Hello
Thank you for all your answers. It is obviously not a question of taking the place of the authorities who hold the power of police (even if, in general, they apply it little in terms of biodiversity). It is more a question of internal ethics in the community. Indeed, if the naturalists themselves consider that the laws on the protection of species should not be applied in a strict way, it would be incoherent to have a more radical discourse with other actors (industrialists, developers … ). The impact is not the same but symbolically, it is important. I am quite alarmed by the reactions which minimize the effects of handling on fragile species such as dragonflies, or other effects such as stress or contamination. I myself have participated in a good number of scientific studies and I know very well that as soon as you manipulate, there is a percentage of loss. I also know that we are not all so careful with animals, I have seen experienced naturalists handle animals like objects. It is therefore not for nothing that there are certain laws in certain territories.
Of course, it is not a question of “forbidding to photograph” what one wants, it is not a question either of prohibiting practices which are already forbidden, but it is a question of reflecting on the act of publication via iNaturalist. For example, part of my activity consists of convicting car salesmen who advertise their brand by showing photos of off-road vehicles in natural spaces (which is prohibited by law in France). Justice considers that as this practice is prohibited, then it is illegal to promote it by posting photos of this activity. The result can be quite expensive for car dealers.
The question is therefore rather to know if iNaturalist assumes to promote illegal practices, or to work against their trivialization. What seems trivial to us on an individual scale, multiplied by the thousands of users and millions of photos of iNaturalist, may become significant. The naturalistic activity can quickly become an object of unlimited consumption like any other and we must remain vigilant (and critical) regarding our own practices.
As we can see in these exchanges, the capture of protected species is commonly not considered as e problem among naturalists, and the question of legality, not always well known. For me it is important beyond the scientific name of a species, to be interested in its rights.
For iNaturalist maybe just something symbolic has to be done, but I think we shouldn’t let people think that “it’s not a problem”. I like the idea of the pedagogic warning reminding iNaturalists to consider the adequacy of their photos with the legislation in force in the territory concerned, at the time concerned. I also like the idea of a possible appreciation of each photo by users in the form of a rating.
Bravo!
We had a long battle in South Africa. To protect African black oystercatchers who nest on sandy beaches from fishermen who must be able to drive along the beach to where they want to be.
Lots of complaining! But now our birds are protected.
I think picking butterflies and dragonflies is also an illegal practice, and it needs to stop, I was thinking of commenting on the observation of a person individually but I don’t know what to do next. It is the same with picking birds with their wings and all.
That could be useful for plants too. I have a photo of a plant that I’m touching to get a better photo. I later regretted it. I wrote in the notes section about advising other people to not do what I did.
Maybe it would be better to have the info in line with the marks indicating things like invasive, endemic, and endangered next to the species name rather than in the DQA. Sounds like a good idea for a separate feature request unrelated to legality.
After discussion, we won’t be moving forward with this request. As mentioned in the discussion, there is simply too much complexity to be boiled down to an annotation or something like it. Asking questions and educating others is of course fine if it’s done diplomatically.