Voting Comments
Record #: 15-B-07
Cackling Goose
1st Round:: 5-2
2nd Round: 5-2
ACCEPT
|
1st Round |
2nd Round |
| 06-12-2007. Shirley Sturts -- Accept Description fits that of a Cackling Goose |
08-03-2007. Sturts -- Reject, natural occurrence questionable For the same reason I rejected 14-B-07 and 1-A-04 |
| 6/13/07. Cliff Weisse -- Accept Brief description would have been helped by inclusion of bill shape along with bill size but is sufficient to confirm the identification of Cackling Goose. Observer demonstrates firm understanding of key ID points in reports submitted with photographic documentation, including IBRC #67-B-06 and 4-B-07. |
8/4/07. Cliff Weisse -- Accept As with #14-B-07 I feel the field marks presented are sufficient to confirm the identification. Elimination section of report includes "Lesser Canada Goose (parvipes – more similar in size) has a more elongated bill", which means that this individual had a deeper based bill despite that detail not being included in the written description. |
| 25 June 2007. Darren Clark -- Accept The brief description supports the identification. |
5 Aug 2007. Darren Clark -- Accept Still looks seems good to me. |
| 06-30-2007. Dave Trochlell -- Accept I accept. |
08-08-2007. Dave Trochlell -- Accept As in 14-B-07, the description of the bird was brief, but acceptable. |
| 1 July 2007. Hardy -- Reject, natural occurrence questionable When I have seen smaller races of "white-cheeked geese" in migration here, I have noted that they appear quite wary, whereas at least some of the larger races are less wary. I assumed this is because the smaller races are the far north breeders, and some of the larger birds are residents. Thus I would expect Cacklings to be wary. A Cackling Goose that is feeding on the lawn in a city park suggests to me an escapee rather than a wild bird, and Cacklings are apparently common in captivity. I do not feel competent to pass judgement on Cackling Goose identification, but it is my understanding that only the minima can be reliably distinguished in the field by its very small size and a steep forehead/stubby bill profile, both of which are relative fieldmarks. I don't believe this report is clear enough documentation for such subtle fieldmarks. |
9 august 2007. Hardy -- Reject, specific identification not established Insufficient description to distinguish CACG from smaller subspecies of CANG. |
| 07-02-2007. chuck trost -- Accept Sounds convincing to me. |
08-07-2007. chuck trost -- Accept The description sounds very much like a cackling goose, and I know many wild geese join canadas in the Boise parks. |
| 7/7/06. Charles Swift -- Reject, specific identification not established To be consistent, I have to reject this record as it offers little more detail than record 2-B-05 which I just rejected. I'm willing to reconsider both of these votes later. |
9/13/2007. Charles Swift -- Accept I'll change to accept as there seems to be a general consensus. Jay's familiarity with this group helps to offset the brevity of the report. |