Should the Chillingham Wild Cattle be considered wild on INaturalist? Given that the large enclosure was built arund the feral cattle and that they have no human interaction in terms of feed ect and that they live as if they are fully wild shoudn’t they be marked as wild? The only thing about them that would suggeet otherwise is thst there a fence around them - yet many national parks and large nature resevres do the same and the animals inside are considred wild, why are the Chillingham Wild Cattle any different?
3 Likes
iNat “guidelines” are only guidelines, not strict rules, and people crave finding “gray areas” to ruin the day. 
Many users from all cultures and venues have brought different views to the table over many many discussions, here on the forums or under iNat observations.
Some lines of reasoning seen in the past
Some would say that cattle, ponies, kittens etc. must not be labelled wild “or else it would show wild cows and wild cats and wild horses everywhere on the map and it’s absurd”.
Some would say that anything that has an owner as evidenced by a microchip/eartag can not be labelled wild “even if it goes on a stroll of its own will or escapes from a zoo”.
Some would say that creatures intentionally released in a place surrounded by barbwire -even if distantly- can not be labelled wild “for they can’t move as far as they like”.
Some would say that whatever has significant impact on ‘wild’ habitats, by grazing, trampling, hunting etc. can be labelled wild “for its roles are those of any wild beast”.
Do as you please (‘captive’ or ‘wild’ - your choice) then watch how later votes by the ‘community’ make a consensus evolve. That’s democracy. :)
4 Likes
my personal rule is all gray areas should defer to observer’s intent. If you think it should be mark “wild”, leave a note that they are wild and it hopefully should be kept that way. If you think they are captive, please mark it as such.
In my opinion these are wild
1 Like
The problem is that iNat also doesn’t allow a gray area in between “Wild” and “Captive”. An observation can either be one or the other. The default isn’t always the same either, the same theoretical cow might be automatically marked wild in one area, but then be automatically marked captive if it crosses an arbitrary geopolitical boundary.
It would be great if iNat updated their guidance on the difference between wild and captive to specifically address some of the more common edge cases like this.
1 Like
I suspect things would be debated less often if the only toggle was a checkbox ‘is captive’ ‘is cultivated’ (checked or not) – getting rid entirely of the most contentious word (“wild”).
Chillgham? Can you correct the title?
Thanks
It would be awesome if Inat made a category in between Research Grade and Casual where observations still count towards the leaderboard and your life list but don’t go to GBIF or other external websites.
It would be great for all those garden, zoo, and pet escapees that don’t reproduce.
1 Like
I think an additional check box for wild animals that live in fenced wildernesses (if you know what I mean by that). Especially for animals like the chilligham cattle, perhaps even the wisent or enclosed beavers (but they seem more captive).
1 Like
In various instances you would have to walk quite a lot, simply to ensure that the piece of fence seen in a place is really enclosing anything… IMHO the addition of various ‘in-between’ choices (I could see the need for ‘escapee’, ‘releasee’, ‘rewildee’, ‘fenced wild’) would make things even more difficult to grasp, while not necessarily more convenient to assess in the field.
3 Likes
I would consider them wild, considering they breed on their own and otherwise function as a wild animal, they arent domesticated or tamed despite being descended from domesticated animals.
iNat’s definition of “wild” is very different than the conventional definition of “wild”. It has nothing to do with whether the individual is tame or not, but whether they are a) actively cared for by humans and b) are free to choose where they want to be (i.e., they were observed at that location at that time because they chose to be there, not because they were put there by humans). It is the second part of this definition that leads to regularly recurring debates about what counts as “wild” on iNat – e.g., in this case, does the presence of a fence make them not wild?
3 Likes
They probably meet the definition of feral, as do the so-called “wild horses” of the American West (descended from formerly domesticated stock), even if there is some restriction in their ability to move elsewhere.
Looks like some earlier iNat obs of these are Research Grade.
Just adding a point of clarification that
generally isn’t a criterion for determining captive or wild on iNat. Reproduction only matters in the case of “garden plant that is reproducing on its own and spreading outside of the intended gardening area” (https://help.inaturalist.org/en/support/solutions/articles/151000169932-what-does-captive-cultivated-mean-)
I’m fully aware of iNat’s definition, that is what I was referring to here, and these cattle would fall under iNat’s definition of wild. Many species worldwide have populations that are entirely enclosed within fences, as with many african megafauna and Bison in the United States, but almost all of these are still considered wild. Those cattle have been wild in that location for hundreds of years without traveling much at all. we added fences, but that doesn’t change much. a) they are not actively cared for b) no one really knows where the cattle originated from hundreds of years ago, but by now yes, they are 100% there on their own and breed freely on their own without human intervention.
1 Like
You referred specifically to “domesticated” and “tamed”, which are completely irrelevant for iNat’s definition of “wild”. A domesticated, tame plant or animal can be wild on iNat if it escaped and got to a new location on its own. A non-domesticated, non-tame animal can be “captive/cultivated” if it was removed from its habitat or put in an enclosed area which it cannot leave (location not chosen by the individual).
Breeding on its own is also irrelevant to iNat’s definition – captive animals may breed freely without human intervention and still be captive.
For animals in large enclosures, iNat’s definition is ambiguous – it does not specify how large the enclosure has to be before it de facto no longer limits the freedom of movement.
2 Likes
Yes, because those words refer to the cattle in question, outside of iNaturalist’s scope. I was providing context for that specific population as that relates to the original question.
These cattle have not been managed or used intentionally by people for centuries, evolving into their own breed. The fence that surrounds them now in a massive area is a relatively recent thing, but does not affect their movements or natural existence in any way, as they have remained in virtually the same area for centuries. The location they are in was chosen by their feral ancestors and current individuals. I don’t see how the fence is relevant here given they have never left the area historically outside of human intervention(ergo taking a couple individuals out to start another colony in scotland that is now extirpated). IMO this is a fairly clear cut case for answering OP’s question.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.