1st Round

2nd Round

2/4/09.
Cliff Weisse--Accept

Nice report with good description and elimination of other species.

3/1/09.
Cliff Weisse--Accept

Concerns about the ear spot are bothersome but I can see missing a field mark like that on a species that is unfamiliar. It may also be explained by photo 6.4 on page 68 of Howell and Dunn which show a first cycle Little Gull with gray on nape and crown that connects with the ear spot, making it anything but obvious. The observer did describe gray all the way up the nape to the crown so this seems plausible. At any rate I feel the description in the report is sufficient to confirm the identification.

02-04-2009.
Sturts--Accept

Careful observation
Eliminated other gull species

02-21-2009.
Sturts --Accept

I'm staying with my first round accept vote.

02-08-2009.
Dave Trochlell--Accept

This was a difficult decision for me. The observer was only about ten feet from the immature Little Gull for at least 15 minutes, but apparently didn't see the bird's dark cap and ear patches, features I should be pretty obvious at that distance. But plumage wear and/or atmospheric conditions might have obscurred her view of these patches. Otherwise, the report seemed convincing and the observer made a commendable effort to compete this bird against other similar small gulls.

02-20-2009.
Dave Trochlell--Accept

I'm going to accept this one again. Aside from some irregularities in her report, the reporter made a very commendable and convincing description of the bird.

02-08-2009.
chuck trost--Reject, specific identification not established

I am bothered by several things on this sighting. It is the wrong time of year to expect a LIGU. The wing tip projection isn't long enough. The ear patch wasn't noticed, but should be obcious. The light gray patch up the back of the neck and on top of the head doesn't match a 2nd cycle LIGU.

02-20-2009.
chuck trost--Accept

After reading the thoughts on this record on the net, I'm changing my vote to accept. The lack of ear patch might be expected in a juvenile bird, and the season is correct for this age class.

17 February 2009.
Hardy--Accept

The wing tip projection and lack of ear-spot in this report seem odd, but the size, wing pattern and leg color do not suggest anything other than a Little Gull. This would be a second record for summer if the June 25 record is accepted.

24 February 2009.
Hardy--Accept

Same comments as first round.

2-18-09.
Carlisle--Reject, specific identification not established

While I can't think of what else it would be, I'm voting 'no' for now b/c I am bothered by 3 things:

1) if it wasn't in breeding plumage (no black hood described), where was the auricular spot?
2) the description of the light gray of mantle extending up onto crown does not seem consistent with this species
3) the observer did not mention that the bird flew yet referenced the dark underwing pattern

If it was a Little Gull, based on the description I'm struggling to determine what age it was.

3-4-09.
Carlisle--Accept

I remain confused by several described features of this bird (esp. in combination - but maybe this is due to the process of molt from 1st-summer into 2nd-winter plumage occurring at different rates on body vs. tail/wings???) but can't think of what else it is.

02-19-2009.
Darren Clark--Accept

This was a very well-written account. The combination of dark underwing and black on the tail is somewhat troubling, but everything else seems to fit.

03-03-2009.
Darren Clark--Accept

After re-reading the report, I still feel good about this report. The date is a bit early, but it's not unprecedented.