1st Round

2nd Round

02-19-2009.
Darren Clark--Accept

The written description is good. The photographs are also good. The photograph where the bird has its head in the water, really shows the wing pattern nicely.

07/09/2009
Darren Clark--Accept

See previous comments

19 February 2009.
Hardy--Accept

I am considering these two reports as records of 3 birds - 1 adult and 1 subadult (October report) and 1 adult (February report). Two months between sightings seems like a long time to assume the sightings are of the same individual vagrant gull. The photos and description of the two adults are compatible with id of GWGU - heavy bill, flathead and bulky body. The photos of the subadult (3rd or 4th winter?) seem to show fairly dark primaries, but this is possibly a photographic artifact, esp. as the dark color seems less in the bathing picture, and I will defer to the written description. The subadult seems almost entirely adult, i.e., adult primary pattern, adult tail?, with only the dark marking on bill to suggest not fully adult. This vote accepts all three birds.

26 April 2009
Hardy--Accept

Same comments as first round for this 4th winter? bird - I'll defer to the written description.

02-20-2009.
chuck trost--Accept

Good descriptions y both observers, crappy, but adequate pictures by Carlisle.

04-28-2009
cjuck trost--Accept

The pictures are quite adequate to me. It looks very much like the bird in 33-2 in Howell and Dunn.

02-20-2009.
Sturts --Accept

Good descriptions and similar gulls and hybrids eliminated - photos helped.

04-18-2009
Sturts --Accept

Photos and description are diagnostic

02-21-2009.
Dave Trochlell--Accept

I'm convinced.

04-18-2009
Dave Trochlell--Reject, specific identification not established

I've revised my opinion of this "3rd-winter" (why is this not an adult?)gull several times, but now believe that it's a hybrid, based on what we can see of its structure (head, bill, and body shape) and the relative darkness of the primaries.

03-02-2009.
Doug Ward--Reject, specific identification not established

I wasn’t sure how to vote on this one. The adult bird is well described and sufficient detail is provided to give a fair amount of assurance that it was a full Glaucous-winged Gull (Larus glaucescens). However, the 3rd year bird described and photographed leaves open the possibility of hybrid origin; the Weisse report correctly points out this potential. My reject vote is based on this uncertainty related to one of the two gulls reported in the Carlisle report. I will be interested to read committee comments on protocol related to the concept of accepting “part” of a record; my preference would be to split this record into two individual submittals.

07-07-2009
Doug Ward--Accept

The 3rd winter individual described is the bird that initially gave me heartburn when considering this submittal as a combined report as I weighed the additional description included in what is now record #107-B-07. In rereading both reports, and considering the span of time between the observations, I’m reasonably sure these were two different sub-adult individuals. Not only is the described difference in “winter smudging” (very heavy in 63-B-06 vs. no head streaking in current record 107-B-07) for these two records beyond the change you would expect in two months time, the key description of primary coloration (“slight hint of darker gray in the outer primaries” in 63-B-07 vs. “primaries were obviously darker gray than the mantle” in 107-B-07) points away from these being the same bird.

After further consideration of the report and photographs associated with this record (63-B-06 3rd year individual seen in Oct. & Nov. 2006), I’m now of the opinion that this bird was indeed a full 3rd Year Glaucous-winged Gull (Larus glaucescens) based on size, structure, and primary coloration relative to the mantle.

4/5/09
Charles Swift--Accept

Decent photos and good to excellent descriptions. I guess I'm not convinced that the reported adults are the same individuals based on the intervening time and amount of turnover of gulls in this area.

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

I guess I'd like to see some further discussion of this bird as it does appear to have dark primaries. This may be the same bird Cliff discusses in 63-B-06 although that sighting was almost 4 months later.