though more structural details (or a photo) would be desirable, I remain convinced by the description of the wing pattern.