I know this discussion is about categorizing things on iNat, and I know that my comment is a general comment that is NOT about iNat, but I think that medical support is a good way to differentiate wild from domestic (“captive / cultivated”), whether humans, or dogs, or plants in your garden.
When the organism is suffering, do we intervene, or do we let nature take its course?
On iNaturalist, it seems to me, the following are wild:
animals that have never been captured by humans
rehabilitated animals after release
pet dogs that got lost and are living (or more likely dying of starvation) on their own
A bird caught for banding, held temporarily – if the location provided is the place it was captured or released
Weeds that come up in the pot holding a house plant
The following are not wild:
House plants
Pet animals
Farm animals that are where the farmer put them
Cattle on open range, as long as they belong to a rancher and will be rounded up
A wild animal held in a rehabilitation center (while it’s there)
Not a useful criterion, in my opinion. I’ve killed wild animals that were badly injured or very sick.
Thanks @sedgequeen, examples like this are quite helpful.
Obviously I don’t have an answer or I wouldn’t have started the topic, but my own personal opinion would be that at least some of these animals could qualify as captive (small enclosures for public viewing and under management), and at least some as wild (particularly those born inside the enclosure), but there is no practical way to know which are which.
I agree. I think the most practical course of action is to leave them as wild, since people using the data will most likely know about this.
Hence why those aforementioned bison were marked captive. And while I can understand the iNaturalist logic behind undoing that, from a philosophical standpoint, the person who marked them as captive was ultimately correct. Can they follow their historic migration routes?
Can these tuataras disperse to other areas?
Will the bison/wildebeest/tuatara be “rounded up” and returned to the designated reserve if they leave it?
Regarding those tuataras, are they dependent on humans for survival?
Look, I understand: it is comforting to think that nature will be okay, that the world still has room for wild creatures. I would really like to think of those tuataras as wild. But I mustn’t let that feeling close my eyes to the reality of their situation. Creatures that are human dependents (as opposed to human commensals) can’t really be considered to be “nature” anymore. This thread, it seems to me, is an example of what Bill McKibben prophesied: something that will be called “nature” by generations who have never seen nature. And it’s no use arguing with those generations because they cannot know any differently.
“Zealandia Te Māra a Tāne is the world’s first fully-fenced urban ecosanctuary with an extraordinary 500-year vision to restore the valley’s forest and freshwater ecosystems as closely as possible to pre-human state.
Set around a picturesque reservoir, Zealandia Te Māra a Tāne is home to some of New Zealand’s most rare and extraordinary wildlife—all thriving wild in a world-first protected sanctuary.” (Zealandia).
The Zealandia ecosanctuary is an example of a sanctuary land island. Tuatara have been released into the wild there.
“They [Tuatara] are recognised internationally and within New Zealand as species in need of active conservation management.” (Department of Conservation NZ).
“Tuatara once lived throughout mainland New Zealand, but naturally wild populations are now only found on islands”. “These islands are free of rodents and other introduced mammalian predators that prey on the eggs and young of tuatara, and compete for their invertebrate food.” (Department of Conservation NZ).
By iNaturalist rules the Tuatara at Zealandia are wild. Zealandia have released Tuatara in a research area and can be observed in the wild.
The iNaturalist options are: captive animal; cultivated plant. Wild animal: wild, escaped, released. Wild plant: starting from the natural dispersal of seed in the wild for example.
The definition of wild habitat includes areas considered to be owned by and under the control of humans.
Sorry to sound pedantic, but we have discussed pretty much all of this in the 45 posts above. I largely agree for the tuatara loose in the exclosure.
What do you make of the managed tuatara that most people would observe in the smaller, managed enclosures, and in your opinion how are they not animals in a zoo?
Wild: Tuatara in the New Zealand native bush (assuming it’s not in a zoo in the native bush).
Zoo: zoological park; having a menagerie collection of exotic animals kept in captivity for exhibition.
One could debate about zoo and ecosanctuary definitions.
I think the outer perimeter predator fence around Zealandia does not change the definition of the inner mice proof fenced area. Think of the inner area as a separate entity that has a buffer around it. Prehuman native bush was without mice.