Voting Comments

Blackpoll Warbler
Record #3-B-02

1st Round: 1-6

2nd Round: 0-7

1st Round

2nd Round

4/30/09
Weisse – Reject, specific identification not established

Probably a Blackpoll but there isn’t enough information in the description to conclusively eliminate other possibilities

7/5/09
Cliff Weisse--Reject, specific identification not established

Same comments

05-01-2009
Dave Trochlell--Reject, specific identification not established

I'll bet this was a singing male Blackpoll Warbler, but the description is just too spare; in fact, it doesn't even identify the bird as a warbler.

07-03-2009
Dave Trochlell--Reject, specific identification not established

I'll stay with my earlier vote to reject for reasons already stated.

05-01-2009
Sturts --Reject, specific identification not established

It could be this species but there isn't enough in the report to convince me.

07-02-2009
Sturts--Reject, specific identification not established

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

05-14-2009
Darren Clark--Reject, specific identification not established

Although the observer probably saw a Blackpoll Warbler, the description was lacking enough information to accurately describe the bird as a Blackpoll Warbler.

07/09/2009
Darren Clark--Reject, specific identification not established

See previous comments

5/21/2009
Charles Swift--Reject, specific identification not established

No acceptable in its present form - should be resubmitted w/ additional detail. I actually remember this - I believe it was the year of the big Blackpoll Warbler fallout in Montana. No doubt this is what they say - a very easy id - just needs more detail.

7/23/09
Charles Swift--Reject, specific identification not established

Same comments as before. Most probably a Blackpoll insufficient description.

31 May 2009
Hardy--Reject, specific identification not established

I have no doubt that Earl identified a Blackpoll, but this report lacks the description to document that.

2 July 2009
Hardy--Reject, specific identification not established

Same comments as first round.

06-27-2009
chuck trost--Accept

Earl's description was minimal, but the fact that it responded to a playback of the song, and apparently was seen well convinces me.

07-10-2009
chuck trost--Reject, specific identification not established

I agree that the report is minimal at best, and still think Earl was correct. We just need a more thorough report.