I found an old photo of a Softshell Turtle i took a while ago that was living in a park at the time. It wasnt in one of the enclosures there, just free roaming in/around a lake. Im wondering if it should be considered wild or not? Its not in an enclosure but i dont know if it was being cared for by the staff. Its most definitely the same one as in this observation, which is marked as wild. Is that correct?
I would consider it wild because there is no enclosure or care seen. Only if you see any official staff taking care of the individual, it would be considered captive.
Wild. Perhaps it got there on its own. If it didn’t, it’s now living free, like a raptor released from a rehabilition facility.
I think the question is really whether humans brought it to the park as an attraction, more than whether it receives care. Birds coming to a feeder are still wild. Farm chickens who free-roam are still captive.
I would assume the turtle is wild unless there was a sign somewhere explaining that it wasn’t.
Unless there’s evidence otherwise, I think the default assumption is wild.
It seems pretty chill to me. But, you never know what it might get up to at night…
Each night the carapace hardens and the now Hardshell turtle goes truly wild. - in a captive-vating way. Wait till we see the movie.
Softshell turtles aren’t the kind of turtle people usually keep on purpose (edit: not in ponds, at least- occasionally they’re kept in large aquariums), so I’d be surprised if it’s been intentionally added by someone with the aim of keeping it in that pond to observe.
I would consider it wild because there is no enclosure or care seen. Only if you see any official staff taking care of the individual, it would be considered captive.
Wouldn’t this depend on the circumstances? Since the feral domesticated ducks at parks are surely considered to be wild (by INat’s standards) even if staff occasionally throw them some food.
Fair point so yes occasionally and causal feeding of federal ducks and other animals alike would be considered wild
For me, it depends on the species. There are some commonly cultivated plants in some locations where my default assumption is captive unless the original poster says otherwise. The same logic probably doesn’t work as well for animals, though.
One example from Zanzibar.
Aldabra giant tortoise (Aldabrachelys gigantea) Wild or captive?
Here is the story : In 1919 the British governor of Seychelles sent a gift of four Aldabra giant tortoises to Changuu Island on Zanzibar.These tortoises bred quickly and by 1955 they numbered around 200 animals.
The species is now considered vulnerable and has been placed on the IUCN Red List by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. More tortoises, mainly juveniles, continue to be brought to Changuu island on Zanzibar from other locations for conservation.There is a dedicated foundation on the island which looks after the tortoises’ welfare. Visitors are able to observe and feed the tortoises.
Hard to know either way..I’ve wondered about the captivity/wildness of these specific turtles myself.
My thought is if there are tons of them, it seems likely they’d be able to establish a breeding population, if there’s just one, it’s possible it was a captive release that will eventually die out.
I guess being “feral” (but fed) makes them wild, but with such a small habitat (in many cases itself not a natural water feature) the question becomes even greyer in my mind.
Hmmmm… what are the opinions on that one?
The answer to the question “Is a turtle living in a park considered wild?” really depends on who you’re asking. iNaturalist uses its own definition of ‘wild’, which it uses as the opposite of ‘captive’, but this black and white definition doesn’t always correspond to other organisations’ definitions. If the turtle is living free in a park without anyone caring for it, then yes, according to iNaturalist it is ‘wild’, simply because it’s not ‘captive’.
However, internationally more gradations are being used between ‘wild’ and ‘captive’, such ‘escaped’, ‘released’ and ‘feral’. And for species we have ‘native’, ‘introduced’ and ‘naturalized’, to name a few.
So, what would European citizen platforms or nature institutions say about this turtle from Florida in Germany? According to European standards, ‘wild’ individuals are naturally occurring individuals, which means these individuals are present in this location without human interference, either because they traveled there on their own, or because they are the offspring of individuals that have an established population there. Every single free living Florida softshell turtle in Europe is an escaped or released individual, as they cannot reproduce because of the cold winters. And every single one of them will die without ever reproducing and establishing a lasting population. Therefore, no free living Florida softshell turtle in Europe could ever be considered ‘wild’ on European citizen science platforms or by nature institutions, because not a single one arrived here on its own or is offspring in an established population. The individuals can be considered ‘feral’ and the species will always be considered ‘non-native’, since they cannot naturalize by establishing a population.
