1st Round

2nd Round

15 December 2009
Weisse – Reject, specific identification not established

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

I feel it's necessary for reports of juvenile Short-billed Dowitchers to establish age to ensure that adult Long-billeds are not misidentified as SBDOs based on internal tertial barring. Some description of plumage condition is necessary for proper aging of shorebirds at this season.

12-20-2009
Dave Trochlell--Accept

The description was consistent for a juvenile SBDO.

02-13-2010
Dave Trochlell--Reject, specific identification not established

Although I voted to accept in the first round, Cliff made a good and persuasive argument that the report doesn't mention the age of the dowitcher. One must first determine (and document in the report) that the bird is a juvenile, or one can't reliably differentiate the two species.

12-27-2009
Darren Clark--Accept

The well-marked tertials and buffy coloration support the identification of Short-billed Dowitcher.

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

Cliff makes a good point about the assumption that this bird is a juvenile. The reason for this bird being a juvenile wasn't given. We can't assume the age of this bird without a description. Therefore, we have no way of knowing whether this is a short-billed or long-billed dowitcher.

12-27-2009
Chuck Trost--Accept

Careful observation of the tertial marks convinces me.

2-10-2010
chuck trost--Accept

It still sounds like a juvenile SBDO to me.

12-20-2009
Sturts --Accept

Comparrison of the tertial and scapular feathers with those of the Long-billed Dowitcher juvenile is convincing.

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

I think that this is probably a juvenile Short-billed Dowitcher but I'm changing my vote to not accept. I agree with Cliff that this report does not include field marks needed to establish it as a juvenile.

1/23/10
Charles Swift--Accept

The description of the tertials is good so I'll vote to accept. Ideally more information on how the bird was aged would be useful. The timing in good for juv. SBDO in northern Idaho and these do often seem to be lone birds not associating w/ any other shorebirds.

2/10/10
Charles Swift--Accept

Basically the same comments as before. It would be nice to have more information on how the bird was aged but I'm comfortable with the observer's ability to distinguish this. Also the "orangish-tan" color seems right for SB Dow whereas LB Dows would still show a good amount of rufous (molting adult) or gray (juvenile) at this time.

1-31-10
Carlisle--Accept

Barred tertials & coloring sound good

2-25-10
Carlisle--Reject, specific identification not established

joining the 'skeptic camp' b/c there's nothing in the report to substantiate that it's a juvie (though, as Charles pointed out, the timing is right and I believe that's what was observed)