Voting Comments

Record #: 10-A-06

Orchard Oriole

1st Round: 6-1
2nd Round: 6-1

1st Round

2nd Round
12-10-2006.
Shirley Sturts -- Accept

See comments for record 8-A-06

01-30-2009.
sturts--Accept

I'm voting to accept this record for the same reason I did in round 1. If 8-A-06 and 10-A-06 are both accepted, I think we should list them together with a statement we think they are the same bird.
12-11-2006.
chuck trost -- Accept

Good description of a sitting bird, and heard well too.

02-02-2009.
chuck trost--Accept

Description is convincing, and probably the same bird as seen too briefly days before. I don't think jay should vote on this.

12/12/2006.
Cliff Weisse -- Accept

All relevant field marks, including call notes, described well in written report as well as in phone conversations with observer immediately after both sightings. Other similar species, including the very similar Western Tanager, eliminated by combination of plumage and call notes.

1/28/09.
Cliff Weisse--Accept

Same Comments
12-12-06.
Carlisle -- Accept

With this report, my main question is whether or not this was the same individual as reported from 8-21 or a different bird (as there were no detections of this species on 8-22 or 23). That said, I had even more definitive views of this bird and again heard call notes and am 100% certain of ID.

02-07-2009.
Doug Ward--Accept

First off, I too believe this was very likely the same bird (record 8-A-06, which I felt was a well described female Orchard Oriole (Icterus spurious)) as seen a few days earlier, but can’t be absolutely certain, so I don’t believe the two records should be combined. If these records end up being used in a future study or committee action, our notes should be sufficient for whoever is reviewing the data to make up their own mind.
12-15-2006.
Dave Trochlell -- Accept

Please see my comment for record 8-A-06 about combining it with 10-A-06.

02-01-2009.
Dave Trochlell--Accept

I'm still convinced. As I said before, I think this record should be combined with 8-A-06.
6/26/07.
Charles Swift -- Accept

See comments for 8-A-06.

2/4/09.
Charles Swift--Accept

See previous comments.
27 August 2007.
Hardy -- Reject, specific identification not established

This is a fine report. As a candidate for a first state record, it does not meet the guideline for multiple observer/photograph. Also, Jay is a committee member, and if we follow Dumroese's suggestion of setting the bar higher for members, then my choice is clear.

Now, if another record is accepted as first state record, I am ready to return to this record and accept it.

28 January 2009.
Hardy--Reject, specific identification not established

Same comments as first round.