Lately, it seems that labeling ourselves as “Birders” or “Herpers” has become a fashionable trend or status symbol. I question the arbitrary use of these terms. What truly defines a Birder or a Herper?
Is it merely a matter of spotting thousands of (may be same)species without bothering to observe their behavior or lifestyles? Or is it something more profound?
Take, for instance, the practice of photographing reptiles. Is it responsible to prioritize capturing images over understanding the animal’s well-being or context? How can one truly comprehend the reptile’s state (sometimes even without any pre-study or observing them in a Zoo/Reptile Park) – whether it’s hibernating, stressed, or seeking refuge – by simply clicking away?
Does this enthusiasm for quick, targeted photography genuinely enhance our knowledge of nature? Does it foster awareness?
Unfortunately, I’ve noticed a lack of in-depth discussions about Bird/animal behavior in popular online forums. Many of us lack opportunities to observe diverse wildlife, and even when we do, we often fail to truly engage with these creatures other than few clicks.
The absence of sufficient representation from regions like India (Is even anyone else participate in this Forum’s discussion, aside from my occasional and somewhat uninformed contributions?) and Africa (other than South Africa) in this Forum raises concerns about our understanding of species endemic to these areas. Can we truly claim to appreciate the complexities of birds, snakes, and large animals when our knowledge is limited to a narrow geographic scope?
What’s the value in accumulating thousands of photos without grasping the underlying biology and ecology, so far as our personal awareness is concerned?
Interestingly, the people of Sundarban villages (and many others) of India, who coexist with majestic creatures like tigers, saltwater crocodiles, and venomous snakes (King Cobra, common cobra, Russel’s viper, Common Krait, Indian Python, rat snake, chequered keelback, green whip snake…), don’t feel the need to label themselves as Birders or Herpers. They don’t approach wildlife with a mindset of adventure or conquest, armed with Firearms, cameras and gear. Instead, they live in harmony with nature, fostering a deeper understanding and respect for the land and its inhabitants.
iNat is about fostering engagement with nature — whatever that looks like for the individual
I think you’ve raised an interesting topic, so I’ll chime in with my thoughts.
There are probably are people who use terms like birder or herper to flex credentials, while others simply use them to describe what they love doing. There’s a spectrum between surface-level engagement and deep understanding, and labeling yourself doesn’t dictate where you fall on that scale. The rise of labeling itself has been closely tied to a broader trend of credentialism over the last few decades, but that’s a different topic altogether and one for another day.
I’d tend to push back on the idea that using these labels as shorthand for hobbies rather than formal credentials automatically means someone lacks a deep relationship with nature. Just because the people of the Sundarbans don’t use these terms doesn’t mean they don’t have an identity shaped by their experiences with wildlife, it’s just expressed differently. Their knowledge is often practical and embedded in daily life rather than structured through scientific classification.
Maybe the real difference isn’t in the labels but in the intent behind them. Is someone actively trying to understand what they’re seeing, or are they just collecting images like trading cards? But even then, does it matter? If someone enjoys taking photos but doesn’t dive deep into the science, does that make their engagement with nature any less valuable?
Does this enthusiasm for quick, targeted photography genuinely enhance our knowledge of nature? Does it foster awareness?
I’m reminded of the words of Louis Agassiz: “Take the facts into your own hands; look, and see for yourself!” That speaks to the empirical method, learning through observation and experience rather than theory alone. Even if someone isn’t consciously applying the scientific method, they’re still engaging in a form of empirical study when they photograph wildlife. They make observations, notice patterns, and whether they realise it or not, form hypotheses. They might not publish papers, but they’re gathering real-world data that can contribute to scientific understanding.
This brings me to a thought about the relationship between local knowledge and scientific expertise. If I, as a photographer, observe a flock of Eurasian coots suddenly spooked and treading water in fear, signaling the approach of a predator like the White-bellied Sea Eagle, does my knowledge of that behavior, honed by repeated observation in that specific location, give me insights that someone studying these birds in a distant region might lack? Could my ability to interpret the behavior of the coots in relation to the eagle’s hunting habits make me more of an expert in that context than someone who has never seen that particular interaction?
There’s something to be said for the value of localised, hands-on observation. A researcher studying the same species from afar might never notice these subtle behaviors without being there to witness them firsthand. And perhaps that makes the difference between being a “casual observer” and a “serious naturalist” less clear-cut than we often assume.
In any field, people will have varying levels of knowledge and skill. Maybe the real question is: Who gets to decide the threshold? And does having gaps in certain areas make someone any less of a ‘real’ expert?
For me, birders, herpers, etc. are just “flavours” of naturalists. If you are a naturalist with a preference for avifauna, you are a birder, if you like herpetofauna, you’re a herper, if you like insects, lichens, and worms, you are weird like me. :P
I don’t think it is necessary to make any photos, or have any defined amount of knowledge about the natural world to be a naturalist. As @AdamWargon said: it’s about fostering engagement with nature.
