3rd Round

7/5/09
Cliff Weisse--Reject, specific identification not established

The description does not match Iceland Gull in several essential features. For a species as rare and difficult to identify it seems necessary, at the very least, for the description to match Iceland Gull. The fact that the description doesn't match any other species is irrelevant. Some gulls are not identifiable to species (or hybrid combination) and the fact that an alternative identification is not obvious from the details included in the report should not cause us to default to the proposed species.

07-02-2009
Sturts--Accept

I'm staying with my first and second round votes for the same reasons.

07-10-2009
chuck trost--Reject, specific identification not established

I'm switching votes after considering Cliff's comments.

07-03-2009
Dave Trochlell--Reject, specific identification not established

I continue to have doubts about this one based upon structural differences with Iceland Gull. If only we had a photo of this bird!

2 July 2009
Hardy--Accept

I think Weisse makes some good points about this description, but they do not suggest an alternate identification, even of a hybrid.

7-18-09
Carlisle--Accept

no change from round 2

07/09/2009
Darren Clark--Reject, specific identification not established

I'm going to stay with the decision to reject this record.

1st Round

2nd Round

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

While some aspects of this report sound pretty good for Iceland Gull there are some field marks reported that don't seem right.  Body structure is said to be slimmer than Herring Gull ("not as heavy or full in the breast").  Iceland should have a proportionately heavy, or deep, chest compared to Herring (chesty).  Also the wings in flight are described as follows, "wing depth is also proportionately shallower".  Iceland has proportionately wide based wings compared to Herring.  There is no information on the observer's experience with gulls or whether any of the species the subject bird is compared to in the description were present for comparison, except Herring.  Lacking more details of structure, especially primary extension, and in light of the fact that some of the reported characters of this individual are questionable for Iceland Gull, I can't see how hybrids with Glaucous Gull can be ruled out by this description. 

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

I have a few concerns about this record. Several aspects of the description are not consistent with Iceland Gull. Specifically the report states that the bird was one inch smaller than Herring Gull, wasn't as "full in the breast" as Herring, and had narrower wings than Herring. All three of these points are wrong for Iceland Gull. Icelands are small, only slightly larger than California Gull. They are also deep chested like Thayer's Gull and their wings are wide based, noticeably wider than Thayer's or Herring as Doug pointed out in his comments for 13-B-99. While many aspects of this description sound OK these points do not. Considering how rare ICGU is in Idaho, and the difficult in identifying them, this seems like a poor candidate for acceptance. I still don't feel that it's a good idea to ignore aspects of a report that contradict the proposed identification. 

04-02-2009
Sturts --Accept

I couldn't find where I had written down any notes on this sighting but I remember it very well (even though is is 40 years ago). That winter Jim Acton, Tom Rogers other experienced bird watchers had identified 1 Glaucous (2nd winter) and 1 Glaucous-winged Gull at the landfill. I was birding with them when they made these identifications. Then on January 22nd (I was by myself at the landfill) I saw the Glaucous and this almost identifical, much smaller gull standing together at close range. It was also much smaller than the many Herring Gulls that were present. I thought it might be an Icedland and then it was later cofirmed by Jim Acton, Bart Whelton and others. I think Bart may have published this sighting in a journal and I written in my notes that photos were taken. I'll see if I can find more information on the sighting. In the meantime, I'm voting to accept this record based on the description given and my memory of the size difference.

04-30-2009
Sturts--Accept

same reasons as 1st round

04-04-2009
chuck trost--Accept

The write-up was a careful analysis of this species.

06-27-2009
chuck trost--Accept

While I agree with Cliff's complaints, I can't think of another species that this bird coulb be.

04-05-2009
Dave Trochlell--Accept

The description of the gull's primaries and overall body structure seemed mostly OK for ICGU.

05-02-2009
Dave Trochlell--Reject, specific identification not established

I decided to switch my 2nd vote on the basis on Cliff's compelling arguments for rejection. Cliff is correct: the bird's structure seems incorrect for an Iceland Gull, and that should make us question the validity of the record. That said, perhaps we should review this record again if a photo of the gull can be obtained from the observer.

11 April 2009
Hardy--Accept

Description of size, structure and primaries sufficient to identify ICGU.

21 June 2009
Hardy--Accept

same comments as first round

4-12-09
Carlisle--Accept

Good description - I'm assuming the drawings are from a guide and not of the bird in question(??).

5-7-09
Carlisle--Accept

I see Cliff's points but Shirley's voting comments keep me swayed towards 'yes'

4/28/2009
Darren Clark--Accept

The written description seems right and in my opinion eliminates other species.

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

After reading Cliff's comments I would agree that there is maybe not quite enough to go on to conclusively identify this as a pure Iceland Gull.