I disagree. Even when the observation happened in 2004 that means that the habitat was suitable for the endangered species then. There is a good chance it still is now, so it might still attract people. For birds nesting in a certain place, they might nest there again the next year, so even if you upload it after the current nesting season is over, people might come the next year. The risk is higher for sessile organisms like plants as well…
Obscuring observations where there may be a threat is a good idea, so even if the observation happened a while ago, I still think it should be obscured.
Nature trail?? That’s wide enough to be a state highway!
Nothing about that setup looks structurally sound, they expect a concrete wall to hold up a mountain?
7 Likes
One thing I’d be curious about: in those articles it was mostly talking about rare species that draw in people from a wide area. Do those same people act the same way in their home territories?
Curious, since I know several birders that have huge life lists. In my experience, these people are very active on the conservation front, and are very careful on what sightings should be made public, and what should be kept close to the chest.
So I’ve often wondered if the behavior that is sometimes seen from chasers stems from them being outside their home territory and therefore not as invested in the land as they are in getting the bird (why should I care? I’m leaving tomorrow) Or if it’s more that every region likely has one unethical character, and a chase brings them all together? Which regrettably makes all of us look bad.
4 Likes
This is not a comparison that can be made for two reasons. First, each of these “labels” has equal and equivalent ways in which they can cause disturbance, or be respectful. Secondly, it is entirely biased by individuals and not an overall category of people. I would like to clarify though that the line between birdwatchers and photographers is nonexistent.
Birdwatchers (by this label, not carrying cameras) have caused problems to birds and habitats for as long as can be remembered. This disturbance manifests often in the form of “need” to count a bird. This can require forcefully flushing the bird to view wing and tail patterns, using playback to “call in” the bird multiple times and disturbing its behaviour or nesting, or trampling and damaging habitat to get closer or just entering the habitat to try and find the birds in general. These issues are largely associated with photographers, however I can say that “core” birders are just as guilty. Sometimes this disturbance is related to something as petty as needing to “count” a bird in two different counties.
Photographers, by definition, are assumed to “need” good views to fulfill their hobby and interest, and can fall into the worse examples above. However, I can say that from experience, this is not often the case, and most photographers are happy with what they can get, and never get closer than the birdwatchers do at a rare bird sighting. While true that photographers are visibly the ones interested in getting “closer”, birdwatchers may only act respectful in company. Solo birdwatchers have committed some of the most malicious disturbance I’ve seen.
Now, onto “iNatters”. You’re drawing a line here in sand purely between the subject (birds versus all else). iNatters include a broad diversity of interests, and all of these span into issues. Herpers can destroy habitat with tools or lack of care to return cover, as well as outright poach the subjects (pickaxe damage to sensitive rock formations is not uncommon here). The floral folks often have to trample extensively to search for plants, worsened exponentially with every other person involved or with repeated visits. Of course, plants are also the subject of poaching. Entomologists may collect specimens, and besides damaging low abundance populations, they may utilize collection methods like beating which violently wrings out vegetation and dumps hundreds of insects onto bare ground, which results in easy pickings for predators. Lepidopterists, at worst, use nets without respect for how low quantity many butterfly populations can be, and are vulnerable to overcollection. These folks may even utilize killing jars to store butterflies temporarily, and then later examine the haul and release the poisoned butterflies that they don’t need. Few of these will survive, and most that do get caught by birds within the following minutes. In the fungi community, you have people who harvest and forage buckets and buckets of mushrooms for selling, consuming, or identification purposes, and this can temporarily wipe out the visible resources in the ecosystem.
My point is that you cannot rank these labels proposed by disturbance to nature. They all have consequences, and it comes down entirely to the individuals in question.
12 Likes
I think we need to be honest about the fact that iNaturalist strongly encourages getting an identifiable photo. It does not have to be a great photo, or an aesthetically-pleasing photo, but it does need to be identifiable, preferably by non-experts (or your observation will sit at “needs ID” a while).
Whereas on, say, eBird, I can just report all the species I saw and generally that is considered sufficient. I only need a photo if I am reporting something really rare, and even then, if there are enough birders reporting the same bird, I can write “continuing” and it still counts on my list. On iNaturalist that would be a casual observation.
So, I would challenge the assumption that people using iNaturalist are more concerned about the wellbeing of birds than birders.
The great majority of birders practice good birding ethics, or at least show only minor lapses in ethics. Many of the birders that do things that are unethical are also photographers, or even primarily photographers. The ones that use extreme methods just to be able to count a bird are a rather select few. There are also top-rate birders who hardly take photos at all.
