1st Round

2nd Round

4/1/09
Cliff Weisse -- Reject, specific identification not established

5/1/09
Cliff Weisse--Reject, specific identification not established

I'm still not comfortable with the description of this individual.

04-02-2009
Sturts--Reject, specific identification not established

This could be an Iceland but I'm not convinced with the evidence presented. I would like to see what other Committee members think.

04-30-2009
Sturts --Reject, specific identification not established

I'm staying with my first round vote not to accept.

04-06-2009
Dave Trochlell--Reject, specific identification not established

This may very well have been an ICGU, but it was troubling to me that Thayer's and (perhaps) Glaucous Gulls were not competed against this bird in the description. Unfortunately, there is not much of a visual difference between a pale Thayer's and a darker Kumlien's Iceland Gull, so I felt that it would've been very important to know why the bird was identified as an Iceland and not a Thayer's.

05-01-2009
Dave Trochlell--Reject, specific identification not established

I still have troubling doubts about this one.

11 April 2009
Hardy--Accept

Structure and pale primaries eliminate GLGU and THGU.

2 July 2009
Hardy--Accept

I think THGU is comfortably eliminated by the pale mantle/primaries/eye. As Weisse notes, the short wingtip projection is not typical for ICGU. Glaucous has a short wingtip projection, but the size/structure of this individual eliminate Glaucous.

4-15-09
Carlisle--Accept

sounds good (other than "gonys smaller than in CA and Herring" - as I don't think of CAGUs as having a prominent gonys) ... was the photo lost?

5-7-09
Carlisle--Accept

I see others' concerns but as I think back to the recently accepted (and, thankfully, photographed) adult ICGU sighting in March 2009, I did not even ponder a Thayer's while viewing the bird b/c it was obviously too 'white-winged'. Thus, I can see why someone might not consider that possibility ...

04-15-2009
Doug Ward--Reject, specific identification not established

I’m on the fence with this one so I’m voting to reject to send it to the second round in order to read other member’s views before making my final decision. Also, the report indicates that photos were taken. Any chance these may show up?

Other than mention of “primary tips (with) grey spots on top”, little attention is paid to upper primary coloration. Additionally, and most importantly for me, Thayer’s Gull (Larus thayeri) is not specifically eliminated and considering many Thayer’s / Kumlien’s Iceland Gulls (L. thayeri / glaucoides kumlieni) can’t be definitively identified in any case, it should be discussed. The only reason I am “on-the-fence” is that the observer notes “white eyes” which does point away from a Thayer’s though the distance to the bird (even through a Questar) casts some doubt for me here as well.

07-06-2009
Doug Ward--Reject, specific identification not established

Enough ambiguity remains for me to accept this one.

4/28/2009
Darren Clark--Reject, specific identification not established

Other species, specifically Thayer's cannot be eliminated based on this report. Also, photos were taken, but not submitted or are no longer available?

05-14-2009
Darren Clark--Reject, specific identification not established

Same comments as previous.