Voting Comments
Record #: 5-B-07
Cackling Goose
1st Round:: 3-4
2nd Round: 2-5
NOT ACCEPT
|
1st Round |
2nd Round |
| 06-13-2007. Shirley Sturts -- Accept Distinctive features noted |
08-03-2007. Sturts -- Reject, specific identification not established Again I'm changing my vote. In addition to not being identified as the subspecies minima, these birds were seen at a distance under less than ideal conditions. |
| 6/13/2007. Cliff Weisse -- Reject, specific identification not established Although Jay obviously has a firm handle on this identification, and I believe that he observed Cackling Geese, the written description does not include forehead shape or bill shape which I feel are essential for proper ID of this species. "Different" forehead shape doesn't quite get me there. I could live with one or the other structural point missing but not both. |
8/4/07. Cliff Weisse -- Reject, specific identification not established I still feel the written description is too vague to confirm the identification. |
| 06-16-2007. Dave Trochlell -- Accept At 200 meters, Jay's view of the Cackling Geese was perhaps too distant to enable him to see and describe their plumage. But he describes other diagnostic features of these birds well enough for my satisfaction. |
08-16-2007. Dave Trochlell -- Accept Jay describes the the birds as: "small geese with Canada Goose-like patterning but a smaller bill and a steeper forehead." He also noted that these were NOT Lesser Canada Geese, which he also saw nearby. I'm satisfied that he correctly indentified the geese. |
| 6/25/07. Darren Clark -- Reject, specific identification not established Though these were probably cackling geese, the description is fairly vague. Jay also mentions that the viewing conditions were not ideal "birds were very distant and were seen in non-ideal conditions (low lighting and wind)". I wonder if this was a rarer species if more efforts would have been made to obtain better views and obtained more evidence. |
5 Aug 2007. Darren Clark -- Reject, specific identification not established I still don't think there is enough detail in the report to support the identification. |
| 1 July 2007. Hardy -- Reject, specific identification not established It is my understanding that only the minima subspecies of CACG can be reliably distinguished from CANG in the field, and this report does not establish the birds as minima. |
9 August 2007. Hardy -- Reject, specific identification not established Report does not provide sufficient detail to distinguish the birds from the smaller subspecies of CANG. |
| 07-02-2007. chuck trost -- Accept Adequate description |
08-07-2007. chuck trost -- Accept I agree that conditions could have been better, but Jay noted their small size, small bill size, and steep forehead. |
| 7/7/06. Charles Swift -- Reject, specific identification not established See comments for 14-B-07. If the general consensus is that small size, small bill, and steep forehead are sufficient for Cackling Goose than I will revise my votes. |
8/23/07. Charles Swift -- Reject, specific identification not established See round 1 comment. |