Mediterranean Gull? Frampton Marsh (3 Viewers)

[Georgebirds]

I was just looking through the background of photos taken on my visit earlier this month, wondering if I'd unknowingly caught the Red-Breasted Goose among the Brents which was being discussed in another forum post. No such luck, but do I have a Mediterranean gull here?
Very distant poor pic cropped down (this was picked out in the background behind a much closer bird I was actually pointing the camera at), and we can't see the wing tips, but the black on the head definitely looks to reach further back/down than the Black-headeds. And they were definitely there, in this area of the reserve, cos I overheard several people talking about having seen them. But this would be a life-list addition if it is Mediterranean, so I'm being cautious and checking with your much more experienced opinions before I write it down as one!

 

[Andy Adcock]

Looks like a 'Med' to me.

 

[Butty]

Maybe. Can't really see what's what. If you think that you can see the hood-shape and are sure about its colour (or can even tell which way the head is pointing), you can tick it! 👍🏼 (but I wouldn't).

 

[Georgebirds]

I think the head is facing to the left and slightly down, the bill being the point which overlaps into the wing?
And the head does look blacker than the brown on the others here (the sun was behind me at this point in the day, and it was getting overcast, so I don't think it's a misleading shadow effect like that time I was confused over lesser-black-backed/yellow-legged gulls and it was just lighting!)

 

[Phil Andrews]

I would call that a Med (but wouldn't retrospectively tick something I didn't notice in the field but then saw in a photo)

 

[LittleBitOfBreadNoCheese]

I would call that a Med (but wouldn't retrospectively tick something I didn't notice in the field but then saw in a photo)

That's what cameras are for.

 

[wheatearlp]

That's what cameras are for.

Not in my book it's not. If I didn't see it in the field, then it won't go on my list.

 

[Andy Lakin]

I was pleasantly surprised to see c15 Meds on my last visit a few weeks ago so quite a few about.

 

[RichieTwitchy]

That's what cameras are for.

Definitely - if you've photographed it then you must've seen it.

If we're saying that because you didn't see it with the 'naked eye' then you can't tick it then a lot of scope users are gonna be well miffed having to untick all theirs!

The whole point of record shots is to either verify what you think you saw or to have the joy of others verifying it for you - surely?

It's true that there are some birders who have a 'saw it on television' tick list - and good for them - as long as we're all happy birders then live and let live I say.

(I wonder of any birders have a 'saw it on Birdforum' tick list?)

 

[wheatearlp]

Definitely - if you've photographed it then you must've seen it.

Not necessarily, if your focus was not on something in the background of your intended subject.

If we're saying that because you didn't see it with the 'naked eye' then you can't tick it then a lot of scope users are gonna be well miffed having to untick all theirs!

No one has mentioned 'naked eye'. Plainly, seen is understood to include seen through optics.

The whole point of record shots is to either verify what you think you saw or to have the joy of others verifying it for you - surely?

My interpretation of the OP is not that it was a record shot of a bird seen & to be (hopefully)identified later, but a bird later found in the background of a photo of another bird. This last comment could be incorrect, as I may be misinterpreting the OP.

 

[Derbyfella]

Not in my book it's not. If I didn't see it in the field, then it won't go on my list.

It’s an interesting take….is it a stretch from that to say if you saw something in the field but couldn’t identify it, then someone identified it for you….is that a tick?

 

[Essex Tern]

I need to intentionally take a picture of a specific bird - if I happen to take a shot and there is a bird I hadn’t noticed at the time I would try and get back and actually see the bird - if I failed to connect I might give myself a dubious caveated half tick, but it’s not as proper as a heard only tick for my liking, as I like to positively separate a specific bird in the field, even if I later firm up the ID, I at least know I was observing that bird with piqued interest.

 

[Georgebirds]

"This last comment could be incorrect, as I may be misinterpreting the OP"
No, you've got it right there - I was taking the photo for a duck much closer to me, and was aware of there being gulls in the background but not paying them any attention. It wasn't even an 'I'll take a photo of all these gulls and ID them later' type of photo, which I do sometimes deliberately take when there's a big mixed group on a lake or beach.

So yeah, it's kind of borderline on whether this should be on my list or not. I do willingly and guilt-free count birds I didn't ID til afterwards. Being a relatively new birder, if I hadn't ever done that, and only included things I instantly recognised on the spot, I'd have a much much smaller list, as the photos to review later are often critical in figuring out what I saw, and learning new birds.
Sometimes things are just too far away for me to see - I can't afford decent binoculars (and from a bit of reading on the forum here, it sounds like not-decent binoculars would be worse than useless), so I use my camera zoom for a closer more focused look than I can get with my eyes, to take photos I can look through later and pick out what birds were there. Those aren't really birds I saw, as in knowing-what-they-were when I was in the field, but they were birds I was looking towards, and to me that means I saw them.

