3rd Round

22 February 2010
Cliff Weisse--Reject, specific identification not established

I'm still not comfortable accepting a report for LBBG that doesn't include details of structure that are critical to the identification.

02-28-2010
Sturts--Reject, specific identification not established

I'm changing my vote on this one.
I still think it was probably a Lesser Black-backed Gull but the short viewing time and (I now agree)lack of a more detailed description is problematic

03-09-2010
Darren Clark--Reject, specific identification not established

Same comments as previous votes

03-03-2010
Dave Trochlell--Reject, specific identification not established

I still don't feel completely comfortable accepting this one for the reason stated in the last round, though it was most likely a LBBG.

23 February 2010
Hardy--Accept

Same comments as second round.

3/27/10
Charles Swift--Accept

I vote to accept again based on the combination of a reasonably good description of an increasing species, the probability of various other black backed gulls occurring (or not occurring) at this time and place. The presence of a second birder (Paul Lehman) with impeccable field birding skills doesn't hurt - I presume he would be happy to comment on this record if asked?

2-25-10
Carlisle--Reject, specific identification not established

This is tough b/c I'm sure they saw a LBBG but I'm coming around on this one b/c we do need structural details (build, wing projection, etc.) on gulls

1st Round

2nd Round

12/22/08
Cliff Weisse -- Reject, specific identification not established

10/6/09
Weisse – Reject, specific identification not established

01-06-2009.
Sturts --Accept

The short observation time of 10 seconds bothers me but key field marks were noted and there was a 2nd experienced birder that saw the bird.

010-19-2009
Sturts--Accept

I'm staying with my first round vote for the same reasons

1/7/2009.
Darren Clark--Reject, specific identification not established

Although this bird was most likely a Lesser Black-backed Gull, I'm not sure size alone can eliminate Kelp Gull. The time of year also seems a bit strange (although this alone wouldn't preclude me from accepting the record).

11/11/2009
Darren Clark--Reject, specific identification not established

I still don't feel Kelp (a long shot I know) or other dark-backed gulls can safely be eliminated.

01-16-2009.
Dave Trochlell--Accept

I'm convinced.

010-23-2009
Dave Trochlell--Reject, specific identification not established

Although I accepted this one in the first round, I now think that was a mistake on my part and will reject the record for the reasons that Cliff and Darren mentioned.

Although I do think the observers likely saw a LBBG, the large gulls should never be competed on the basis of size alone.

18 January 2009.
Hardy--Accept

Adequate description of distinguishing fieldmarks.

2 November 2009
Hardy--Accept

Size and markings consistent with Lesser Black-backed id.

1/19/09.
Charles Swift--Accept

A reasonably good description of a species turning up increasingly in Idaho and elsewhere in the northwest.

2/10/10
Charles Swift--Accept

No change from previous comments. Summer records of this species have increased as it has become more common so it's not altogether surprising. (I may not be remembering this correctly but I thought Paul Lehman had multiple LBB Gulls on this trip.)

1-25-09.
Carlisle--Accept

Brief but satisfactory description

10-29-09
Carlisle--Accept

I remain convinced (though I agree that more description of structure is desired)