I think this raises an interesting point. The want/need to call ourselves naturalists may be that – through living in cities – many are or feel alienated from nature. So then it becomes a sort of distinguishing feature for us (if you see someone in my city hunched over a weird yellow splotch on a wall, or looking at an insect a little too closely than is perhaps normal, then you can be pretty sure it’s me) and thereby a part of our identity that needs specifying. Living in harmony with and even having an interest in the natural world is no longer the default. If it were, we probably wouldn’t call ourselves naturalists because, duh, of course we are. Everyone is.
It depends where you live/work. In some countries, such as Italy where I live, “naturalist” is a formal definition with rules for minimum qualifications, so if I feel the need to define myself as a naturalist, I usually describe myself as “naturalista per passione”.
For the rest, perhaps some people do label themselves in order to “flex credentials”, but might it not just be simply a shorthand way of making yourself recognisable to other people with your same interests… a sort of “badge” identifying you with a particular tribe? And in some way or another, isn’t everyone looking for a sense of belonging?
Words are important and often don’t travel well across linguistic boundaries, so perhaps this isn’t the best place to concentrate on fine nuances of meaning, but (for example) I personally would make a distinction between “birder” and “ornithologist” and between “herper” and “herpetologist”, although obviously there may be some overlap. And I would most certainly make a distinction between “naturalist” and “nature photographer”, although here too the line may be blurred.
You can be more than one thing. Being a naturalist doesn’t prevent you being a football fan or a musician or a dad or an accountant. You would claim different labels in different situations.
For me, birder and herper are terms to show what one is more interested in. I agree though, I think everyone should try and learn about more than what is just in their area or specific range. I see no problem at all with using these terms too. Also, taking photos of snakes is fun!
When I (quietly) greet a bird watcher on the trail, I often get the smalltalk query: “Anything interesting today?”
There’s usually a slight mental pause because I realize that they’ve mistaken my macro lens for a telezoom. Sometimes I feel mischievous and maybe respond, “Not really. Only three lifers”, and then smile, nod and move on.
Or I might open the conversation with, “Ah, I saw you watching above – so you’re a birder then? But see, for me, it’s watching below for bugs that keeps me going. In fact, you might as well call me… a happy bugger.”
As a generalist, I think that you can be them all, Birder, Herper, Moth-er, etc. I see these terms as a way to show what you like, and to find others with that interest!
@austin_ajit is a user from India, and I have learned a lot about Indian birds just from his posts alone! I am primarily knowledgeable about the species in my own area (Midwestern US), and also most species of Galliformes from all over the world, so I appreciate learning about other species from users living in other countries. I think that whether you travel the world, or mostly observe in your own local area, you can still appreciate wildlife in your own way, like @AdamWargon said,
I think photographing reptiles is fine as long as you minimize stress for the animal, some photographs can help us better understand the species too (their size, a rare behavior, markings, colors etc.) I think observing the same species too can be helpful, often times I look at iNaturalist wanting to find a area to hike or herp for a specific species, and sometimes there is only two or three observations of the species I’m wanting to find there. I feel much more confident going to a area with that species observed multiple times even by the same user, especially when it’s a far away area.
I think iNaturalist (iNat) aims to foster meaningful engagement with nature, with the primary objective of educating users about essential aspects of nature conservation. Its purpose is not to draw large crowds solely for the sake of taking selfies with nature celebrities, whether they be Insect stars, Reptile Stars or other nature personalities. Instead, I think iNat seeks to promote a deeper understanding and appreciation of the natural world, encouraging users to develop a more nuanced and responsible relationship with the environment.
May I disagree with the notion that anyone can claim a label without demonstrating a minimum level of competence. For my Country, I’ll rather like to agree with
I will claim all the titles, such as football fan, musician, accountant, or ornithologist, only if I can achieve a certain level of proficiency in those fields.
Claiming catchy labels without substance can be misleading and potentially harmful. For instance, YouTube videos featuring individuals claiming to be a Tiger expert such as ‘Marcus,’ a forest ranger, who allegedly rescue tigers and their cubs on foot, are entirely fabricated and captivating but misleading. At least ten such videos with a huge number of Marcus Fans ( Different Marcus for different vids) are there.
These expert false stories perpetuate a misleading and potentially harmful narrative about wildlife behavior, interactions, and conservation rules. People worldwide rely on these videos without desiring to know the truth about tiger conservation rules.
I cited the example of Sundarbans, where encountering snakes is a serious issue, not at all a fun. Residents there have a deep understanding of venomous snakes, anti-venoms, and the risks involved.