Basically: Let’s not over-romanticize iNaturalist. People are people. Anyone who is outdoors around wildlife has the potential to cause disturbance and even outright harm. All of us can make better or worse choices.
11 Likes
I wonder what the immediate neighbours think?
That’s inevitable when they have repeatedly been told “these cannot be identified without dissection.” Already I saw at least two pushback replies defending this behavior for that exact reason.
And how many times have I had to make a decision: take the mushroom to get a spore print, or leave the mushroom and maybe it never gets identified?
2 Likes
Mushrooms are a separate class as far as collecting goes, though. You’re not killing the fungus by taking one mushroom, and if you put it back when you’re done it would have basically no effect at all.
2 Likes
I don’t think anyone is denying that iNaturalist encourages “better” photos, because more IDs results in better data, and so it’s somewhat a foundation of how us as users interpret the site’s mission.
However, more often than not getting “IDable photos” is not causing any more disturbance than getting a “record shot” (passable photo but of varying quality, may or may not be IDable).
I would argue, maybe incorrectly, it’s just my thought right now, that the extra push for better photos does not add significantly to overall impact. If people are already on the ground searching for stuff, that causes the greatest impact and disturbance itself.
1 Like
Exactly!
I don’t think this is inherently pushing people to unethical behavior. I do think some people will use it as an excuse. People who want to get the accolades or whatever from a better photo will always find an excuse. 
I’m mainly just pushing back against the suggestion that people who photograph things for iNaturalist observations are doing it more ethically than birders in general. I see no reason to assume that. The incentives are somewhat different, but both can be done more or less ethically. And aside from honest mistakes (e.g. people do not automatically know how to tell if a bird is stressed), it’s really not that hard to choose the ethical way.
(…but if we’re going to make sweeping generalizations, what is with people picking up snakes in order to photograph them? Does the snake like that??? I doubt it. I may be jealous because birds fly away.)
5 Likes
I disagree with photographers being #1. Most of us have telephoto (zoom) lenses that allow us to keep our distance but still get a beautiful and/or useful photo. I use my photos for bird ID, Flickr, and INaturalist, so overall I can cover all the bases without disturbing wildlife
3 Likes
In my experience though, many photographers get way too close despite their telephoto lenses though.
However, all this being said, this entire conversation is really silly to me. Do photographers and birders and iNatters cause some environmental disturbance? Yes. But frankly, it’s very minor in the grand scheme of things and there are much more important things to worry about.
6 Likes
I had a problem with mushrooms. It seems not ethic to me to take even one mushroom just to get the ID. So, I use a mirror to take a picture of the underside. Most of such pictures are pretty nice (in my mind) especially if you learn how to place the mirror to get extra light under the mushroom.
3 Likes
I was just about to say, there is a category missing that in my opinion is far worse than any of the ones listed: Social media influencers and their followers, particularly the Instragram/selfie crowd. I routinely see news articles describing the negative impacts of hundreds to thousands of people rushing out to the same spots after a picture “goes viral” online, wanting to recreate the image. The results reach from trampling poppy fields in California to displacing peregrine falcons from their nesting sites to destroying habitat and all sorts of other negative impacts, all for the sake of a few more thumbs-up from online followers. Can’t use a tele lens if the goal is a selfie with whatever the subject of the current viral nature trend is.
5 Likes
I actually never know what to do with mushrooms.
As they are just the fruiting bodies carrying the spores, I’ve heard mushroomers say that removing one helps it spread its spores, so whatever, but it still feels wrong.
(I still usually pluck it to get the underside if it cannot be done any other way, but idk if I should)
Yes mushrooms are just the fruiting bodies. But some fungi only produce fruiting bodies once in a few years, so picking a fungus is not necessarily like picking a blackberry. And fungal fruiting bodies are habitat to hundreds of specialised insect species, so if you overdo the collecting of fungi, you may be impacting scarce insects.
4 Likes
Oh of course there are more important things going on in this world, but it’s an interesting topic for INaturalist. We, as humans, are always going to be disturbing wildlife. Camping, fishing, hiking. It’s unavoidable
3 Likes
Thank you. I’ll start taking a mirror with me to the forest then as well ^^
2 Likes
A few years ago there was a story in New Zealand. An illegal spot for a Must Have selfie. On private property, where people trampled the fence, and trashed the place.
1 Like