Previous Maryland sighting of Yellow-Billed Loon
80 views
Skip to first unread message
Scott Young
Mar 23, 2026, 1:04:00 PM (13 days ago) Mar 23
to Maryland & DC Birding
Now that we have photographic proof of a Yellow-Billed Loon visiting Maryland, perhaps it would be appropriate to reconsider an earlier sighting in November, 1999. It was spotted by three birders with experience with that loon from the west. They had no photographs so that’s why they think their sighting was not accepted by the records committee. What’s fascinating to me is the that 1999 sighting at Sandgates in St. Mary’s County along the Patuxent River is quite close to the present day sighting along that river! Thoughts?
Marcia Watson
Mar 23, 2026, 3:16:49 PM (13 days ago) Mar 23
to Scott Young, Maryland & DC Birding
Scott,
Re: “appropriate to reconsider an earlier sighting.” Right now, there is no one to “consider” it, as the Records Committee is on hiatus pending development of a new process for reviewing records.
Marcia
_____________
Marcia Watson
Phoenix, MD
--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group 'Maryland & DC Birding'.
To view group guidelines or change email preferences, visit this group on the web at http://www.mdbirding.com
Unfamiliar with a hotspot mentioned on this list? Quickly locate it here - http://www.mdbirding.com/hotspot.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Maryland & DC Birding" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mdbirding+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mdbirding/bcbeabd6-f671-478c-84b2-739bf8dd7b48n%40googlegroups.com.
Clive Harris
Mar 23, 2026, 3:42:45 PM (13 days ago) Mar 23
to Maryland & DC Birding, Scott Young
Hi Scott
Yellow-billed Loon is exceptionally rare anywhere along the East Coast. Most states along the eastern seaboard don't have any sightings on eBird. I don't know the details of the 1999 sighting or why it wasn't accepted but I don't think a confirmed sighting now in Maryland makes a 1999 record any more likely.
In NW Europe this species is now known to be more regular than once thought - it has offshore wintering grounds that are not visited by birders much (eg the Dogger Bank in the North Sea) - and it is a regular migrant in spring off NW Scotland. But there are plenty of pelagics offshore in winter along the E coast so it seems less likely there is an unknown population wintering in the general area.
What you are saying might make more sense in situations where there is no doubt as to the ID but some concern over provenance - was it an escape or not - and where more records might suggest that it is naturally occurring. But that doesn't apply in this case.
Best,
Clive
Now that we have photographic proof of a Yellow-Billed Loon visiting Maryland, perhaps it would be appropriate to reconsider an earlier sighting in November, 1999. It was spotted by three birders with experience with that loon from the west. They had no photographs so that’s why they think their sighting was not accepted by the records committee. What’s fascinating to me is the that 1999 sighting at Sandgates in St. Mary’s County along the Patuxent River is quite close to the present day sighting along that river! Thoughts?
--
James Tyler Bell
Mar 23, 2026, 10:01:09 PM (13 days ago) Mar 23
to Maryland & DC Birding, Scott Young
It would be interesting to get some input from anyone who was on the RC at the time. It's almost a given that birders will have some sort of camera now but not so much in 1999. Their details on eBird are pretty sparse so it would be insightful to know if they provided significantly more details in their RC submission. Their notes on Shrimpy were equally sparse but at that time, it was pretty reliable so almost a "continuing" status.
Now that we have photographic proof of a Yellow-Billed Loon visiting Maryland, perhaps it would be appropriate to reconsider an earlier sighting in November, 1999. It was spotted by three birders with experience with that loon from the west. They had no photographs so that’s why they think their sighting was not accepted by the records committee. What’s fascinating to me is the that 1999 sighting at Sandgates in St. Mary’s County along the Patuxent River is quite close to the present day sighting along that river! Thoughts?
--
Phil Davis
Mar 24, 2026, 1:48:03 AM (13 days ago) Mar 24
to Maryland & DC Birding
MD Birders:
There have been three previous reports of Yellow-billed Loon (YBLO) from Maryland:
MD/DCRC#: 1998-018
Species: Yellow-billed Loon
Location: MD, Saint Mary's, St. George Island, Piney Point, Evan's Seafood Restaurant
Date(s): 03/12/1998-03/27/1998
Number/Age/Sex: One bird reported.
Observer(s): Craig_P [finder], Wiegant_L, Lynch_L, Schooley_C, et al.
Documentation: Three color prints by P Craig. Sketches by L Weigant.
Decision: Not Accepted
Findings: The committee found that the various observer reports provided conflicting details on bill shape and coloration, as well as details of the head and neck pattern that did not conclusively support identification of Yellow-billed Loon. Since this species would be new not just to MD, but to the mid-Atlantic area, and the fact that early spring Common Loons are often mistaken for Yellow-billeds in Europe, a very high standard must be applied to this species. The committee also considered that the observations may be of different birds, but it still could not make a conclusive case. In the end, the committee could not find unequivocal evidence for a Yellow-billed Loon.
