If an observer wants something ID’d that is not the most obvious thing in the picture, they should write a comment about it. In my opinion, IDing things in the background should be done with extreme care, because doing so messes with the AI and with people going through the photos. If the AI starts thinking that acacias look like hawks, it’ll start suggesting acacias when people upload hawk pictures, which will just make the problem worse. Many people don’t seem to really pay attention to what suggestion they click on when they upload observations. In addition, doing things like that makes it much harder for people to browse through images and check whether they’re correctly identified or not. I’ve been doing a lot of going through “research grade” observations, and those kinds of observations (with a tiny target organism in the background or something) are a real pain.
So to summarize, I think in situations like that it’s best to err on the side of IDing the most obvious thing in the picture, unless the observer explicitly comments about it. If they can’t be bothered to write a simple explanation, why should we bother to try to read their minds and give them exactly what they want?
(besides, In this particular case, the user’s name is also johnnybirder. That suggests he is mostly interested in birds.)