The Rise of Labeling Ourselves: Birders, Herpers, and Beyond

Nature Talk
43

Yes, as long as we mind nature, not leaving trash, speaking at a normal level.

I disagree with the statement that implies uncertainty about who is responsible for trashing the reserves. In my opinion, based on personal experience, Visitors amateur naturalists, who are often synonymous with the picnickers in the Sundarbans (obviously not all of them), are primarily responsible for increasing almost all types of pollutions. In Sundarbans, I’d estimate that at least 90% of the trash is caused by these individuals, who often are not aware of nature conservation and prioritize their luxuries and interests over conservation.
Sundarbans’ unique context means that dog walkers are not a concern. Local villagers may play a minor role, often motivated by Visitors/amateur enthusiasts. Those who do the Forest (Forest fishers, Wood Collectors, Crab Catchers, honey collectors, Poachers) facing significant risks of being vulnerable to Crocodiles, tigers, snakes and other predators, have a relatively negligible impact on the environment.
It’s essential to acknowledge the harm caused by amateur naturalists and take steps to mitigate their impact, rather than downplaying the issue with uncertain language.

44

As always it depends on “how” and “how many”. Unfortunately the label “nature photographer” doesn’t automatically imply an understanding of, or respect for, the subject of the photograph or nature in general. For example, here in central Italy where I live, every year hundreds or even thousands of photographers per day flock to the area during the red deer rutting season, all trying to get as near as possible to the deer and/or find the most original angle, at the same time causing considerable distress to the deer themselves and to the wildlife in general. Another example… photographers enthusiastic to immortalise the flowering of particularly interesting and/or rare orchids who thoughtlessly trample the surrounding vegetation in their quest.
Whereas in the past photography was something of an elitist occupation involving heavy, expensive equipment, costly film and hard-earned skills, now for better or for worse, it’s become readily accessible to almost everyone, with social media supplying a readily-available outlet and immediate gratification.
Sometimes in our enthusiasm we forget that just because we appreciate nature, doesn’t mean that nature appreciates us.

45

I think this is only true for labels that convey some sort of (more advanced) competence in a subject. For example, people should not label themselves ornithologists just because they like birds. Ornithology implies that they have studied this subject. Sometimes these labels may even be regulated. @lynkos mentioned “naturalista” is a regulated label in Italy. In Germany there are a bunch of “Geschützte Berufsbezeichnungen”, most notably for jobs in healthcare, law, or academic titles.

But not all labels are like that. Though this of course (as @lynkos also mentioned) will depend on where you live and even more on what languages you speak. Personally in English, I always understood “birder” to be shorthand for bird-enthusiast and “naturalist” for nature-enthusiast. Knowledge about a certain subject tends to increase with enthusiasm for the same, so if I had a question about birds, I’d rather ask the “birder” than the “herper”, but I’d still not question their choice of labelling themselves as such if they couldn’t answer it.

Overall I think the reason behind why we assign labels to ourselves is just that it is the quickest and most practical way to convey a certain piece of information. I have always interpreted it as such:
“I like birds” → Birds are animals I like
“I’m a birder” → I really like birds and it’s part of my identity
“I’m an ornithologist” → I have studied and know a hell of a lot about birds

46

I agree, but I also strongly feel that you are applying very narrow case studies to a global and much more nuanced topic. In general, I think educating on and fostering interest in environmental ethics will be much more productive than gatekeeping.

“In the end, we will conserve only what we love; we will love only what we understand, and we will understand only what we are taught.” -Baba Dioum