MD/DCRC#: 1999-200
Species: Yellow-billed Loon
Location: MD, Saint Mary's, Mechanicsville, Sandgates
Date(s): 11/03/1999-11/05/1999
Number/Age/Sex: One bird on three separate days, perhaps different birds?
Documentation: Sight report. Sketch. Not previously published.
Observer(s): Muise_C [finder] (Reported on 11/03/1999), Winter_E [finder] (Reported on 11/03/1999), Gatchet_JF (Reported on 11/04/1999), O'Brien_PJ (Sketch of bill, reported on 11/04/1999), Mulligan_M (Reported on 11/05/1999)
Decision: Not Accepted
Findings: Three sets of five observers reported single birds on three different days. The committee could not be certain if these were the same or different birds. Unfortunately, the reports from the first day (the closest view) did not capture critical detailed field marks necessary to eliminate Common Loon, such as extent of dark on the culmen, the straightness of the culmen, and presence/absence of an auriculal patch. Non-alternate Common Loons overlap with Yellow-billed in terms of bill coloration and also in the back plumage cross-barring that was noted. The reports from the second day were more detailed but the bird was at quite a distance (1 to 1.5 miles). While bill shape and color descriptions are intriguing, no auricular patch or back pattern was described to eliminate Common Loon. The third day report was brief and was not supported by other observers at this same location on the same day. In the end, the committee found that there were just not enough unequivocal details to eliminate Common Loon and support a first state record.
MD/DCRC#: 2008-165
Species: Yellow-billed Loon
Location: MD, Worcester, Assateague Island, Berlin, Assateague Island National Seashore, ORV zone - north end
Date(s): 12/14/2008
Number/Age/Sex: One bird.
Observer(s): Bucknam_J [finder], et al.
Documentation: Sight report. Written notes. Not published.
Decision: Not Accepted
Findings: If accepted, this would have been not just the first record for Maryland but also the first for the Mid-Atlantic region. Separation of winter loons is very challenging and must be based on more than bill color. Although details were provided that are suggestive of Yellow-billed Loon, the committee found that some details were equivocal and that this report did not provide additional details that would have made the identification less equivocal, such as a more precise description of the shape of bill, head shape, the presence of a dark auricular patch, neck thickness, eye size and placement, and overall size. Some members also felt that other similar species, such as Red-throated Loon, could just not be totally eliminated from consideration. Even though this report was not accepted, committee members applauded the observer efforts to document this sighting.
Comments on reopening of previous YBLO reports:
Even though I have stepped down as Secretary of the MD/DCRC for "new records" (from 1 Jan 2025, on), my intent is to still be involved with the historical records until we clean up the backlog and make most of the historical records "publishable." There has been no movement yet to form a new MD, DC, or MD/DC committee to deal with new records in this eBird era.
With regard to reopening of previous MD YBLO reports, the "old" committee standard was to entertain a reopening only if "new" information comes to light. The new information could relate to previously unknown observer documentation or newly published information on identification or distribution. The committee would not reopen previous report just because the current members did not agree with a previous decision.
There are cases where new information on species patterns of distribution was cited as the rationale for a reopening, but this generally is only used in cases where the previous not accepted record identification is not in question, but rather the issue was basically just one of provenance. For example, there is the famous case of the first North American Black-tailed Gull (BTGU): 1. In 1954, a dead BTGU specimen (First for North America) was found in San Diego on the beach but the CA Records Committee "Not Accepts" it due to no pattern of vagrancy ("ship assisted"?). 2. MD has an unequivocal 1984 Assateague photo but Not Accepts it based on lack of vagrancy patterns (second report for North America), 3. CA reopens their 1954 record and accepts it, citing the 1984 MD bird, 4. MD reopens our 1984 record and accepts it, citing the now-Accepted 1954 CA bird. Crazy, eh? But, remember that there was no question re the ID of the MD 1984 bird.
Good birding!
Phil Davis
There have been three previous reports of Yellow-billed Loon (YBLO) from Maryland:
MD/DCRC#: 1998-018
Species: Yellow-billed Loon
Location: MD, Saint Mary's, St. George Island, Piney Point, Evan's Seafood Restaurant
Date(s): 03/12/1998-03/27/1998
Number/Age/Sex: One bird reported.
Observer(s): Craig_P [finder], Wiegant_L, Lynch_L, Schooley_C, et al.
Documentation: Three color prints by P Craig. Sketches by L Weigant.
Decision: Not Accepted
Findings: The committee found that the various observer reports provided conflicting details on bill shape and coloration, as well as details of the head and neck pattern that did not conclusively support identification of Yellow-billed Loon. Since this species would be new not just to MD, but to the mid-Atlantic area, and the fact that early spring Common Loons are often mistaken for Yellow-billeds in Europe, a very high standard must be applied to this species. The committee also considered that the observations may be of different birds, but it still could not make a conclusive case. In the end, the committee could not find unequivocal evidence for a Yellow-billed Loon.
MD/DCRC#: 1999-200
Species: Yellow-billed Loon
Location: MD, Saint Mary's, Mechanicsville, Sandgates
Date(s): 11/03/1999-11/05/1999
Number/Age/Sex: One bird on three separate days, perhaps different birds?
