SPRING FIELD REPORT, March to May 2000

• Main Author: Silcock, W. Ross
• Format: Text
• Language: unknown
• Published: DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 2000
• Subjects: Ornithology; Poultry or Avian Science; Zoology; Ash Creek; Red Phalarope
• Online Access: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebbirdrev/69; https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/context/nebbirdrev/article/1067/viewcontent/Nebraska_Bird_Review_v68_no2_Spring_Field_Report_and_Species_Accounts_p55_81.pdf

This spring was a fairly normal, although I heard comments about warblers being rather tough to find. The reports did confirm that for many of the migrant northwoods species. There were a few rarities, none represented first state records, however. Foremost of these were White Ibis, Glossy Ibis, blue-morph Ross's Goos~, Common Crane, Band-tailed Pigeon, Hammond's Flycatcher, and Black-throated Gray Warbler. The following birds may join these, although each may have fatal flaws, at least in the eyes of the NOURC: Red Phalarope and Slaty-backed Gull. Other interesting sightings included a Mississippi Kite in Lincoln; Gray Partridges in Scotts Bluff Co; 11th state records for both Little Gull and Mew Gull; a 10th location for Eurasian Collared-Dove; another (maybe?) White-winged Dove; Chuck-will's-widows in the Kearney area; Lewis's Woodpeckers in West Ash Creek Canyon; Pileated Woodpeckers continuing in Fontenelle Forest; an Acadian Flycatcher in Dixon Co; Blue-winged and Prairie Warblers near each other in Carter Canyon; the 17th spring record of Pine Warbler but still with none documented; the 9th (!) Panhandle Hooded Warbler; and the 10th eastern record of Lazuli Bunting. A note is in order about reports of rare birds, either rare on a state level, or rare at the location or season. Each season I receive several such reports, many with excellent details of how the bird was identified. Those without details present a dilemma. In this (and subsequent) reports I will note observers of such sightings and follow their initials with "details" or "no details". The latter implies that the report, while possibly correct, is unverifiably so. This information is important for researchers who follow us and might have difficulty deciding which reports are substantiated and thus useful on a scientific level. While I make an effort to get details prior to writing this report, I am unable to contact some observers (especially those without email!). Observers who have a "no details" report listed here are encouraged to send ...