Appreciate your perspective, but will keep doing it my way. :)
I need to define basics here. I need to say that no species has ever been described without a killed, pinned specimen designated as type. This has been the case since the first insects were described and even is the case now.
As to ethics. Many people have large concerns about ethics. I think they should know that that is how biology runs. I used to have concerns but now I collect a lot. It’s often seen as crazy but is not.
It is important to mention that -
If you do not collect what is already known, you will never know its cryptic diversity.
There are museum which have tone and tons of specimens collected from (often historic) expeditions. The RBINS, BPBM, UASB, AM, CAS, NWAFU, NHMUK & MNHN are some institutions/museums (all are abbreviated names) with millions of specimens of various creatures from different parts of the world. It is true that although a limited amok of people are (and were) collectors, the amount of collected creatures currently stored around the world outnumbers humans, which is amazing. A lot is hidden there, waiting to be discovered.
After all, there is a sad and dark side of discovery which is the source of light on all taxonomy and taxonomic problems.
I know you’re young, but I do hope that you will learn that the way you use language is important. You don’t think it’s crazy. I think that collecting (not by scientists or biologists in an official capacity) is another sign of selfish humans who simply want to own something. “It’s often seen as crazy, but I don’t think it is” is, in my humble opinion, a less aggressive way to put forward your idea.
Science without ethics is… problematic…
This is such a challenging topic, and it’s always interesting to read all the different perspectives. I would just point out that we all have our line somewhere, and by choosing to continue living, we are inevitably causing pain and suffering to other organisms. We all need to make our own decisions as to what is and isn’t acceptable to us personally. I do find it fascinating, from a psychology perspective, that intentionality always seems to loom large in these discussions. For example, I’ve had people who actually mow their lawns or burn logs in camp fires chastise me for collecting insect specimens. Their insect slaughter may objectively kill more bugs, but they don’t “mean to” do it, which makes it more ethically acceptable to them (see: trolley problem).
Personally, spending a lot of time looking at tiny organisms in the microscope has changed my perspective on all this. When I’m finished looking at the rotifers, seed shrimp, water fleas, and insect larvae under the scope, I feel really bad discarding the little vial of water in the grass, knowing that when it dries, all those little guys will die of desiccation. Then I remember that every time I go in the water and walk out dripping wet all over the dry ground, I’m dumping untold thousands of little arthropods and other animals all over the ground, doomed to suffer and die of exposure. Ultimately, I killed more arthropods to produce this observation of a live in situ fish than I did to make this observation of a pinned moth. But which one produces more more moral outrage? Well, the one with “deliberate” killing, of course.
Sadly I often see these discussions devolve into what I call the “race to the bottom”, a form of one-upmanship in which everyone tries to obtain a position of moral superiority by listing all the things they don’t do (and chastising those who do, either implicitly or explicitly) to minimize their impact: “I don’t eat meat” “Well, I don’t even eat animal products” “Well I don’t even fish catch-and-release” “Well I don’t even mow” “Well I don’t even drive” “Well I don’t even use electricity” “Well I don’t even step on grass” “Well I don’t even go into the water” … It can go on and on until anything short of “Well I live in a transparent bubble with an organic garden that I fertilize with my own waste” becomes morally unacceptable. And somewhere along the progression, we all switch from “that seems like a reasonable sacrifice” to “now that’s just silly”. I think it’s best to just accept that virtually every action we take is having some negative impact somewhere, everyone draws their line somewhere, and telling someone else to move their personal ethical line is rarely productive.
I carefully move spiders out of my house, refuse to mow my property, plant nectar sources for bees, scavenge recently roadkill deer to fill my freezer with meat, and take in stray cats to keep them from killing birds. I also kill and collect moth specimens for taxonomic research, hunt squirrels in areas where they’re agricultural pests, have campfires that burn bug-filled logs, and go fishing sometimes. Those may seem like hypocritical statements, but if we’re honest with ourselves, we all hold these sorts of dissonant views. We all decide what we think is and isn’t okay, and then we secondarily try to fit it into a coherent ethical framework that makes sense of what does and doesn’t feel right to us. Trying to pick holes in our own ethical framework is how we grow. I think it’s more productive to look inwardly and critique our own ethical lines are than to imagine malicious intent in the ethics of others. No one has ever been told words that amount to “you’re a barbaric monster for what you do” and responded “yeah, you’re right, I’d better change my ways”.