There are, however, some American turtle species that can reproduce in Europe, especially since the winters aren’t as cold as they used to be. The offspring of these once released or escaped individuals came to be without any human interference, and live a natural life. These individuals can now be considered ‘wild’ and if the populations last, the species will eventually be considered ‘naturalized’ as a part of wild European nature.
If you look at other European observations of Florida softshell turtles, you’ll often see some confusion in the comments about iNaturalist’s definition of ‘either captive or wild, but nothing in between’, and strong division about the wild status with people voting ‘no’ and ‘yes’. This happens with many other observations of feral individuals of non-native species in Europe, too.
As pointed out in past discussions, you are again conflating population-level status with the status of individuals.
It is not feasible for iNaturalist to add additional gradations such as “feral” as distinct from “wild” because it is typically not possible to tell in any in given case whether the individual is part of an established population (“wild” by your definition) or is a single escaped and non-reproducing individual (“feral” by your definition). This requires knowledge beyond that available in a single record (which represents the presence of a particular individual at a particular place and time).
In some cases, it is may be possible to extrapolate population-level status based on knowledge of the individual life history (e.g. previous observations of the same individual), other records in the area, or knowledge about whether the species is able to reproduce in the area in question. Researchers using iNat data can and should be doing this. But it does not mean that it is realistic for iNat to try to systematically integrate this highly specific, localized information into its database. A feral individual may also found a reproducing population at any time; in some cases, these may be species which until that point had been assumed to be unable to reproduce or establish a permanent population in the country in question, whether due to lack of mates, lack of host plant/host organism, or climatic conditions, as all of these factors are at present fairly dynamic and subject to change.
I am not conflating anything. This is not something I came up with. I even explicitly mentioned that European (and possibly other) citizen science projects and nature organizations define things differently from iNaturalist, which is probably why there is often confusion about whether an organism should be considered ‘wild’ or not. The fact this thread was created with this exact question shows that yet again. And since the user asking is posting observations from Germany, there is a good chance they’re confused about this because they’re subconsciously used to other definitions of ‘wild’.
I have already accepted that it’s pointless to advocate for a new feature (like what’s being used on other platforms) and I didn’t even bring that up, so this part is really unrelated to the original question. But I really fail to see why it’s such a big problem to explain that different views exist and are being used by different organizations, and offer a possible explanation for the confusion.
As long as different organizations worldwide use different definitions of terms, this question (and the thumbs-up-thumps-down-war) is going to come up over and over again with users from all over the world. One approach to this repeated question is to only offer iNaturalist’s view as the only truth and censor all other views, but I don’t see why that’s necessary.
I am not engaging in censorship or trying to silence anyone. Nevertheless, the terms used by other organizations/platforms are fairly irrelevant for iNaturalist, because they are not what is used here.
You posts here and in the past use language that strongly suggests you think these other terms are better and/or iNat’s classification should be changed because it is inconsistent with these other classifications and therefore a source of misunderstanding. It’s quite possible these other classifications capture certain aspects of the wild-captive continuum better than iNat’s fairly simplistic dichotomy does.
HOWEVER, I would argue that these other terms are far from being universal and self-evident, but rather exactly as arbitrary and exactly as subject to interpretation (and misinterpretation) as iNat’s. E.g., the English term “feral” in particular is used in all sorts of ways that may or may not have to anything do with whether an animal is part of a reproducing population and more to do with whether it or its ancestors are habituated to humans.
I am not suggesting that iNat’s system of wild/not wild is perfect – there is quite a lot of grey area and a number of rather idiosyncratic ways in which it is defined. I don’t, however, think that replacing it with some other system would likely result in less debate about ambiguous cases. The debates would merely shift to which of these other classifications apply.
I also think that whatever system is used needs to be applicable for the sort of data that is being uploaded to iNat, and this requirement would not be met by a system that requires knowing whether a species is established locally in order to determine whether any given individual is wild or not.