Voting Comments
Record #: 11-B-99
Red-headed Woodpecker
REJECT
1st Round: (3-4)
2nd Round: (2-5)
|
1st Round |
2nd Round (2 Accept, 5 Reject) |
| 12-17-2006. Shirley Sturts -- Accept Easy to identify in flight. I believe his identification to be correct. |
04-24-2007. Shirley Sturts -- Accept I'm an staying with my accept vote for the same reasons. |
| 12-18-2006. chuck trost -- Accept Good description of the wing pattern, and multiple observers. |
05-06-2007. chuck trost -- Accept Even though by a single observer, the description on the wing pattern and size was good. I was bothered that the red head wasn't specifically mentioned though. |
| 12/27/06 Cliff Weisse -- Accept Although the description is somewhat brief and does not specifically mention head color it describes a pattern of white secondaries and rump, '"t" like pattern of the wing patches and tail patch', that is shown only by Red-headed Woodpecker. Timing seems appropriate considering past reports of this species in Idaho. |
4/25/07. Cliff Weisse -- Reject, specific identification not established While I still find the description of the white "Tee" very convincing and the observer mentions having a brief look at the head (form which it can be inferred that it was seen to be red), I'm going to change my vote to reject. While researching historic records of this species in Idaho I noticed that there are no specimen records listed and no prior records accepted by IBRC. Essentially this record would represent a first record for the state. As such I feel the description is inadequate, if only because it does not mention a red head. |
| 12-28-2006. Dave Trochlell -- Reject, specific identification not established In my opinion, the description offered for this candidate was not adequate or very convincing for Red-headed Woodpecker. |
04-27-2007. Dave Trochlell -- Reject, specific identification not established I haven't changed my mind on this one, mainly because I think the description is too brief. |
| 01-05-2007. dumroese -- Reject, specific identification not established I'm rejecting this report because it's scant on details... like mentioning the fact that the bird had a red head. Although the "T" shaped white patch sounds like RHWO, no where in this description is any verbiage provided that indicates to me this bird was even a woodpecker. |
15 May 2007. Hardy -- Reject, specific identification not established I found this a very difficult record to reach a decision on, but I finally came down on the side of reject because the documentation is so thin, it was a short view of a bird in flight, and I have no knowledge of the reliability of the observer. I think there is a strong probability that it was a RHWO, and the observer may have simply neglected to say that the head was red because it seemed obvious. |
| 1-8-07. Carlisle -- Reject, specific identification not established This report makes me uneasy b/c so few details are reported (there's not even mention of a red head!). It's an easy ID and the observer may well have seen a RHWO. However, for such a rare species in the state, I believe we should see more details. |
05-05-2007. Carlisle -- Reject, specific identification not established I'm still uneasy given the scant details (but could be convinced to go along with a majority) ..... What was the habitat type? Did they get a good luck [sic] when the bird perched? |
| 1/16/07. Charles Swift -- Reject, specific identification not established I think this probably was a Red-headed Woodpecker but the description was marginal. I'm interested to see what others thought and may vote to accept on the second round. I'd also be interested in more information on patterns of vagrancy in this species. |
5/10/2007. Charles Swift -- Reject, specific identification not established I'm going to vote to reject again. This may well have been a RH Woodpecker but there is simply not enough detail here to convince me. |