47

I appreciate your perspective. However, I must confess that my views on environmental ethics are indeed shaped by my personal experiences and observations within my local context. You might say that I’m looking at the issue through a narrow lens, but for me, that lens provides a unique focus on the nuances of human-nature interactions in my region. While I acknowledge the value of broader, more global perspectives, I believe that my ‘narrow way’ of viewing environmental ethics can still offer few valuable insights into the complexities of this multifaceted issue.
The Labeling Game: When Enthusiasm Turns Harmful
As I observe my world of wildlife and nature , I’m struck by the need to label myself as a “Birder” or “Herper.” On the surface, these terms seem harmless, but they can have unintended consequences.
The phenomenon reminds me of the rise of “Bikers” in the motorcycle community in our country. With the advent of high-speed bikes, a new breed of enthusiasts emerged, eager to prove their prowess on the road. This led to an increase in accidents and fatalities, but the allure of being a “Biker” remained strong.
Similarly, in the world of birdwatching, the term “Birder” has become a badge of honor, surpassing the humble title of “Bird Lover.” Armed with high-end cameras, enthusiasts flock to easily accessible bird areas, wetlands, and sanctuaries, disrupting the natural habitats (in my views) of the very creatures they seek to observe. The pursuit of a perfect shot has become an ego-driven exercise, with thousands of boats chasing rare species every day in almost all the waterbodies/wetlands of my area.
I’ve witnessed this firsthand in Keoladeo Ghana National Park also, where the Indian Sarus Crane is a prized sighting (Siberian Cranes stopped coming here). In contrast, a lesser-known nearby wetland like Sarsai Narwar, with its 150-200 Sarus Cranes in the very close proximity, remains a peaceful haven for true bird lovers. Its remote location, limited accessibility, and lack of amenities have preserved its serenity (IDK for how many days more?).
The trend did not remain unique to birdwatching. A new group of enthusiasts has emerged, seeking to outdo the Birders by labeling themselves “Herpers.” This pursuit of bravado is concerning, particularly when it involves handling deadly snakes. Having grown up surrounded by skilled snake charmers in my country, I’ve always had a deep appreciation for those who properly handle venomous snakes with expertise and proper caution. For me, the simple term ‘Snake lover’ suffices, as it conveys my respect and admiration for these individuals without feeling the need to add superfluous accolades
In the end, it’s not about becoming an ornithologist or a herpetologist; it’s about embracing a superficial identity. These labels may provide a temporary sense of pride, but they ultimately harm the very creatures we claim to appreciate.
I welcome diverse perspectives and opinions. People are free to label me as a ‘Gatekeeper,’ ‘preachy,’ or ‘judgmental’ if they so choose. I remain unfazed, as my intention is to share my genuine concerns and observations, not to seek validation or approval. I like to express my opinions from my experience and from the heart. I’ve never felt the need to label myself as a “Biker” or anything else. For me, being a simple “Nature Lover” is enough.

48

Identifying oneself with a label is what leads to depression when you no longer do it (think a retiree who’s whole identity was their job). It would be better to just say “I go birding”, “I do wildlife photography”, “I document the moths in my yard”. Besides I’m not going to call myself a “Mother” or “Leper”. :laughing:

49

What exactly is your desired outcome from this topic? (Asking genuinely) Do you think policing the use of terms like birder, herper, etc. will lead to a meaningful reduction in unethical nature-watching? Are you hoping to sway people away from using such terms?

I am now a self-proclaimed birder. I’m also an ecologist/ornithologist by trade. However, this was not always the case. In undergrad, I claimed the one taxa I would never work with was birds, predominately due to misconceptions about birders and not because I actually disliked birds. But once I actually got to know some ethical birders (which in my experience has been the majority, not the minority), I realized that they really care for bird abundance and diversity and birding is a way to share that love and promote it in others. As with any hobby (and with any profession), there will always be unethical participants. But at least as an “insider”, I can help condemn and correct unethical behavior when I see it, and it opens many more avenues for me to educate on birding ethics. I have given many talks on birding ethics, and I reach far more meaningful audiences as a birder than I do giving talks to professional audiences as an ornithologist.

Even if you think education is fruitless, policing unethical behavior seems much more productive than policing terminology.

50

I just do not see the connection between the labels (birder, herper) which are merely shorthand words and destructive behavior. Nature Lover = good, herper/birder = bad. Really??

51

In what sense do these polluters who not aware of nature conservation deserve to be classed as amateur naturalists? Are you saying anyone who visits a nature reserve is by definition a naturalist?

52

I believe I have conveyed my intended message clearly and concisely, without resorting to explicit language. A thoughtful analysis of my comments should reveal my desired outcome. I encourage you to consider the underlying psychological nuances in my words. If my intentions remain unclear, I’m afraid I’ve done my best to articulate them in a respectful manner. My personal background, qualifications, what I do for nature conservation etc are irrelevant to this conversation. Perhaps, in time, someone with expertise in psychology will grasp the underlying objectives that drove my comments.

The answer lies within the statement itself. Simply visiting a nature reserve doesn’t automatically make someone a naturalist.

