Thanks for your reply, looks like I logged in right as it came in. I started thinking more about what the response would be like to the proposal of a code of conduct, and thought it might be possible that it had already come up and been debated/rejected because of cultural reasons.
I personally don’t want anyone to be shamed for two reasons, 1) that’s not the goal, and 2) studies on human behavior show that while shaming can be effective, it’s not as effective as positive reinforcement and can push people to do just the opposite.
Part of why I mentioned that a code of conduct would be ‘non-enforceable’ was that I can see there is a some pushback from those who take habitat disturbance as a given (e.g. “it’s already happening, and in worse ways”) or ‘right’ (“I’ve always done it this way”) if you will.
I think the main goal/function of the code would be to make people aware of the impact of various types of actions such as handling animals and encouraging a reduction to a minimum or at least a consideration of impacts to the animal in terms of adding stress or energetic costs.
Ethical concerns aside, in a lot of cases, casual (non-scientific, permit-based) handling of animals in various jurisdictions (i.e. State and Federal land) is illegal and can be met with fines/warnings, so at the very least, I think people should be informed of this possibility and encouraged to learn more and understand the law in their particular locality.
I think the links I included in the thread on “do you feel that by exploring nature we are also killing it?” are somewhat self-explanatory in making the case that human recreational activity does have impacts that are under-studied as well as being high on the list of possible threats to endangered species. In thinking about this some more, I remembered another thread where I tried to discuss the energetic costs of animals like mule deer and grouse being disturbed (and increasing their daily energy expenditures by an estimated >10%) by off-trail hiking and winter sports.
Interestingly, the authors in the study including effects of human presence on mule deer showed that:
“ Approximately 50% of recreationists felt that recreation was not having a negative effect on wildlife. In general, survey respondents perceived that it was acceptable to approach wildlife more closely than our empirical data indicated wildlife would allow. Recreationists also tended to blame other user groups for stress to wildlife rather than holding themselves responsible.”
I feel it necessary at this point to mention that I am not against people (including myself) exploring nature and documenting what they see. As an ideal, I would hope that a code of conduct would encourage iNaturalist users to reduce their disturbance of nature (including irreversible habitat modifications) to preserve the animals they want to document. As a practical matter, I know that people will do as they decide, but based on some of the demonstrated negative impacts of some of the activities that people are engaging in to document life on iNat, it seems somewhat cavalier for an organization that places educating the public as one of the its’ highest goals to not at least provide a place for new users to start, and for existing users to be aware of possible impacts of their activities. This should possible even be explicitly in the code, to not shame others since that borders on harassment (which every website I’m aware of has already has policies in place against).
All that being said, I truly enjoy using iNaturalist to learn more about the ecosystems and organisms where I live, and I recognize the immense value to science and the public at large of data produced by users documenting their discoveries, however, I ask that we consider how we come by these observations and acknowledge the potential negative impacts this may have on wildlife and their habitats. I too have personally gone from an attitude of not disturbing animals at all, to learning more and going out with permitted individuals to capture, record, and band birds and herps, and now personally not engaging in these activities unless in an educational or research context.
It’s definitely a sensitive/contentious topic, but I think the discussion is essential going forward as the iNat gains popularity.