In contrast, self-proclaimed experts (not taking any names here), such as ‘Cobra Experts’ or ‘Crocodile Kings,’ often lack genuine knowledge and experience. Several people in our country (also in others) died on Snake bites following the advices of such self-proclaimed Snake-experts. True experts, like those in Sundarbans, do not claim such titles; instead, they focus on understanding and conserving wildlife.
Capturing snakes for rescue, venom extraction, and anti-venom preparation are routine tasks for genuine experts. Knowledge about snakes is not trivial; it’s a serious matter of livelihood in many parts of the world.
Similarly, brave foresters who capture and release saltwater crocodiles, demonstrate true expertise and dedication. Their work is not about seeking titles or fame by filming the event but about understanding and conserving these magnificent creatures.
In my opinion, claiming labels like ‘Birder,’ ‘Herper,’ ‘Tiger Rescuer,’ or ‘Naturalist’ without genuinely engaging with nature and seeking knowledge about the species is meaningless. Merely gathering a crowd with high-end cameras serves no purpose for true conservation rather it becomes harmful for conservation and genuine engagement with nature.
In my mind (the dictionary might say otherwise), a naturalist is a person who genuinly cares about nature, and nature photographer is someone who likes photographing nature, and a normal person is the kind of guy who would pull out a phone at the sight of a tiger, less because they want to photograph or get a memory of the cat, more because it would make an epic facebook post . Idk if a normal person would spend days fretting if they accidentally stepped on a wood-boaring beetle while treking, or if they missed the chance to get a photo of a sandpiper somewhere near a stream. A birder/herper/spider-er is a person who is naturalist who especially enjoys that kind of creature. I, for instance, am a birdwatcher, a insect&arachnid enthusiast, and a general nature lover. A person who came with me during last year’s bird survey who spent most of his time photographing birds was a nature photographer, and my neighbors are … meh about nature (they didn’t seem that excited when I reported a bhraminy blind snake outside their house). I probably could make a diagram of this, but I won’t.
As for other countries lacking representation, I kinda agree, but I wouldn’t say that there are no people from _____ country. Another person from india i know is @shreedave and @sriharsha444.
But then again, this is all based on opinion. Some people have different definitions, most will disagree, and that’s all valid. There is no right or wrong opinion, so I’m just writing about mine. Doubtless people will disagree, and that’s no problem.
But I do agree with one thing: There is a lack of animal behavior and info mentioned on the forum. It’s not zero (in fact, the bird-birdwatching discussion topic is filled with it), but it is pretty low.
Also, as a person in india I totally understand the last part. While I don’t live in a rural area, I do have all sorts of wild creatures in my backyard, from an occasional snake to an army of monkeys. At my grandparent’s house we have moongooses, two kinds of hornbill, imperial doves, peacocks (who are quite a nuisance), huntsman spiders so large they give ones in Australia a run for their money, and the occasional kingfisher. But at the same time, so does every other contry have wildlife in urban areas, so ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Some of us were birders or herpers or mammalers or all of the above plus other specialties decades before iNat came along. That might mean we were hobbyists or we were biology students/researchers with a particular focus. Often it involved photography but that wasn’t required. And yes it often involved trying to better understand an organism’s behaviors or other aspects of its natural history. Nothing new.
The absence of sufficient representation from your region in no way diminishes the contributions of users from regions like mine, with high rates of participation.
We can, as long as we acknowledge the limitations of the scope of our knowledge. How many experts have knowledge that is global in scale?
Perhaps you have expertise of that nature, but I certainly don’t. Does my lack of knowledge about bees in India mean that my observations of bees in the Northeastern US have no value? I do not claim to be an entomologist, but I have nevertheless come to “appreciate the complexities” of bees through my participation in iNat.
And yet, those of us who do “label” ourselves as birders or herpers, and are armed with cameras and gear (though not firearms), are equally capable of understanding and respecting the land and its inhabitants.
I am not a brave forester, but I assure you that I have the utmost appreciation
for the magnificent creatures in my corner of the world, which range from large bears to tiny insects (though crocodiles and venomous snakes are lacking…)
This seems to be another example of someone suggesting that the way one person appreciates nature is somehow “wrong” if it doesn’t align with how I appreciate nature.
The value is personal enjoyment, and there’s nothing wrong with that. You can enjoy nature without being a biologist just as you can enjoy reading novels without a degree in literary criticism or enjoy playing a musical instrument without any grounding in musical theory.
I feel that this thread is getting pretty one sided, so I’d just like to acknowledge that @Birdraghu-youtube might have a different opinion , but all opinions are valid. So pls keep stuff kind. Being told by lots of people that you are wrong tends to hurt/insult people (speaking from experience) so please remain chill!
Frankly, Austin, I thought my response was pretty “chill,” all things considered.
I didn’t mean that. So far pretty much everyone is being pretty chill. I was just saying ‘in general’. People do tend to get heated due to opinions , so I just said. Sorry if I offended anyone.