Voting Comments
Record #: 8-A-06
Orchard Oriole
1st Round: 5-2
2nd Round: 5-2
|
1st Round |
2nd Round |
| 12-10-2006. Shirley Sturts -- Accept Our Bylaws concerning first state records are as follows: "The Committee prefers that reports of potential first state records have some form of physical documentation, such as photographs, sound recordings, specimens, verified band numbers, and so on. A first state record may be accepted without physical documentation, however, with these considerations in mind: (1) the species is obvious, easy to identify, and cannot be confused with a similar species; (2) the observer is familiar with the species; (3) the observer is known by the Committee as a careful, competent observer with previous experience in documenting rare birds; and (or) (4) multiple, competent observers submit separate, careful documentation." This is a potential first state record, without physical documentation. However, it meets (1,2,and 3) of the above considerations. The written documentation is convincing. For these reasons, I am voting to accept it as a first state record. |
01-30-2009.
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 -- Reject, specific identification not established While the write-up is well done, the view of this bird was too brief, single observer, and I'm not convinced that it wasn't a Hooded oriole. |
02-02-2009.
Still too brief an encounter for a 1st state record, unless it is the same bird seen at a later date. |
| 12/12/2006 Cliff Weisse -- Accept My vote is to accept this record as the same individual reported on 8/24/06, record #10-A-06. See comments under that record. |
1/28/09.
Same comments |
| 12-12-06. Carlisle -- Accept I saw/heard the bird and am 100% certain of the ID. However, I also understand the lack of physical evidence on this potential first state record. |
02-07-2009.
After reading the report, I was convinced of a correct identification based on described vocalizations, underside coloration (yellow), relative size and structure, and particularly considering the fact that the observer states extensive experience with this species. As this is to be the first State record, however, I was uneasy until I read Shirley's comments on acceptance which convinced me to accept the record. |
| 12-15-2006. Dave Trochlell -- Accept Jay makes a pretty good case for an Orchard Oriole at Camas N.W.R. in his documentation, and I, for one, am convinced he identified the bird correctly. But to my mind it's not likely (in fact, highly improbable!) that the Orchard Oriole he saw three days later in the same location was a different bird, so I strongly recommend that the IBRC combines records 8-A-06 and 10-A-06 into one record. |
02-01-2009.
I'm still convinced. As I said before, I think this record should be combined with 10-A-06. |
| 5/21/07. Charles Swift -- Accept This is a convincing report by an experienced observer familiar with the species. It is further supported by another observation of this (or another) Orchard Oriole several days later. |
2/4/09.
See previous comments. |
| 26 August 2007. Hardy -- Reject, specific identification not established I think it very likely that this bird was an Orchard Oriole, but it was not seen clearly enough to eliminate all other possibilities and thereby to qualify as a first state record. |
28 January 2009.
Same comments as first round. |