For sure. I agree with almost all of what you say. The OP was talking specifically about creatures which do feel pain being kept alive for photos, and I have a similar “red line” to her.
My own point is not that there is a clear and objective line, but that our language indicates what we think of other people’s lines. It’s tiring to always see wild creatures being viewed through a utilitarian lens, instead of living beings like us. “We need to kill them so that we know more about them” just doesn’t do it for me anymore.
I only recently discovered this, and now when I start identifying each evening, I always start with observations from this project :)
fwiw, I don’t see this sentence as being the least bit aggressive. I also don’t perceive you to be young.
I’ve been watching this topic since it started, and very much enjoy reading everyone’s views on something I have thought a lot about.
I’m afraid I am getting off topic, but I would like to address your point. Collecting by non-professionals is a very spotty topic, and arguably one of the toughest ones. But I do disagree with your claim of “collecting is a sign selfish humans simply wanting to own something”. Please understand, that simply because you are not a professional biologist does not mean what you do is less important or without good intent. Nevertheless, great care and ethics must be taken when collecting. And I believe only when necessary.
Understand, there is some degree of biasness when it comes to my standpoint as I am someone who collects organisms only for scientific purposes. That is, in order to better understand, and ultimately try to help scientists better understand something. In my case, that is generally, springtails (my particular area of interest). Without collecting, a species ID wouldn’t be possible. Not out of there being a bunch of indistinguishable species, but rather a great many species we (“we” referring to myself and other folks on iNaturalist, whether a professional scientist or not) are yet to figure out the habitus, simply because there has been a great lack of research on them, as is the case for many neglected soil arthropods. And so, doing this, we can better understand what species are found where, and what they look like so that an ID can simply be based on habitus in the future. And if we left all of this work to “the professionals”, how much less work would we have accomplished? In fact, over the last several years, I would argue our understanding of springtails has grown more than it ever has in such a short span of time! Largely due to citizen scientists.
And perhaps that’s the beauty of it! That ordinary people, no matter their background, can accomplish so very much if they have the will and equipment to do so. I’m not saying us citizen scientists can accomplish equally the amount of work as a professional (though I would argue some can), but please do remember how much of science is only possible because of nonprofessionals having accomplished much work previously “reserved” for the biologists. :)
This thread started to go off-topic in the first response:
The thread mostly got back on track, by talking about Fish Handling on iNaturalist, but now it’s starting to drift again:
That’s fair. I’m a big fan of fish pictures because it encourages kids (mine and others that I take fishing) to connect with the natural world. It makes it easier to talk to them about topics like conservation, pollution, ethics, etc. You have their attention. I’m fine with moving things back on-topic. On the other hand… it’s not like fish are the only type of organism iNat users are handling… so I can understand and accept how the topic drifted.
Apologies, I’ll steer away from the posting and just keep to being a reader. :-)
Tim, you’re a great writer, and I love when you share your thoughts!
It’s just that we have a number of existing threads on the ethics of collecting, so I tried to gently nudge the topic back on track.
Regarding insect splatter–it’s true that insect populations have decreased and this concerns me too, however it is important to remember that cars have become much more aerodynamic since the 1990s. I recently saw a number of bugs splattered on the front and the license plate of some unaerodynamic SUVs and pickups in a hotel parking lot.
Back to fish…I just submitted a feature request to be able to hide or content warning photos of roadkill, hunting photos, or fishing photos on the website. Many sorts of these photos can be valuable/interesting observations and I think people should be able to upload them, but I’ve seen lots of people say they don’t want to see gore on the website.