But this one, I can see where people are coming from, in that I didn't knowingly look at it at the time. At what point does it count as seen?
If it's in my photos, then I was there and it was there and that's enough?
What about the times it was just a some-sorta-warbler seen at a distance with no idea which til I looked at the pictures later?
Or the waders I have to ask for IDs on here cos they're unfamiliar to me, do they only count the second or third time I'm seeing them and finally know what features to look for when I'm standing on the beach?
I read someone on here only counting a bird if they found it without help, I'm fine with one somebody else pointed out to me (I love that moment where one birder calls out an exciting sighting and everyone in earshot looks and feels so grateful that first person shared - it's a community experience!)
And I've seen several people who count heard-only birds, which I never do.
It's a tricky line to draw between whether something goes on a list or not, and I think there'd be many different answers on what counts and what doesn't.
My take on it is probably quite easygoing - it's not affecting or de-valuing anyone else's stricter listing if I count something I only saw clearly in my photos afterwards. Of course a sighting where I can recognise and enjoy the bird in the moment is much better, but a photos-only one will still be counted in the meantime. If I go there again, I'll spend more time hanging out with the gulls and looking determinedly for any with bigger black hats on!

 

[wheatearlp]

It’s an interesting take….is it a stretch from that to say if you saw something in the field but couldn’t identify it, then someone identified it for you….is that a tick?

Yes, as I would have been looking at that specific bird, so I'd have seen it. If ID'd by someone else at the time I could at least spend time looking at the relevant ID pointers 'live' rather than later from notes/photos.

 

[Stephen Dunstan]

Looks like a Med Gull to me but unless you live in the far reaches of Scotland and were visiting you'll get another soon enough.

 

[Dave Wall]

I was just looking through the background of photos taken on my visit earlier this month, wondering if I'd unknowingly caught the Red-Breasted Goose among the Brents which was being discussed in another forum post. No such luck, but do I have a Mediterranean gull here?
Very distant poor pic cropped down (this was picked out in the background behind a much closer bird I was actually pointing the camera at), and we can't see the wing tips, but the black on the head definitely looks to reach further back/down than the Black-headeds. And they were definitely there, in this area of the reserve, cos I overheard several people talking about having seen them. But this would be a life-list addition if it is Mediterranean, so I'm being cautious and checking with your much more experienced opinions before I write it down as one!

View attachment 1581228

There was one there Sunday good chance it’s the same one.

Mediterranean Gull, Frampton Marsh 19.05.2024

 

[wheatearlp]

"This last comment could be incorrect, as I may be misinterpreting the OP"
No, you've got it right there - I was taking the photo for a duck much closer to me, and was aware of there being gulls in the background but not paying them any attention. It wasn't even an 'I'll take a photo of all these gulls and ID them later' type of photo, which I do sometimes deliberately take when there's a big mixed group on a lake or beach.

So yeah, it's kind of borderline on whether this should be on my list or not. I do willingly and guilt-free count birds I didn't ID til afterwards. Being a relatively new birder, if I hadn't ever done that, and only included things I instantly recognised on the spot, I'd have a much much smaller list, as the photos to review later are often critical in figuring out what I saw, and learning new birds.
Sometimes things are just too far away for me to see - I can't afford decent binoculars (and from a bit of reading on the forum here, it sounds like not-decent binoculars would be worse than useless), so I use my camera zoom for a closer more focused look than I can get with my eyes, to take photos I can look through later and pick out what birds were there. Those aren't really birds I saw, as in knowing-what-they-were when I was in the field, but they were birds I was looking towards, and to me that means I saw them.

But this one, I can see where people are coming from, in that I didn't knowingly look at it at the time. At what point does it count as seen?
If it's in my photos, then I was there and it was there and that's enough?
What about the times it was just a some-sorta-warbler seen at a distance with no idea which til I looked at the pictures later?
Or the waders I have to ask for IDs on here cos they're unfamiliar to me, do they only count the second or third time I'm seeing them and finally know what features to look for when I'm standing on the beach?
I read someone on here only counting a bird if they found it without help, I'm fine with one somebody else pointed out to me (I love that moment where one birder calls out an exciting sighting and everyone in earshot looks and feels so grateful that first person shared - it's a community experience!)
And I've seen several people who count heard-only birds, which I never do.
It's a tricky line to draw between whether something goes on a list or not, and I think there'd be many different answers on what counts and what doesn't.
My take on it is probably quite easygoing - it's not affecting or de-valuing anyone else's stricter listing if I count something I only saw clearly in my photos afterwards. Of course a sighting where I can recognise and enjoy the bird in the moment is much better, but a photos-only one will still be counted in the meantime. If I go there again, I'll spend more time hanging out with the gulls and looking determinedly for any with bigger black hats on!

I was putting my point of view out there, but it's your list & you can add to it anything you want 👍
Re bins, there are some decent yet inexpensive models available. Try out a few if you are at a reserve with an optics shop or there is an optics retailer near you.

 

[Stephen Dunstan]

There was one there Sunday good chance it’s the same one.

I was surprised by the idea that Med Gulls would be that scarce at Frampton, a bit of googling showed there were 71 there earlier in the month though that was apparently a county record.

 

[Dave Wall]

I was surprised by the idea that Med Gulls would be that scarce at Frampton, a bit of googling showed there were 71 there earlier in the month though that was apparently a county record.

That’s a lot in one place, there was also 8 Little Gulls there as well Sunday.

 

[Butty]

Major strategic error to think you need to spend £000s to get worthwhile bins. Diminishing returns sets in early and severely in bins-buying - such that 2-3 hundred will get you a perfectly usable pair that will give you far greater facility in birdwatching than using just a camera. In my opinion. I totally decry the awful modern notion that a camera + internet can replace bins + field guide (unless one is more interested in photos than birds) 🤓