3rd Round

3/25/09
Cliff Weisse--Reject, specific identification not established

Same Comments

04-02-2009
Darren Clark--Reject, specific identification not established

Although the write-up and drawings seem pretty good. I'm changing my vote based on comments about structure, esp. bill shape.

03-31-2009
chuck trost--Reject, specific identification not established

I agree that the narrow bill and wing tip color make me think of a hybrid, which wasn't considered.

04-01-2009
Sturts--Accept

Same comments as in the first 2 rounds

03-21-2009
Dave Trochlell--Reject, specific identification not established

See my comments from the earlier votes.

30 March 2009
Hardy--Accept

Same comments as second round.

3-25-09
Carlisle--Reject, specific identification not established

no change from rounds 1&2

1st Round

2nd Round

2/15/2009
Cliff Weisse – Accept

Another excellent report from Dan Svingen that includes details of structure that are necessary to eliminate hybrids of GWGU x HEGU.  The short primary extension described is an essential field mark for this species and goes a long way toward confirming the ID for me.  The fact that the primaries are slightly darker is worrisome but still seems OK for Glaucous-winged.

3/7/09.
Cliff Weisse--Reject, specific identification not established

After reviewing the documentation again I agree with Dave and Jay that some reported field marks suggest Herring Gull influence. Specifically the long AND narrow bill, folded primaries "browner" (darker?), and head shape/forward eye placement in all three sketches of the head. Combined these field marks at least hint at to possibility (probability?) that this was a GWGU x HEGU. Best case I feel that possibility can not be ruled out by the documentation.

02-19-2009.
Darren Clark--Accept

The written description and sketch fit Glaucous-winged Gull

03-17-2009
Darren Clark--Accept

I still feel Dan's description and drawing support Glaucous-winged Gull.

02-20-2009.
chuck trost--Accept

Careful observation and good drawings.

03-07-2009.
chuck trost--Reject, specific identification not established

Based on cliff's analysis I'm switching my vote to reject.

02-20-2009.
Sturts--Accept

Well described and hybrids eliminated

03-14-2009
Sturts--Accept

I'm still comforable in voting to accept this record.

02-21-2009.
Dave Trochlell--Reject, specific identification not established

This was a tough one for me, because I know the observer to be an excellent observer and meticulous birder. But two elements of his report bothered me:

1) He purposely chose to not compete this bird against similar hybrid gulls, which we now know may actually outnumber "pure" GWGUs in the intermountain region and

2) He describes the bird as having folded primaries that are slightly darker then the overall color of the upper parts - a good characteristic of a GWGU X HEGU hybrid.

03-08-2009
Dave Trochlell--Reject, specific identification not established

This was a tough decision for me, but I was concerned that the reporter (who's a well-experienced, excellent observer) did not consider the possibility of a GWGU X HEGU hybrid. His bird was described as having slightly darker brown primaries and the head and bill conformation in his drawing best fits a hybrid with Herring Gull characteristics.

21 February 2009.
Hardy--Accept

The thinner bill might hint at hybridization, but if so, it is not much, as the other described features are all compatible with a first winter GWGU.

15 March 2009
Hardy--Accept

This was a difficult record to vote on. The subjective features noted in this well-written report hint at hybridization, namely, the "slightly darker" primary tips and the thinner bill, but the degree of "hybridization", if any, appears to be slight. The bill might suggest a GW X Herring cross, but the primary tips do not appear to be that dark. Other dark-primaried crosses are similarly ruled out. The bird might represent a (GW X HEGU) X GW back-cross, or some other mix, or simply be within the variation within the species as suggested by the reporter. Rather than mud-wrestling with the species concept though, esp. wrt the gulls, I would label this report mostly, if not all, GW in character.

3-4-09.
Carlisle--Reject, specific identification not established

Everything tells me yes except the description (and drawing) of the 'thin' bill. Maybe within the range of expected variation but I'm voting 'no' for now to await other comments.

3-20-09
Carlisle--Reject, specific identification not established

I'm still torn but still bothered by the bill being described as 'thin'. The bird may well be a pure GWGU but ??? ... I am not as bothered by the potential for the primaries appearing slightly browner than the body b/c I think that perception can vary among observers & is difficult to judge.