Voting Comments

Voting Comments

Record #: 4-A-05

Vermilion Flycatcher

1st Round: 3-4
2nd Round: 0-7
NOT ACCEPT

1^st Round (3 Accept, 4 Reject)	2^nd Round (0 Accept, 7 Reject)
12-15-2006. Shirley Sturts -- Accept Although there is no physical documentation, this species is obvious, and easy to identify. The observer gave a good description. There are accepted records in neighboring states: 4 in Oregon, 4 in Washington and 1 in Montana.	08-10-2007. Sturts -- Reject, specific identification not established I would really like to continue to defend this report and vote again to accept it. They are really unmistakable and I think it is very possible that they are Vermillion Flycatchers. However, in reading over the report again and comments from other Committee members, I find the doucmentation is not complete enough to support a 1st state record. There is nothing about the size and shape of the bill or the color of the back and tail. Further, the observer does not eliminate other species other than saying not a crossbill or not a grosbeak. I would like to know how the observer elminated the White-winged Crossbill, Pine Grosbeak, and Cassin's Finch. Also, as other Committee members commented, seeing two males is highly unusual. Observations accepted from Oregon, Montana and Washington were all 1 bird sightings.
12-15-2006. Dave Trochlell -- Reject, specific identification not established I don't know what birds are observers saw, but according to my experience with Vermillion Flycatchers, I would NOT describe them as either "large" or "round". Secondly, though Vermillion Flycatcher does have a history of vagrancy to the north that includes the winter period, the probability of seeing two of them together in far north Idaho does not seem even remotely possible. Might our observers have seen a few male Varied Thrushes?	08-12-2007. Dave Trochlell -- Reject, specific identification not established As stated in the first round, the description of these birds is not convincing enough for me.
12/16/2006. Cliff Weisse -- Reject, specific identification not established The description does not eliminate the possibility of House Finch. Behavior described seems unlikely for a flycatcher and the fact that there were two individuals is suspect,especially in light of the fact that other regional records of all of single birds.	8/12/07. Cliff Weisse -- Reject, specific identification not established I still have the same reservations as before.
12-18-2006. chuck trost -- Accept Good description of a bird that is hard to miss. Strange there were two males together, but season is right for extralimital wanderings.	09-06-2007. chuck trost -- Reject, specific identification not established I'm changing my vote because I had not even considered house finches. The description is not adequate to convince me that flycatchers were inviolved.
1/7/07. Charles Swift -- Reject, specific identification not established Vermillion Flycatcher does not have white wing bars and the report does not eliminate the much more likely House Finch (or possibly Cassin's Finch). Oddly there is a winter record of this species for nearby Montana but 2 Vermillion Flycatchers would be incredible and perhaps the observer did not realize the extereme rarity of such a sighting.	8/23/07. Charles Swift -- Reject, specific identification not established See round 1 vote comment.
1-8-07. Carlisle -- Accept I can't help but be skeptical - especially for 2 individual adult males in the same yard ?!?! However, what else can they be? And, research on records from surrounding states helps ....	11-04-2007. Carlisle -- Reject, specific identification not established After further consideration, there are not enough details (especially size) to rule out other species. The suggestion of white bars doesn't really match up either. The ID may have been correct but I don't think there's enough info in this report to overcome the highly unexpected appearance of 2 adult males together (and that they sat still for 10 minutes).
18 June 2007. Darren Clark -- Reject, specific identification not established I'm rejecting the record for a couple of reasons. Two male birds seems a bit unusual. The description of the bird as having a "big round body" doesn't seem to fit. Though the observer clearly states the birds are not grosbeaks or crossbills, she doesn't explain why (other than these birds were different). The observer did not adequately describe the birds.	15 Aug 2007. Darren Clark -- Reject, specific identification not established I'm still not convinced and stand by my previous comments.