I have no formal training, but I do hope to get some later on! I was (and still am) considering doing the Maine Master Naturalist Program, but you have to be at least 18 to do that, so I’ll have to wait…
It’s a lifelong passion for me. I am entirely self-taught.
This has been a big barrier for me, though, so I’m currently back in school part time working towards an M.Sc. in biology. Hoping that will lead to more professional opportunities in the field.
I am currently a college student studying ecological restoration, and I very much plan to continue on into this field as a career. The only paying job I’ve ever had was a breeding bird survey technician.
Just know that the results of this poll are likely to be greatly skewed by the self-selected slice of iNatters who participate on these Forums. Definitely not a random sample of all iNatters.
I just realized something exciting: thanks to iNat, a passionate hobbyist has the potential to BECOME a professional!
Over time, as scientists and institutions delve into studying a particular taxon, they may seek out the most qualified people for assistance.
This could be you! 
Right now I’m just a nature guy that knows a whole lot about seashells, but give me three years and I’ll have a PhD…
….in plant science 
.
It’s really weird how people that we meet around the world so often presume that we simply MUST be biologists, because who else would be carrying so much gear and doing this specific things just to see some animal? Yet, we are both physicists and last time we had any biology was high school!
I’m counting my bachelor’s degree as “formal training”, but that does seem like a stretch lol. My twin has a master’s and is getting her PhD, so my humble BS doesn’t look very fancy compared to that!
I put formal training because I have BS in biology with a minor in Oceanography. However I didn’t really learn about plants in college (other than basic stuff about how plants work and a bit about what plants you find in coastal salt/estuarine marsh) or have a job related to them, but plants are mostly what I observe and ID on iNat. Learning what all the botanical terms mean when reading dicotomous keys (I learned how to use these keys in college) and what plant species can be found where I live is completely self taught.
I would argue that you are indeed biologists if you are doing the work. To me, “biologist” (or “physicist”) or most ists, are defined by what people do.
People can still be biologists even if they aren’t paid for it (though it’s certainly nice to be that) or even without formal training. Up until 100-150 years ago, many biologists (outside of medicine) were not “professional” as such. The ones that were, were often collectors for rich people willing to pay them. Most people wouldn’t think that an “artist” needed to make their living selling their art to be called an artist (though again, it is certainly great when an artist can do that). I think non-professional biologists can be just as much biologists as professional ones in some situations.
Broadly, I think, if someone is doing good science, they are a scientist. If that science happens to be biology, they can stake a claim to being a biologist.
Also, my response isn’t intended to throw any shade at @opisska - I just think y’all have a legit claim to be biologists!
I will hope this becomes true.
My related but a smidge disheartening* experience: a few years back, a scholarly fellow contacted me for permission to include my photos for use in a paper for publication about a particular plant taxon. He was extremely excited about the number and angles of the photos I had, as it was not a well documented taxon but it grew wild in my garden,
I gave permission and also replied that the particular taxon was also visible in additional Observations, detailing them with links, of insects and such visiting the particular plant. He was extremely grateful, writing about how these would further knowledge about pollinators, et cetera, as this was a not well understood taxon. I have no idea what plant knowledge is and is not, as I just observe what pops up in my garden, nothing is planted, but I said how glad I was to be of assistance.
A few days later, he sent a follow-up message to ask what my formal training was, and when I said oh, none at all, that I was just a woman with a little wild space (as it said in my then bio), there was no response. I chalked it up to busy-ness, but when I remembered a few months ago and looked up the paper, not one of the formerly “extremely helpful” photos was included.
The thing is, I never identified the plant originally. How could I? Taxon specialists did, extremely qualified ones, likely his cohorts. He did not ask how I knew what the plant was. Oh, well.
*disheartening because I put some effort into going through my Obsv because of this enthusiasm! Now I think to myself, “My plants do not grow for papers.” I will give permission. But no more extra effort.
I agree with this 100%. The barrier for me has been that the government agencies and NGOs who employ biologists are looking for some kind of formal credential.
Lucy, I’m truly sorry that this happened to you. It’s frustrating to pour your heart into something, and not get the recognition that you deserve!
Academia can be a fiercely competitive place, and sometimes the pressure to stick to “formal sources” can overshadow the amazing contributions from people like you!
It’s unfortunate, but the stakes can be high in academia. They might feel like their careers, their tenure, and even putting food on the table might be on the line if they step outside of “traditional boundaries”!
Please know that your work is valuable, and you are making a difference! Keep sharing your passion, and try not to let this experience discourage you! You never know when you will be truly recognized and appreciated! 
I am formally trained, and nature is my passion.
I guess I am really used to what happens in astronomy, where we quite separate people who are “amateur astronomers” from the scientists - to be fair, the amateurs do usually something very different (I would know, since I am basically both). On the other hand I do actually employ one “amateur” - a guy with no formal training, he has been working with us for 12 years now.
Is the wrong half of a science degree formal training?
A year of botany, zoology, geology, physics and chemistry. Just enough to realise how little I know.
They pay me to do biology although I’m also a hobbyist. Whether my employers consider me “trained” is another question.
Attorney by training, naturalist by passion
Can we vote for both? Studying nature was my passion before I got formal training in it, but I’ve been getting formal training on and off for 60 years, some of it very formal indeed.