Me specifically, my dad used to take me fishing and we’d eat it for dinner. As an adult, I don’t have the executive functioning to figure out how to do it. A while back, I checked and nets were not permitted in Iowa where I lived at the time. However, I did have great fun taking photos of catfish and some sharks other people caught and released when I went to Galveston last month.
I think it’s important to remember that in many cases, it is not possible to swim in a body of water, either because the law does not permit it, or because the water is dangerous due to pollution, parasites, pathogens, etc. At Tres Rios in Phoenix AZ last year, I took a photo of a fish two men had caught (I gestured and they clearly consented to me taking a photo). Fishing is permitted there but I doubt I would be allowed to swim there, and it’s probably too shallow to swim there anyways!
I wonder how many of you have watched "The Good Place.’ In one sense, it presents the ethical quandary of modern life and how seemingly ethical decisions result in the unwitting acceptance of unethical actions that allow that decision. Becoming vegan to save animals from trauma may require the felling of forest to provide additional land for agriculture. Therefore, is it even ethical to be vegan? You could argue these topics ad nauseum and never reach a consensus. The best you can do is act within your own moral framework to choose actions that you feel are ethical, moral and just. If you feel traumatizing fish by handling or killing them for photos is immoral, then definitely do not do it. But judging others by your own moral framework is fraught with peril as it places your ethical virtue above others when, IMO, few of us know what is the absolute truth of morality. Is preventing trauma to fish more important than providing protein to starving children in developing countries? My moral values see this as a simple question - of course it isn’t. So is taking a photo of a fish I caught unethical? It doesn’t seem so to me, but your mores may differ.
Me too - sorry - just to say I agree with you, citizen science specifically for scientific purposes wasn’t what i had in mind.
? that went badly wrong. Good intentions abandoned. Even the farmers who were growing the ingredients suffered.
turning rain forests into hamburgers - is where that issue started. Vegans would eat the UNhamburgered soy beans.
A little closer to the topic. People have asked what to do with their collection – herbarium, shells, whatever – the answers range between – ask at your local university / museum. No thanks ? Try a school.
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/herbarium-to-do-or-not-to-do/33302
and from there https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/pros-and-cons-of-specimen-collecting/25115
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/when-you-no-longer-want-your-accumulated-nature-stuff/59563
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/colonial-repatriation-of-stolen-scientific-treasures/44489/10
This thread had so many valid points in diverse topics, but it seems tainted a bit by ideology, even if it’s closer to mine, it seems like a bias’s towards a fully constructive exchange with people with different views, specially considering those that aren’t in the forum.
It resonates with me though, as a kid I was raised by the sea in an island and always been personally against fishing (although a common practice there) and some friends where fishermen (modest fisherman with a small wooden boat). I remember them telling me over and over that fish don’t experience pain, and I already knew then by basic observation that it was a non-sense, just by looking the fish reaction to barely touching the hook. Despite being young I remember speaking with my parents about how we always tend to justify our actions by some stories to make us feel better. But these fishermen didn’t have a negative impact into our local biodiversity. Our local biodiversity got damaged by many other practices (trawling, huge fishing boats, excessive construction, pollution, etc.). That damage is perhaps irreversible, and it came with less visible suffering that hooks.
If we’re going to consume an animal, I understand that harm is part of the killing, but cruelty is not. Yet, documenting the local biodiversity by the fishermen is a good way to complement our incomplete data, specially when biodiversity is being reduced (how can we be sure it is if we lack data?). I don’t think it’s fair to alienate the community of fishermen and hunters from the data collection. I personally don’t ID fished or game, and I’m not indifferent to seeing it’s pictures, but I know it’s happening regardless whether they upload it or not on INaturalist.
It’s not aggressive. It is a harsh truth. I have a friend from Thailand who collects lots of specimens for me, on which I can hopefully, someday, describe new species on. His emails never cease to amaze.
It is a matter of fact that everyone’s views add a new perspective. I will cover some below. On the topic of ownership, I have a good collection of hoppers, and so collect some just to have a sample specimen. I collect each specimen with great alacrity, knowing that each one could be root for a new discovery, new distribution record, or what not.
