but, mussels are highly visible. Not like a viral infection.
1 Like
True they are visible. But did the human do anything to encourage the mussel to attach itself to the boat? I mean, I have a fence around my yard and somehow wildlife still gets in, like the squirrels who dug a whole in the roof of my house. Are they now captive because I can see them and they are within my human dwelling.
What about the spider that lives in my bathroom, is it captive only because I don’t want to kill or touch it (so it remains there even though I don’t want it there!)?
2 Likes
Adult mussels are sedentary.
Hitchhiking mussels? Decided to hitch a ride overland from A to B?
Or, alternatively, decided to move to the other boat - which is staying IN the water at A.
?
The intention is human, perhaps not exactly deliberate, but human not mussel intention.
1 Like
Definitely wild. If you drove to another state with your car windows rolled up, found a mosquito in the car upon arrival, and killed it, your mosquito observation would still be considered wild. The mosquito intended to be in your car, just like the mussels intended to attach to the boat. The fact that you killed them before they could establish in a new location doesn’t change the fact that they got that far based on their own actions. Inadvertent human transportation of organisms is very different from intentionally keeping them in captivity, at least as far as iNat goes.
1 Like
The human intention was to move the boat, not to move the mussels. The mussels’ intention was to attach to the boat. They didn’t know it was going to move, but that doesn’t change the fact that they chose to be on it.
2 Likes
Looks like the community disagrees with me (which I thought was possible, though I hoped otherwise)… No one has joined me on “not wild”, while another 7 votes for “wild” since I posted this.
I was mostly hoping it would go the other way because of how it affects my flow (though I didn’t mention that above because it’s not germane to the question). Now, when looking at the distribution map, I’ll have to remember that the one observation in California was not actually from any local population. First to remember that they’ve never actually been “wild” in the area (where they could attach to other vehicles or spread downstream). But mostly to keep myself from clicking the range outlier as a potentially mistaken ID to fix.
2 Likes
I won’t vote, but I share your irritation with the distribution map.
1 Like
True, expect, that there’s a national act aimed specifically at zebra mussels.
If I get pulled over I can’t claim I was unaware of the law. It’s my responsibility to understand what it is I am involving myself in.
And there are actual laws in many sensitive areas.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleII/Chapter21/Section37B
1 Like
If someone unknowingly purchases Japanese barberry from a box store and the seed spreads those are wild, but if I know it’s an invasive species and plant it anyways, are the same seedlings still wild? Are they not intentionally allowed the chance to spread?
This means the same result could be considered intentional or not and that alone changes if they are captivated or wild, according to the thought processes going on in this thread. 150 years from now does it matter if that barberry was intentionally planted or not when hundreds of acres have been overtaken? I am arguing our outlook on what is wild is very human-centric and timescale sensitive.
I have a co-worker whose job mainly involves boat inspections, educational outreach, and other efforts to keep Dreissena mussels out of my state. It’s been successful so far, but he’s had incidents like the one discussed here where a boat with mussels was quarantined and kept from launching until deconned. If I’d photo’d those mussels that did not make it into the water, not sure I’d submit an iNat record for them. I’d be concerned about that dot on the map and giving a false impression that they are already established in my state.
2 Likes
maybe you just need to expand your thinking to figure it out…
An organism considered invasive can be captive OR wild. Invasive just means not native (and in a lot of cases, potentially harmful for the natives). It has nothing to do with captive or wild.
That is a good point about the range map. However, it’s important to do the best we can to make decisions based on iNat’s definitions - in this case, “Wild” meaning “not intentionally put there by humans” - so that anyone using the data knows what they’re dealing with. The best thing to do for this example is to consider the record Wild, but add a comment or Notes detailing the exact situation.
1 Like
I like (and have added!) the observation field “Range anomaly” for things like this - hitchhikers are wild as people have established, but being able to say why is helpful. Is it a range anomaly because it’s managed to get their on it’s own (like the migratory monarch butterflies that sometimes get lost and turn up in Europe?) or is it because it’s hitchhiked in cars, produce, or in this case, boats transported overland?
A lot of invasives have spread like this (ragweed in Europe wasn’t deliberate, it was a seed contaminant, or all the old wool aliens, etc) and it’s helpful to document where they’ve spread like this - even if it makes the range map a bit wonky.
1 Like
Unfortunately not every user of range maps pays attention to explanatory notes about what the dot signifies. That’s based on my own personal experience in seeing dot maps be misinterpreted by others (e.g., an introduced individual animal being assumed to represent a population that isn’t there).
1 Like
Yeah, here’s that map. The observation in question is the red dot above San Francisco. All of the others are east of the line from the MB-SK border to Monterrey, Mexico.
Of course, now that I made a big deal about it, I probably won’t forget this one.
1 Like
It’s not our job to try to protect our data from assumptions. Our job is to follow iNat’s guidelines to the best of our ability. It’s unfortunate that some people will misinterpret the data, but that’s on them for not understanding exactly how iNaturalist works.
Having said that, I completely understand your argument, and I probably wouldn’t vote against you if you decided that the observation mentioned here should be marked Captive. It’s a bit of an edge case where the “right” answer mostly depends on your point of view. I would be curious to know what iNat staff think of it.
Because I work for an agency trying to keep these mussels out of my state, I would not want to confuse what the public might interpret from a record I might submit to iNat if a similar situation arose. I was giving my personal opinion about what I might do or not do. Others can do differently.
3 Likes
Heck just use this one as a hypothetical example to imagine different possibilities.
I’m a zebra muscle farmer (I know I know it’s hypothetical)
I figured out I can make loads of money selling zebra muscles (again, just go along with it)
I need a way to spread more zebra muscles so I can start making even more money - heck I’ll just take my boat over to this pristine spot and hope no one notices- oops got caught, um yes these are totally wild I never have seen these before ever
Obviously this is a ridiculous hypothetical, but it’s amazing how trusting people are that everyone is an expert in the history of every specimen they come across. There should be another option, or area to add detail is the real answer
If a person plants it intentionally, it is captive.
If the plant’s offspring have spread to hundreds of acres in the future, they are wild.
Both these situations are addressed in the iNat documentation linked to by multiple users above.
Whether an organism is native or invasive has no bearing on whether it is wild or captive.
Also, please focus discussions on the forum on ideas, not what you may perceive other users’ intentions or motivations to be. For instance, it isn’t necessary to go after other users by saying
A good portion of the people posting here are not discussing their personal views on captivity/wildness, but iNat’s guidelines for designating something as captive/wild on iNat itself and how to interpret that data field. People can have whatever personal views they wish, and I don’t think it’s helpful to conflate the two in the discussion.
2 Likes
You are definitely correct that knowing the owner’s intent is important. In your barberry example the captive/wild will definitely be based on the viewpoint of the observer.
The way I understand the rules, if you know it was intentionally planted there, then it should be marked captive. If there is doubt about its origin, then marking as wild seems acceptable, reasonable and probably the best option.
The point I was trying to make is that whether the organism in question is considered invasive or not is irrelevant in the decision making of captive/wild. The two have no impact on each other (although lots of impact to the environment and ecology!) in iNat terms.
2 Likes