Voting Comments-1-B-76

1^st Round Voting Comments

Record #: 1-B-76

White-tailed Ptarmigan

Send to 2nd Round -- 3 Accept, 4 Reject

ACCEPT in 2nd Round: 5-2

1^st Round (3 Accept, 4 Reject)	2^nd Round (5 Accept, 2 Reject)
Shirley Sturts -- Accept brief description but suported by comments from Earl Chapin.	05-05-2007. Shirley Sturts -- Accept I am staying with my vote to accept for the same reasons I gave in the first round. Ptarmigan are known to be in this area.
Chuck Trost -- Reject, specific identification not established The wings were probably ptarmigans, but the description is too vague and not enough detail is provided.	06-04-2007. chuck trost -- Accept I'm changing my vote on the advice of Earl Chapin. He knows the area as well as this old guy. I agree with Dave that it doesn't even tell us where the wings were from, but we have to assume that the guy was telling the truth, and this grouse is known to be in the area.
Dave Trochlell -- Reject, specific identification not established At only six words, this bird description is just too short and unconvincing. In fact, we don't really know for sure where the wings he examined originated. Furthermore, we can't be swayed toward a vote of acceptance based upon a friend's testimony about the reporter's integrity.	05-07-2007. Dave Trochlell -- Reject, specific identification not established Once again I reject this one, mainly because we don't have an adequate description of the candidate. Secondly, we also don't have a first-person description of where the birds were killed, so we can't be assured that we know the location where the birds were seen/bagged.
Cliff Weisse -- Reject, specific identification not established The description of the wings is not sufficient to confirm the identity.	5/7/2007. Cliff Weisse -- Reject, specific identification not established Not enough detail in description of wings.
Carlisle -- Accept Report doesn't help much but supporting comments provide necessary details. The species occurs in neighboring states/provinces and the report comes from likely habitat and includes wings seen by a game warden.	06-02-2007. Carlisle -- Accept I voted to accept last time (mostly based on the separate evidence supplied by Earl Chapin - not his support letter - regarding the status of this species in Idaho) and have not changed my mind. The report is seriously inadequate but my sense is that these birds occurred (and periodically irrupt southward into the state).
Charles Swift -- Accept Brief description of wings but I am inclined to accept. Based on Earl Chapin's report it seems that WT Ptarmagin have been regularly sighted in the mountain ranges mentioned (and are within range according to field guides). I would think the main question of interest now is are they persisting. I am inclined to think we do not need to review additional historical records of this species if they come to light.	5/21/07. Charles Swift -- Accept I'm still inclined to vote to accept this record. The observer was a game warden so should have been familiar w/ game birds in the area. The birds were reported to have been shot on Gisborn Mountain in Idaho. We have to assume these facts are being reported truthfully. A game bird w/ white wings could only be a ptarmagin. I guess the only species not eliminated is Willow Ptarmagin but I presume they are eliminated by range.
*Dumroese* -- Reject, specific identification not established Insufficient details for me. If only wings are the evidence, then more detail about them is necessary.	28 May 2007. *Hardy* -- Accept This was a difficult record to decide - the report could not be any briefer and still be called a report. I base my acceptance on two factors: first, there are accepted records of WTPT from the Selkirks already, so the species is not unexpected, and second, the reporter, Lester Gissell, is a retired game warden. I believe that an experienced game warden would have no difficulty in identifying any game bird from their local area.