3rd Round

4-4-10
Cliff Weisse--Reject, specific identification not established

Same Comments

04-09-2010
Dave Trochlell--Reject, specific identification not established

I'm going to reject this record again, because the age of the bird was not established in the report.

05-04-2010
Darren Clark--Reject, specific identification not established

same comments as previous

27 April 2010
Hardy--Accept

Same comments as second round.

06-26-2010
Sturts--Reject, specific identification not established

I'll stay with my 2nd vote to reject. It could be a Short-billed but there is nothing in the voting comments that convince me change my vote back to accept.

9/23/10
Charles Swift--Accept

I considered reversing my vote based on the report deficiency but am voting again to accept based primarily on my previous comments.

4-4-10
Carlisle--Reject, specific identification not established

Cliff & others make good points - very likely a juvenile SBDO but the report doesn't provide quite enough detail

1st Round

2nd Round

15 December 2009
Weisse – Reject, specific identification not established

There is not enough information in the description to establish that this individual was a juvenile.  Therefore the barred tertials do not eliminate the possibility of an adult Long-billed.

22 February 2010
Cliff Weisse--Reject, specific identification not established

This is yet another report of a juvenile SBDO that includes no details to support the proposed age of the bird. Simply stating that it was a juvenile is not enough. It's the same as saying the bird gave a "SBDO call" without describing the call or reporting a species with an inconclusive written description of the bird. Especially so with difficult to identify species like dowitchers. Without details of plumage that confirm this was indeed a juvenile, the "barred" tertials are irrelevant regardless of the experience or skill level of the observer.

12-20-2009
Dave Trochlell--Accept

I accept.

03-03-2010
Dave Trochlell--Reject, specific identification not established

I overlooked the fact that the description didn't tell us how the age of this dowitcher was determined; Charles and Cliff's comments about this problem have now swayed me to reject the record.

12-27-2009
Darren Clark--Accept

The barred tertials clinch the ID as Short-billed Dowitcher.

03-09-2010
Darren Clark--Reject, specific identification not established

I'm changing my vote to reject because of the lack of details in the description and the points mentioned by Cliff.

21 December 2009
Hardy--Accept

Marked tertials diagnostic for juvenile.

23 February 2010
Hardy--Accept Report states that this was a juvenile.

It would be a stronger report if the details that identified this bird as a juvenile were included, but I am still voting to accept.

12-20-2009
Sturts--Accept

The description of the bared tertials in the juvenile is diagnostic.

02-28-2010
Sturts --Reject, specific identification not established

I think this is probably a Short-billed Dowitcher but I agree with Cliff, there is not evidence given to establish that it ia juvenile.

1-31-10
Carlisle--Accept

Barred tertials sound good, esp. since the plumage sounds juvenile ('rusty overall')

2-25-10
Carlisle--Accept

He said it's a juvie and the 'rusty overall' coloration would support that so I'm still voting yes

2/10/10
Charles Swift--Reject, specific identification not established

This is a tough one. The marked tertials are certainly suggestive of SB Dow but the bird's age is not mentioned. Also I'm not convinced that bill length is useful especially on a lone bird.

3/27/10
Charles Swift--Accept

I'm changing my vote to accept for several reasons (despite the fact that the report could use more information). 1) The tertial barring is highly supportive even if age isn't explicitly mentioned 2) A rusty brown dowitcher in late Sept. seems very unlikely to be Long-billed. 3) My previous reject vote on this record was inconsistent w/ an earlier accept vote on a similarly reported SB Dowitcher.