Voting Comments
Record #: 50-B-07
Upland Sandpiper
1st Round: 1-6
2nd Round: 0-7
NOT ACCEPT
|
1st Round |
2nd Round (0 Accept, 7 Reject) |
| 010-26-2007. Sturts -- Reject, specific identification not established I think these were probably upland Sandpipers but unfortunately the report did not include a description of the bird or eliminate other shorebirds (e.g. yellowlegs). |
04-06-2008. Sturts -- Reject, specific identification not established I am staying with my first round vote for the same reason. |
| 010-26-2007. Dave Trochlell -- Reject, specific identification not established Although I'm certain the reporters saw Upland Sandpipers, I can't accept this record because they didn't give us any description of the birds. Unfortunately, this is another case of the observers not understanding our rare bird review process. |
04-14-2008. Dave Trochlell -- Reject, specific identification not established For me, no description = automatic rejection. |
| 10/30/07. Cliff Weisse -- Reject, specific identification not established The report contains no description of the birds observed. I know that Upland Sandpipers are present at the location and have seen them there. However this report does not include enough information to confirm the identification. In addition I'm not sure what to do with a second hand report like this. The observer was interviewed by a second party that was not present, but the second party then prepared the report. |
4/11/08. Cliff Weisse -- Reject, specific identification not established See first round comments. |
| 11-11-2007. chuck trost -- Accept Even though second hand, it is hard to think of anything else these birds could have been. I have seen this species in the same place in prior years. |
04-11-2008. chuck trost -- Reject, specific identification not established I'm switching my vote because of the inadequate description. |
| 11/29/07. Charles Swift -- Reject, specific identification not established Mostly likely these were Upland Sandpipers based on the location and information provided. However, the description is insufficient and the report should come directly from the observer. (However, the record is important and should be included in the record and the reporter thanked for passing along the information.) |
4/29/2008. Charles Swift -- Reject, specific identification not established See round #1 comments. |
| 12-12-2007. Carlisle -- Reject, specific identification not established Though I think the observer saw UPSAs, I would prefer if we requested an upgraded report that actually points out field marks observed. |
04-17-2008. Carlisle -- Reject, specific identification not established no change - not enough details |
| 8 January 2008. Hardy -- Reject, specific identification not established Described behavior is consistent with UPSA, but there is no description of appearance. |
20 April 2008. Hardy -- Reject, specific identification not established Same comments as first round. |
What the world says about
reject and
and also
identification
This file
uploaded by
FREE Go FTP