Documentation: Sight report. Sketch. Not previously published.
Observer(s): Muise_C [finder] (Reported on 11/03/1999), Winter_E [finder] (Reported on 11/03/1999), Gatchet_JF (Reported on 11/04/1999), O'Brien_PJ (Sketch of bill, reported on 11/04/1999), Mulligan_M (Reported on 11/05/1999)
Decision: Not Accepted
Findings: Three sets of five observers reported single birds on three different days. The committee could not be certain if these were the same or different birds. Unfortunately, the reports from the first day (the closest view) did not capture critical detailed field marks necessary to eliminate Common Loon, such as extent of dark on the culmen, the straightness of the culmen, and presence/absence of an auriculal patch. Non-alternate Common Loons overlap with Yellow-billed in terms of bill coloration and also in the back plumage cross-barring that was noted. The reports from the second day were more detailed but the bird was at quite a distance (1 to 1.5 miles). While bill shape and color descriptions are intriguing, no auricular patch or back pattern was described to eliminate Common Loon. The third day report was brief and was not supported by other observers at this same location on the same day. In the end, the committee found that there were just not enough unequivocal details to eliminate Common Loon and support a first state record.
MD/DCRC#: 2008-165
Species: Yellow-billed Loon
Location: MD, Worcester, Assateague Island, Berlin, Assateague Island National Seashore, ORV zone - north end
Date(s): 12/14/2008
Number/Age/Sex: One bird.
Observer(s): Bucknam_J [finder], et al.
Documentation: Sight report. Written notes. Not published.
Decision: Not Accepted
Findings: If accepted, this would have been not just the first record for Maryland but also the first for the Mid-Atlantic region. Separation of winter loons is very challenging and must be based on more than bill color. Although details were provided that are suggestive of Yellow-billed Loon, the committee found that some details were equivocal and that this report did not provide additional details that would have made the identification less equivocal, such as a more precise description of the shape of bill, head shape, the presence of a dark auricular patch, neck thickness, eye size and placement, and overall size. Some members also felt that other similar species, such as Red-throated Loon, could just not be totally eliminated from consideration. Even though this report was not accepted, committee members applauded the observer efforts to document this sighting.
Comments on reopening of previous YBLO reports:
Even though I have stepped down as Secretary of the MD/DCRC for "new records" (from 1 Jan 2025, on), my intent is to still be involved with the historical records until we clean up the backlog and make most of the historical records "publishable." There has been no movement yet to form a new MD, DC, or MD/DC committee to deal with new records in this eBird era.
With regard to reopening of previous MD YBLO reports, the "old" committee standard was to entertain a reopening only if "new" information comes to light. The new information could relate to previously unknown observer documentation or newly published information on identification or distribution. The committee would not reopen previous report just because the current members did not agree with a previous decision.
There are cases where new information on species patterns of distribution was cited as the rationale for a reopening, but this generally is only used in cases where the previous not accepted record identification is not in question, but rather the issue was basically just one of provenance. For example, there is the famous case of the first North American Black-tailed Gull (BTGU): 1. In 1954, a dead BTGU specimen (First for North America) was found in San Diego on the beach but the CA Records Committee "Not Accepts" it due to no pattern of vagrancy ("ship assisted"?). 2. MD has an unequivocal 1984 Assateague photo but Not Accepts it based on lack of vagrancy patterns (second report for North America), 3. CA reopens their 1954 record and accepts it, citing the 1984 MD bird, 4. MD reopens our 1984 record and accepts it, citing the now-Accepted 1954 CA bird. Crazy, eh? But, remember that there was no question re the ID of the MD 1984 bird.
Good birding!
Phil Davis
At 22:00 03/23/2026, 'James Tyler Bell' via Maryland & DC Birding wrote:
It would be interesting to get some input from anyone who was on the RC at the time. It's almost a given that birders will have some sort of camera now but not so much in 1999. Their details on eBird are pretty sparse so it would be insightful to know if they provided significantly more details in their RC submission. Their notes on Shrimpy were equally sparse but at that time, it was pretty reliable so almost a "continuing" status.
Tyler Bell
jtyle...@yahoo.com
California, Maryland
On Monday, March 23, 2026 at 01:04:06 PM EDT, Scott Young <wsy...@gmail.com> wrote:
Now that we have photographic proof of a Yellow-Billed Loon visiting Maryland, perhaps it would be appropriate to reconsider an earlier sighting in November, 1999. It was spotted by three birders with experience with that loon from the west. They had no photographs so that's why they think their sighting was not accepted by the records committee. What's fascinating to me is the that 1999 sighting at Sandgates in St. Mary's County along the Patuxent River is quite close to the present day sighting along that river! Thoughts?
===================================================
Phil Davis, Secretary Emeritus
MD/DC Records Committee
2549 Vale Court
Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA
web:
https://mdbirds.org/records-committee/
email: pda...@ix.netcom.com
phone: 301-261-0184
===================================================
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages