Voting Comments

1^st Round Voting Comments

Record #: 11-A-06

Cackling Goose

1st Round: 5-2
2nd Round: 3-4
3rd Round: 5-2
ACCEPT

1^st Round (5 Accept, 2 Reject)	2^nd Round (3 Accept, 4 Reject)	3^rd Round (5 Accept, 2 Reject)
010-11-2006. Shirley Sturts -- Accept Description and photographs are that of the Cackling Goose. The only problem being we do not have an exact date.	02-16-2007. Shirley Sturts -- Accept I'm staying with my first vote "accept". I'm satisfied that it was shot in the refuge or nearby. Steve says in his report: "By virtue of the fact that the photos were in the annual refuge report strongly indicates that they were shot on the refuge or nearby, most likely on the refuge. I think they were probably shot on the refuge, because the former manager who took the photos frequently set up a check station at the access road leaving the refuge hunting area. Hunters outside the refuge would not have been checked. The birds would be in Cassia County and lati-long 26 either way. The photo date is November 1979." - The one bird in the 1st picture does look a little different from the other but that might be from how they were laid out for the photograph. The 2nd photograph shows how much smaller both of them are in comparison to the Canada Goose.	08-13-2007. Sturts -- Accept I'm staying with my accept vote on this one for the same reasons plus the weight of the birds as indicated in Lisa's 2nd round comments.
010-12-2006. Chuck trost -- Accept Pictures show the size of the bill and body in comparison with a CAGO. Even though this species wasn't recognized at the time, there seems little doubt to me that this is what they were.	03-12-2007. chuck trost -- Reject, natural occurrence questionable I guess I agree with Cliff that we really don't know where these geese were shot. Also, the bird of the left looks like a small Canada Goose.	09-06-2007. chuck trost -- Accept I agree that one bird is probably a CAGO, but am convinced that at least one is a cackling goose. If Steve Bouffard says they were taken on the refuge, that is good enough for me.
10/13/06. Cliff Weisse -- Reject, natural occurrence questionable In the top photo of the two smaller geese the bird on the right looks like a Cackling Goose. The head/bill structure on the left individual does not look right. The bill looks a bit large and the forehead not steep enough. Also that bird looks slightly larger and longer necked in the photos. That said there is not conclusive evidence that these individuals were shot in Idaho. While it seems probable I don't feel comfortable accepting the record when there is a question about the origin of the specimens.	2/21/2007. Cliff Weisse -- Reject, natural occurrence questionable My opinion hasn't changed since the first round. I still feel one of these birds, the larger one on the left in the top photo, is not a "Lesser" Canada Goose not a Cackling Goose based on head/bill structure. I also feel that we should not accept this record because there is a question regarding the origin of the birds.	8/15/07. Cliff Weisse -- Reject, natural occurrence questionable See previous comments.
010-16-2006. Dave Trochlell -- Accept This old photo appears to verify this record candidate as a pair of Cackling Geese, perhaps of the Richardsoni subspecies.	03-04-2007. Dave Trochlell -- Reject, natural occurrence questionable I still believe that both of these small geese are Cackling Geese, but am going to change my vote now to reject this record. Cliff and Kas make a compelling case for rejection, in that the IBRC probably shouldn't accept any bird record when we're not absolutely certain of its origin.	08-16-2007. Dave Trochlell -- Reject, natural occurrence questionable I decided in the last round that we shouldn't accept this record if we're not absolutely certain the origin of these birds, and I stand by that decision now.
11-4-06. Carlisle -- Accept The photos say it all.	6-29-07. Carlisle --Accept After further review and reading Cliff's comments, I now agree that the left-most bird could easily be a 'Lesser' Canada (parvipes) and would be inclined to accept this record only for the 1 individual. That said, I agree with Kas's opinion that uncertainty of location combined with annual reports of this species makes it less of a pressing issue. If Steve is reasonably certain about the birds being shot in Idaho (which he seems to be), I'd vote accept for the 1 bird. But, I'd want it to be clear that it's just for the 1 bird & not the whole report. In sum, I'd vote to accept the 1 bird but would also go with a majority opinion of reject (if there is one) based on unknown location.	8-16-07. Carlisle -- Accept Staying with my 2nd round vote, I vote accept for 1 bird only.
11/11/2006. Charles Swift -- Accept Size and duskiness strongly suggestive of minima subspecies.	4/8/07. Charles Swift -- Reject, natural occurrence questionable I'll accept the arguments of uncertain provenance. I think it will become evident soon that this species occurs regularly in Idaho and should probably be removed as a review species (although we still have to sort out sub-species occurrence and identification thereof).	8/23/07. Charles Swift -- Accept Am changing back to accept at least for the 1 obvious bird (as pointed out elsewhere the other bird looks like a lesser Canada Goose). I think Steve makes a good argument for the birds being locally shot.
01-02-2007. dumroese -- Reject, natural occurrence questionable Although these look like CAGO [sic; CACG = Cackling Goose], I'm troubled that we really don't know where these birds were harvested. Although unlikely, for all we really know, they could have been shot in Utah. I think we will get enough well-described CAGO [sic] records from exact locations that we need not accept those from unknown locales.	9 August 2007. Hardy -- Accept Weight is noted as "about 5 pounds". This equals about 2300 grams, which is quite close to the mean body weight noted for taverneri, the largest of the Cackling Goose subspecies, and below the mean body weight noted for the smallest Canada Goose, occidentalis, quoted in the online notes of Sibley, from Mowbray et al. 2002. So, these specimens are at the large end of the Cackling Goose spectrum, but fall sufficiently within it that I am comfortable with the CACG identification.	23 August 2007. Hardy -- Accept Same comments as round two, but additionally I do not doubt that these birds were shot in the vicinity of the refuge.