We now have 51 responses. The average scores for the different criteria are below:
0 = Not important, 1 = Slightly important, 2 = Somewhat important, 3 = Fairly important, 4 = Extremely important
2.65 Organism was produced (born/germinated) under human control
2.47 Population receives care or cultivation from humans
2.36 Specific organism introduced by humans
2.33 The organism’s exact location (within 1 mile) is determined by humans
2.33 Dependent on humans for survival
2.24 Enclosed in a fenced area smaller than its natural territory
2.16 Privately owned (e.g. by a ranch)
2.14 Movement intentionally restricted by humans
1.98 Population managed by humans
1.92 Behavior restricted by humans (mating, predation, etc.)
1.82 Enclosed in a fenced area
1.37 Movement restricted by humans
1.33 Population is intended to be hunted or harvested
1.27 Fed by humans
1.12 The organism’s general location (within 100 miles) is determined by humans
0.69 Population recently introduced by humans (within past century)
0.67 Population introduced by humans
Some take-aways:
There seems to be rough consensus that if a specific organism was introduced to a location by humans, that’s a good indication that it may be captive/not wild. However, this should not automatically apply to its offspring (see bottom 2 criteria). This fits well with existing iNat official guidance.
Being fed by humans isn’t a good criteria, but receiving care or cultivation from humans, or being dependent on humans for survival, is.
Criteria about restriction to a particular area are only useful if that area is relatively small (or smaller than the organism’s natural territory). For example, just because Kruger National Park in South Africa has a fence around it, doesn’t mean the animals should be considered captive/not wild.