Voting Comments
Record #: 2-B-89
Northern Hawk Owl
1st Round: 5-2
2nd Round: 4-3
3rd Round 4-3
|
1st Round |
2nd Round |
3rd Round |
|
05-20-2008. chuck trost -- Accept A minimal description, and written later by memory, but critical field marks and behavior were there. |
02-08-2009.
The size, shape, facial pattern, and barred chest (striped crossed out!) all fit this species. |
02-20-2009.
Same thoughts as on last two votes - facial pattern, long tail, behavior, barred chest, etc. seem to fit this species best. |
| Carlisle 5-16-08.
VOTE: Accept COMMENTS: minimal but adequate description |
02-19-2009.
I wish there were more details but, in re-reading the report, the behavior of flying to the top of a lone larch was convincing (not expected for Barred) as was the noting of long tail. |
3-5-09.
no change from round 2 |
| Darren Clark 05/04/2008.
VOTE: Reject, specific identification not established COMMENTS: The report lacks too many details for my comfort level. |
02-19-2009.
Based on the written report alone, I'm still not convinced of the identification of the bird as a Northern Hawk Owl. Based on my gut instinct though, I do believe the bird was a Hawk Owl. The report just lacks too many details for me. |
03-03-2009.
Same comments as previously written. |
| Hardy 18 May 2008.
VOTE: Accept COMMENTS: Minimal but adequate description. |
17 February 2009.
Same comments as first round. |
6 March 2009.
Same comments as previous. |
| Sturts 05-03-2008.
VOTE: Accept COMMENTS: The description including the black border on the facial disk and barred breast fits that of the Hawk Owl |
02-13-2009.
I'm still satisfied that this is a Northern Hawk Owl. |
02-26-2009.
I'm still convinced by the description. |
| Dave Trochlell 05-11-2008.
VOTE: Accept COMMENTS: The description was brief, but did convince me. |
02-06-2009.
I still think the observer most likely saw a Northern Hawk Owl, but changed my vote to reject because the observer doesn't eliminate other owl possibilities in the report. |
02-20-2009.
As I mentioned before, I believe that the observer actually saw a NHOW, but his description is simply not definitive enough to convince me. |
| Cliff Weisse 5/7/08.
VOTE: Reject, specific identification not established COMMENTS: There is very little detail included in the description and it doesn't rule out Barred Owl, especially since the chest was originally described as "striped". (I don't feel impression of size is reliable on a one bird where there is no comparison with other species) I'm not quite convinced. |
2/6/2009.
Upon reconsideration I agree that the report is lacking details and doesn't conclusively eliminate other species. |
3/1/09.
Same Comments |