1^st Round

^2nd Round
 

3rd Round

02-01-2009.
Sturts --Reject, specific identification not established

I'm changing my vote because of additional identification information provided by Cliff 1. Call notes are not always reliable. 2. An evaluation of the photographs by Greg Gillson, that in his opinion both 46-B-06 and 76-B-07 are worn adult Long-billed Dowitchers.

02-13-2009.
Sturts--Reject, specific identification not established

I'm staying with my second round comments.

1/28/09.
Cliff Weisse--Reject, specific identification not established

I still feel the report doesn't eliminate Long-billed. The call is not described at all. Since the photos don't show enough detail to confirm the ID, and the written description isn't enough either, the ID is based heavily on the call. I want to see a description of the call heard, not just the commonly used name of the call. In addition in some of the photos the tail appears to have wider black bars than white, suggestive of (if not diagnostic for) LBDO.

2/6/2009.
Cliff Weisse--Reject, specific identification not established

No description of the call combined with what appears to be a worn LBDO is enough to raise considerable doubt about the ID. IF call is to be used as a diagnostic field mark we need a description of the call, not just the name of the call.

02-02-2009.
chuck trost--Accept

Again, the call notes are diagnostic to me. Also I've seen short-billeds as singles, like this bird.

02-08-2009.
chuck trost--Reject, specific identification not established

I'll go with the expert's opinion of the pictures and switch votes.

01-31-2009.
Dave Trochlell--Reject, specific identification not established

The expert opinion now is that these images show a Long-billed Dowitcher, so I can't accept this one.

02-06-2009.
Dave Trochlell--Reject, specific identification not established

See comments in 2nd vote.

28 January 2009.
Hardy--Accept

Same comments as first round.

17 February 2009.
Hardy--Accept

This record is problematic because the reporter describes a SB vocalization, but plumage features suggest LB to an expert reviewer. In this case, I am inclined to give more weight to the vocalization than to what are rather subtle plumage details. Paulson (1993) notes, "Anyone fortunate enough to hear dowitchers...should be confident in assigning them to species, and statements in the literature that individuals occasionally give the call of the other species are probably erroneous."

2/1/09.
Charles Swift--Reject, specific identification not established

I'm switching my vote to reject. I was second-guessing myself shortly after the first vote and realized the photo and description were insufficient to convince me this was a Short-billed. Also I respectfully submit that voice should probably only be used if one has sufficient recent experience w/ both species involved. I've observed plenty of SB Dowitchers over the years but not recently and would be hesitant myself to use call except as a supporting detail. And I've heard Long-billed Dowitchers give a variety of calls including some rather soft calls that could be confused for the field guide described tu-tu calls given by Short-billed. Based on further discussion after the first round vote and Greg Gillson's opinon provided by Cliff, I agree this bird is probably a worn adult Long-billed Dowitcher. Worn adult dowitchers remain a very tricky problem IMO and most accepted Idaho Short-billed Dowitchers are juveniles.

2/21/09.
Charles Swift--Reject, specific identification not established

See previous comments.

2-3-09.
Carlisle--Accept

I'm torn b/c the tail does not look like a typical SBDO (w/ wider white) but it's also obscured. My interpretation of the description is that the observer clearly heard the tu tu tu call coming from this bird (assuming there wasn't a yellowlegs nearby) and that's diagnostic.

02-19-2009.
Carlisle--Accept

still torn but no change from round 2