Voting Comments
Barnacle Goose
Record #6-A-03
1st Round: 1-6
2nd Round: 0-7
|
1st Round |
2nd Round |
|
15 January 2010 |
1 February 2010
After further consideration I'm not comfortable accepting this record as a naturally occurring vagrant. There is no pattern of vagrancy to the region and this species is very popular with aviculturists. |
|
12-17-2009
This goose appears to be correctly identified as a Barnacle Goose, but the wild provenance of this north Atlantic species would be unlikely anywhere in North America away from eastern Canada and the northeastern U.S. Because Barnacle Geese are kept in aviaries in the Pacific Northwest (including a now-closed zoo in Nampa), the most likely explanation for the bird's occurrence in Idaho was that it had escaped or was released from someone's animal collection. |
02-12-2010
Again, the wild provinance of this Barnacle Goose is too troubling for my acceptance of the record. |
|
12-20-2009
There is a strong possibilitly that this is an escaped bird so on this round I'm voting not to accept it. |
02-27-2010
I am staying with my first round vote for the same reasons. |
|
12-27-2009
This looks like a Barnacle Goose, but I doubt the natural occurrence of the bird. |
03-09-2010
Cliff makes some good points. I'm still not comfortable accepting this record. I stand by my previous comments about origin. |
|
12-27-2009
I would have to see a pattern of occurance to accept such a record. |
2-1-10
Again, we've got to see a pattern. |
|
21 December 2009
Clearly identifiable as a Barnacle Goose; no signs of hybridization, but a pattern of vagrancy this far west has yet to be established. There is no sign that this is an escaped captive bird, and so it is an important record that may be revisited in the future. |
3 February 2010
Same comments as first round. |
|
1-31-10
It's a Barnacle .. only question is origin. I honestly don't know how to best judge the potential for wild occurrence of this species in the West. There is a recognized, annual occurrence in late fall/winter in northeastern NA and crazier things have happened ... but I'm voting NO for now. |
2-25-10
I like a combination of Dave & Lisa's suggestions: "Not Accepted - Natural occurrence questionable" & "Identification accepted, provenance unknown" Maybe: "ID certain; but not accepted b/c natural occurrence questionable" |