Sharp-tailed Sandpiper (A) (Calidris acuminata) | Start Date 0000-00-00 |
| Ref | First | Last | Location | County | 2 | 3 | Comment | Status |
1 | 89:3 | 2016-09-20 | 2016-09-25 | county road 32 just east of Tacoma Avenue | Carver | | | (record #2016-037, vote 10-0). First state record. Two juveniles were shown in the same photograph taken on 23 September 2016 and both remained until the last date indicated above (The Loon 89:6-8). Both individuals were accepted. It is unknown whether the second juvenile, first noticed and photographed on 23 September, was present during the entire period and went undetected by observers, or whether it arrived sometime between 20 September and 23 September. | Accepted |
| MOU | 2016-09-20 | 2016-09-25 | County Road 32 just east of Tacoma Ave. | Carver | | | | Accepted |
| avian information | 2016-09-20 | 2016-09-25 | | Carver | | | 9/20-25 Carver (first state record) (first county record) A long anticipated first state record was a juvenile discovered in a flooded field on 9/20 Carver (C.R. 32 east of Tacoma Ave.) ph. †PRH, with additional written documentation from 11 individuals and photographs from over 30. Amazingly, a second juvenile was photographed at this same location on 9/23 ph. †JWZ, m.ob. and both birds were reported through 9/25.
| |
| 90:83 | 2018-05-12 | | Wheeler Lake | Kandiyohi | | | (record #2018-031, vote 3-4). The report was submitted more than two months after the date of observation. While the observer indicated that the notes were taken within ten minutes of the observation, these were not included in the documentation. Not knowing what details were taken from the notes and what was taken from the numerous sources listed clouded a thorough evaluation of the documentation. There are two observers credited on the report without any specific indication as to what was seen and by whom. A separate report from each observer, done without collaboration, would have eliminated this issue. Second and (even more so) third photos in the PDF seem to show dark spotting on the rear flanks, which would effectively eliminate Pectoral Sandpiper, but because the photos are so badly degraded, it cannot be confidently determined that this is not noise in the digital data. The rest of the plumage in the photos is inconclusive and there is not enough distinction written about this bird's plumage compared to the range of plumages in Pectoral Sandpiper. Better photos unfortunately were not obtainable. | Not Accepted |
  |
  | One fall record (2016). |