53

The problem is that since the website on which we sit is called iNaturalist, to argue that some are not worthy of that word is a form of gatekeeping. It is by its very nature unkind, exclusionary, when perhaps we ought to be inclusive, especially if we wish to have more users from lesser attended corners of the earth.

I do not call myself a naturalist. For a long time my description read something like just a lady with a little wild space. I am distinctly aware I have no formal education in the sciences so I muddle about dependent on the good graces of others and my own disciplined practices.

But it yields! Five years in, having spent multiple hours a day just sitting and watching, I can tell you in detail about many species. I could do something like this for probably twenty or thirty local species, maybe more.

One could argue that these are not important species, who cares about the Nannotrigona perilampoides, Membracis mexicana, Hamelia patens, Solanum erianthum, Gonolobus barbatus, and the others, that it is more important to have broad knowledge across all taxa rather than deep knowledge of a few less important things (the plants I know are considered weeds), but that is not how my knowledge has been built, and I think maybe there is room for both types, and also room for those who come to just enjoy for a bit.

(Sometimes I like to think maybe we actually need all the types, for balance.)

Tl; dr: Labels are unimportant and fixating on the use of them and deciding if someone else can or cannot use one feels not wholly gracious. But there is confusion, yes, so then I think it is OK to ask, kindly, You say you are a birder, can you tell me more about that?

It is up to each individual to decide whether or not to consider any or none of what I have written.

I am after all just a lady, now with a different garden.

54

I can take a photo of a building without researching it’s construction method and history; I can take a photo of a valley without studying it’s inhabitants and understanding the geological forces that created it and I can take a photo of a bird with no knowledge about it’s biology.
There is nothing wrong with photography as a hobby or as a profession.

on the other hand

assuming that I take a photo of a building because a travel guide told me so and assuming I am not interested in the detail if I take a landscape photo and assuming I take a photo of a bird just for the bragging rights is just not justified (to be kind).

55

“Not justified” in what sense and by whom? It’s a photo. As long as taking the photo didn’t involve doing something illegal or unethical, there’s no harm.

56

Let me rephrase:

  1. I can snap a bird without PhD in ornithology.
  2. No one knows why am I taking a photo and how much I know about the subject. (The assumptions are not justified)
57

That’s one problem. Another problem is that Birdraghu-youtube seems to be unaware that there are villages and villagers on every continent, including Europe and North America. Those villagers (and others who live in larger settlements) also “coexist with majestic creatures.” You only have to look at the distribution of rattlesnakes, alligators, black bears, coyotes and numerous other species to see that a lot of people in North America are coexisting with large, dangerous or majestic animals. Do they all “live in harmony with nature, fostering a deeper understanding and respect for the land and its inhabitants?” Nope. But, then again, I doubt that everyone in India does, either.

58

I do not see anything to indicate this. I see where the poster offered up this group as an example of an alternative way of experiencing nature but did not say they are the only group to do so.

Nor do I see where they said “everyone in India” anything.

I see them, perhaps clumsily, express a desire:

  1. for more people from underrepresented parts of the world to take part in iNaturalist
  2. for people to consider experiencing nature more intentionally
  3. for people to consider if terms can just be used or should be earned

I only addressed the last, as I see the restriction of language as problematic to their first goal.

Have I horribly misunderstood your points @Birdraghu-youtube ?

59

As he said, he avoided being explicit, but he encouraged me to “consider the underlying psychological nuances in [his] words” and that’s what I did.

60

While I believe the original post was genuine albeit, in my opinion, misguided, Birdraghu-youtube’s final comment to papernautilus and myself was a sarcastic bad-faith comment. It’s become apparent that this thread was intended to express an unfettered opinion, with little desire for discussion or alternative views.

61

Since there is a twelve hour difference between here and there, I think I would rather wait to see if perhaps the error is in my understanding, having long ago realized that words carry different meanings in different places and in different mediums, especially when fluency levels may vary.

I am not sure where the thread verged away from the original post, but I find that intriguing enough to engage, since

  1. I also wish the underrepresented areas were more represented (which does not mean I wish people from more represented areas to disappear).
  2. I also engage with nature in a more sustained manner, albeit with equipment (my cellphone) at hand.
62

What’s the difference between vetting and gatekeeping?

“Vetting” is the term used by the person doing the gatekeeping.
“Gatekeeping” is the term used by the person being vetted.