In light of Ruth Sullivan's comments, it appears that an apology is in
order. It was not my intent to confirm a positive ID of the arctic loon. I
am definitely not qualified to make that confirmation. That is best left up
to the Rare Bird Committee. My only intent was to say that the bird in
question is present and viewable. In the future I will use parenthisis
around the common name, or the words 'reported', 'purported', or 'possible'
prior to the common name in my posts. If my report has inconvenience anyone
please accept my apologies.

Doug Schonewald
Moses Lake