Voting Comments
Record # 96-B-07
Pomarine Jaeger
1st Round:
3-4
2nd Round:
2-5
NOT ACCEPT
|
1st Round |
2ndRound |
| 06-08-2008. Sturts -- Reject, specific identification not established After reading the voting comments, I've changed my vote a reject. Cliff Weisse has given us a careful description of the size and flight behavior that matches that of the Pomarine. However the viewing conditions were not ideal and the viewing time short. Jaegers are not easy to identify even under the best coditions. |
06-08-2008. Sturts -- Reject, specific identification not established After reading the voting comments, I've changed my vote a reject. Cliff Weisse has given us a careful description of the size and flight behavior that matches that of the Pomarine. However the viewing conditions were not ideal and the viewing time short. Jaegers are not easy to identify even under the best coditions. |
| 05-20-2008. Doug Ward -- Reject, specific identification not established While a few features discussed, particularly behavior and fight, seem to indicate the bird was possibly a Pomarine Jaeger (Stercorarius pomarinus) out there, I’m having a trouble accepting this record as written. First off, while probably not unprecedented, the fact that this guy was out over farm fields is very odd; I’m not aware of any inland (aside from breeding grounds) Jaeger records away from fairly large bodies of water. Secondly, a couple of omissions in the description leave open the possibility that the bird may have been an immature gull. To be more specific, there is no mention of the pale/white “primary flash” typical of Jaegers, particularly Pomarine, nor is there mention of the rump and tail coloration. |
11-24-2008.
While there is a good chance that this bird was indeed a Pomarine Jaeger (Stercorarius pomarinus) out there, I'm going to stick with my original opinion that certain omissions in the description leave open the possibility of another identity for this individual. |
| Carlisle 5-16-08.
VOTE: Accept COMMENTS: Not ideal views but convincing & careful description of size & flight behavior. |
11-25-08.
No change from prior comments. To Doug Ward's note: I think that seeing an overland jaeger is just a matter of chance (they have to fly overland in order to get to inland water bodies). See LTJA record # 62-B-06. |
| Darren Clark 05/04/2008.
VOTE: Reject, specific identification not established COMMENTS: Although this bird probably was a Pomarine, I just don't feel comfortable with the record given the distance observed. I've known plenty of Jaeger experts disagree on identifications of birds under much better viewing conditions. |
11-18-2008.
I'm still not comfortable accepting this record given the distance and difficult viewing conditions. |
| Hardy 18 May 2008.
VOTE: Reject, specific identification not established COMMENTS: This was clearly a jaeger by behavior and overall coloration. There was no mention of light patches on the underwing, which suggests that the observer's view was from too great a distance to judge contrast on the upperwing. This leaves only the flight style as diagnostic, and flight style can be subjective, esp. when the species is rarely encountered. |
27 November 2008.
Same comments as first round. I didn't read any comments from the first round voting that compel me to change my vote in this round. |
| Dave Trochlell 05-12-2008.
VOTE: Accept COMMENTS: The report makes a convincing case for Pomarine Jaeger, and nicely differentiates this species from the other two possible jaegers. |
11-21-2008.
The great description of this bird's flight characteristics alone was convincing enough for me. There's no way this could've been any other Laridae, as far as I'm concerned. |
| chuck trost 05-20-2008.
VOTE: Accept COMMENTS: Good description of flight differences between the jaegers, breast band is convincing, as was size. |
11-20-2008.
I'm changing my vote because the bird was not close enough for a more accurate description, and jaegers are tough to ID |