Many species need identification from their genitalia, which again will drop the next ethical “explosive” of truth on this conversation. But it’s true.
Imagine one day that you see that there is a mantis, who is about to catch a beetle. Denying it its lunch will starve it but is ethically right for the beetle. Letting the mantis eat it will feel ethically right for the mantis, but not for the beetle.
The obvious option is not to interfere. Thing is there is no way to never harm a creature while living on this planet. It is better to use your own freedom.
In the end there is no ethical line to this. Ethics is defined by your mind. If you say that you will prevent harming any creature you can, you will soon realise that not everything can be worked out & ethical dilemmas do exist, even to a perspicacious brain. Everyone’s boundaries will draw a new line and add room for the next dispute.
Thanks. I know that critics will abhor on any view we add to this topic. I am just 13, for your reference, so I am young.
It started with fish-handling but the truth is that not every ethical question is limited to fish. And if the question is fish, I should warn you that you too are a lobe-finned fish, taxonomically & technically. This conversation has a larger implication. I wish the mods (@cthawley?@tiwane?) could change the topic to “Observations ethics” or similar.
Absolutely correct. If I’m not a professional, does not mean that I do not know about true hoppers etc. I may be better than some experts (I’ve corrected several wrong ids an expert suggested to my Thai friend), although I do not want this to again take on the point of “selfish”, because it is certainly not.
I have added another not above but need to extend.
Starfish are certainly not fish but handling them will cause more harm and often even kills them. It is way more dangerous for the individual starfish than the fish. But because we know, as naturalists, that they are Echinoderms, our narrow-minds keep them out of topic, even when they suffer more.
Of course, because the vast ocean will always have more. In general we can’t prevent all animals from being eaten. Think about this:
One day two people were having a conversation at the beach:
Person 1: Hey, you know what? I stopped some fishermen from fishing telling them about the consequences.
Person 2: What were those fishes like?
Person 1: It was a big group of silver ones with black lines on each side.
Person 2: I think I saw that. Sometime later some sharks come to eat them instead.
Person 1: So I saved fishes’ lives when they were destined to be killed anyways? It would have been a better choice to have eaten them!
I think this well illustrates how personal ethical boundaries, selfishness and nature itself (the sharks) work. You can spare some fishes, but who knows that whether they actually survived. The ethics often changes with the situation.
Once again, it isn’t a “harsh truth”, it’s something you believe in. This is not an objective, physical truth.
In your imagined dialogue, at least sharks ate and survived another day. Humans have more options.
And finally, though I am not vegan, it takes up a lot less space from natural environments than eating meat.
The issue is: is it ethical to handle a fish while they are suffocating in order to take photos? Some people think it is, some people think it isn’t. You have the right to state your opinion, but you have the responsibility to listen to debate! You can derail the conversation by saying, “Well I do it in the right way, for the right reason” or “But those people are also not ethical so they have no right to criticise me”, sure. But is that responding to the ethical question put forward at the start?
This is one of the reasons that I created a standard warning photo to include as the first image in any observation of roadkilled animals. (I don’t post them often, but when I do, it’s usually to illustrate the dangers of people treating a local wildlife refuge like the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.)
As far as the topic goes, it’s been years since I dipped a line; when I did, I was hypothetically fishing for supper with Granddad.* He was adamant about paying attention to legal catch size, so we released anything that wasn’t over the requirement, and as quickly and carefully as possible.
I’m thinking about adding a microtank to my field gear, as that would also come in handy for ode nymphs. The more difficult part may be finding a place where dip-netting is allowed—and whatever permits are necessary–but I’ll cross that bridge later. In the meantime, I’ll just make sure that I’ve got my lens hood, and hope that there’s not too much distortion for an ID.
*(Hypothetically, since paying strict attention to size requirements sometimes meant that we didn’t come home with fish for supper—which suited Grandmama just fine.)