I spent my childhood in an island where the majority of the locals didn’t appreciate the fauna if it wasn’t for the edibility. Of course there were a very little few that were promoting it and researching it but it was hard to hear from them.
Now, however, when I go back after more than 10 years passed, I see a crowds of locals “rediscovering” their nature. At first I saw all the negative aspects (beautiful lonely places losing their charm, becoming harder to make observations in trails, etc.) but from a broader perspective I see a real interest in their nature and to protect it. And there is cost, but I now believe that it’s a small fee to pay to protect it. After all, we can’t ask them to be willing to protect something they don’t see. But we’re not speaking of overcrowding yet, because it’s still a minority but one that matters now.
Anyhow, this topic is one that I have at heart for several reasons, but I wanted to share this little personal experience which inspired me despite my little natural misanthropy.
It seems to me that most of the harms being discussed here are a result of people not being involved with nature, and not engaging with the natural world around them.
The idea of iNaturalist, I believe, is that when people are more interested in seeing delicate flowers, they are less likely to step on them in pursuit of picturesque selfies. When people are more interested in finding shy animals, they are less likely to stroll through the woods blasting loud music. When people start finding rare endangered plants, they are more likely to want to protect vital habitats.
Or, when people learn about the critters that live under rocks, they are less likely to stack those rocks into piles or use them to spell out words. (Yes, I am talking about the guy who wrote “WILL YOU MARRY ME?” with rocks at a nearby park. If some guy did that for me, I would push him off the cliff. Of course, I would not be dating a guy who would do that.)
This is not something anyone wants to admit, but the sad reality is that most rare vagrant birds are not going to make it safely back to a place where they can live and thrive and contribute to the survival of their species. Of course there are exceptions, like owls in the winter (which are not really vagrants). It’s absolutely not good to be harassing them, you can absolutely experience them without that, but it’s more of an ethical conversation than an ecological one.
…also, someone complimented my hat just yesterday.
Is there any evidence to support the idea that iNaturalist encourages better behavior? Or does it just attract people who are inclined to behave well outside in the first place?
Or worse, does it encourage (or at least not discourage) the people who behave badly to post on iNaturalist while continuing to behave badly? If iNaturalist has ever published any guidance about appropriate behavior out of doors I haven’t been able to find it. Which means very few other people will either.
I don’t follow you. The harms described here may represent misguided ways of being involved with nature, but that is still being involved with nature. Life listers who harry a rare bird have been around longer than selfies and social media. In some recent threads about herps, there was mention of an area where people looking for herps had turned over and replaced every rock so many times that the moisture seal was broken and those rocks – although still in place – were no longer suitable shelter.
Or, as I read some years ago in a book about wildcrafting herbs, “Where did the bottom of the stand used to be?” – This was a criticism of the “sustainability” advice to harvest from the bottom of the stand so that seeds falling from higher up would replenish it. In the same book, it asked, what if ten wildcrafters come to that stand over the course of a week, and each one leaves it visually unchanged from the way they found it?
We are two people. We are better behaved, since learning to engage with nature.
I am also more aware. Don’t trample in the streams on Table Mountain since our ghost frogs need clear water. Stay on the exisiting paths to prevent more erosion.
I would agree with @teellbee that my spouse and I are
since discovering iNaturalist in 2015. This is self evident and goes beyond just us to those around us who, with us or because of us, have also become more aware. Stewardship is the goal rather than exploitation. But, since we have started late there is so much to learn and model.
I can’t feel too proud of our technological advancements. A little virus has shown how it can stop everything. Diseases that were completely eradicated are now coming back as deadly diseases (e.g Dengue). However, that is a separate issue with many pros and cons.
To me this means that a large portion of those who join iNaturalist for nature engagement lose their enthusiasm for nature within a month or two. (Whether anybody will be involved with iNaturalist or not is a completely separate aspect. One can devote time for becoming a singer/actor, one can be busy with software/hardware, one can be a writer/painter or anything else - there is no harm in that. I think there is no obligation that everyone should be engaged with iNaturalist).
I didn’t want to know whether those who are devotedly involved with iNaturalist are ‘better behaved’. I know for sure that the answer to this question is definitely “Yes”.
If I put iNaturalist aside for a while and think about the question-
The theme of the question was “A basic standard/restrictions” should be maintained everywhere (relevant areas), otherwise mass involvement everywhere may destroy the nature.
Should I then assume that the relevant answer to the question stands like this?
For those who are involved dedicatedly with iNaturalist- No
For those who are not involved dedicatedly with iNaturalist- Not Known
Anyway this is my last question. I will not raise any more questions on this topic to keep the thread alive.
Questions and the topic may be grossly ignored. No issues.
