Thanks for that definition! I just couldn’t find a good way to put it.
Not a problem. :)
2 Likes
There’s also a Bison × Cattle (Bison bison × Bos taurus) ID category on iNat – currently not populated – if we really want to start splitting hairs about what IS a real bison, whether captive or wild?
That depends. Is it part of a population of llamas, burros, or hogs that sustain themselves and reproduce on their own? For all I know, it could be a feral burro or a feral hog; and is it impossible to have feral llamas?
In some ways, I think so. This touches upon an argument I have had before, as to whether wilderness is a real thing. My opponent told me that basically, it is not, because indigenous people have managed and altered landscapes since time out of mind. Well, if that means that wilderness is not real, it would seem to follow that megafauna enclosed in designated preserves are not wild, either.
If it looks like I am playing both sides of the field here, it is because I can see the complexity of these matters.
Maybe that acceptance is part of the problem. You can go to Northwest Trek and see native Pacific Northwest megafauna, but does that count as a wildlife experience in the same way that seeing them in Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest does?
We had that conversation, too – about the escaped tiger in the city. It was in the zoo because humans intended it to be there and then; but while it was outside the zoo, it was so because it intended to be there and then.
1 Like
The Bison x Cattle hybrid was developed for livestock, as “beefalo” or “cattlo.” The hybrid hasn’t really become popular, as far as I can tell. In addition, some bison herds turn out to have a small percentage of cattle genes, apparently due to a hybridization event decades ago followed by much backcrossing to pure bison. These animals look like bison and aren’t treated as hybrids. So I’d say, this hybrid issue isn’t important for iNaturalist at this time.
2 Likes
There are actually two, but they’re just hard to find because they’re non-wild/Casual observations.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=any&subview=map&taxon_id=934709&verifiable=any
1 Like
My opponent told me that basically, it is not, because indigenous people have managed and altered landscapes since time out of mind. Well, if that means that wilderness is not real, it would seem to follow that megafauna enclosed in designated preserves are not wild, either.
My conclusion is different than yours - we need to accept that our definitions of what is wild or not can be a lot more fluid than we may have originally thought, and that it is context-dependent. Most land-based megafauna in the modern era is managed and hemmed in by mankind in one way or another - and that is just simple reality.
Maybe that acceptance is part of the problem.
Or maybe the problem doesn’t exist or is far less of an issue than you and others make it out to be.
As long as the animal is subject to natural selection pressures and is able to complete its natural ecology (allowed to breed naturally, foraging for itself, interacting with other wildlife, etc), it is wild enough in my opinion.
This applies especially in regions so large that the presence of a fence (physical or not) ceases to be relevant (as is the case for the majority of Kruger’s carnivores for example, many of whose territories are located squarely within the region and as such do not have their freedom of movement restricted).
5 Likes
I tend to agree with you about the fluid nature of ‘wild’. Apart from Antarctica, humans have been on every continent for a very long time. We were part of that wild for a very long time, and have lived with non-human life since. Even our urbanized landscapes are technically part of the wild, and non-human life has adapted (not always well) to that. The us/them dichotomy is, at it’s root, false.
4 Likes
But at some point we ceased to be. Maybe it corresponded to the mythical story of Prometheus, when mastery of fire gave us powers no other species had. (Remember Louie, in “The Jungle Book”? “Give me the power of Man’s red flower, so I can be just like you.”) Fire allows us to make landscapes in our own image, so to speak, on a wider scale than any other single species has been able to do.
Or, maybe it corresponded to the Garden of Eden story, when we acquired the ability to make moral judgements, and to choose between good and evil.
Those who would control nature would certainly prefer that I not make it out to be a problem. But how far did elephants or wildebeest migrate before they were confined to preserves?
Is there a qualitative difference between seeing an elk at Northwest Trek, and seeing an elk in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest? If so, what makes the difference?
Is there a difference between a bison herd fenced in at Wind Cave National Park, and a bison herd migrating across what would later become several states? You wrote of “being able to complete its natural ecology”; well, for bison, those long-distance migrations are (were?) their natural ecology. And the human inhabitants of that time – that is, before the white man’s westward expansion – did not find it necessary to confine the herds in order to coexist with them.
I’ve been to the Ovambo territory. I have seen the strict policy of apartheid, wherein the original wildlife of the district is now confined to the Etosha Homeland, with no rights of movement through the human-controlled lands outside. It was not always so. Wildlife there once enjoyed the freedom of their ancestral lands, and had their traditional migration and travel routes far beyond the borders of the current Wildlifestan.
Yes, they are captive. They are as captive as the people of the Bantustans once were.
The Bison on what we might call the Wind Cave Buffalo Reservation are captive, too, until they are free to live off-Rez without being rounded up as vagrants.
4 Likes
Personally I have no issue with having a debate if they are captive or not. While I understand and respect the view they are, personally I disagree with it. I believe captivity entails 2 criteria, restricted movement and active intervention to sustain life. Bison only meet 1 of these.
What I have an issue with in the actions that prompted this thread is:
- whether you subscribe to the they are captive or not theory, site staff have stated they did not wish the flag to be used this way
- even more I have an issue with it being selectively applied to a single species. If the bison there are captive, then all animals there that can not evade the fences are captive, and all should be marked as such by the flaggers, not just a single species to make a point
11 Likes
There is an aspect of the present discussion that I find missing, which is that many iNaturalist members try to entice more people to join the community. Now, I go regularly to Caprock Canyons State Park, which is home of the Texas State Bison Herd. It seems somewhat ridiculous to have a project for the park (https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/caprock-canyons-state-park-tpwd) that does not include the American bison or that none of the American bison observations would ever be research grade.
When I started posting on iNaturalist I took photos of native plants that someone who was a native plant enthusiast had in his garden. Unfortunately they were not native to that specific area and ended up being tagged as casual. As a neophyte I could not understand the distinction and basically decided to not take any picture of plants for a while.
It is wonderful that scientists use iNaturalist data but for me the key role of iNaturalist is to encourage everybody to become more aware of their environment. It is through observation and learning that people will favor conservation and preservation of the biodiversity on this planet. Why not assume that every organism is wild and identifiers can check an observation field that indicates if the specimen is captive, managed, or whatever they consider appropriate. It would not change anything for scientists who can easily exclude these cases and it would be more welcoming to new members.
Another point with the bison. TPWD employees spend a lot of time and energy to make people aware that although the herd is managed the animals are wild. Some visitors do not follow the minimum 50-yard distance between them and the bison. They attempt to get close to take selfies, which is just dumb. There is no need for iNaturalist to inform them that the animals are not “wild” according to some.
11 Likes
It was discussed in many other topics. https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/absolutely-tired-of-plants-not-marked-as-cultivated-solutions-welcome/21735
Wild irl and wild for iNat are not quite similar, so it’s understandable why this case raises discussions.
2 Likes
My, my. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Now I know why certain kinds of mathematics are so appealing. In any case, maybe large portions of the USA should become a buffalo commons as proposed by Frank and Deborah Popper in 1987.
2 Likes
The size of the enclosure needs to be defined, whether that is in square kilometers, or the maintained animal density. There are so many fences in the world, that by definition, every living thing is effectively fenced in and thereby captive by the loose definition of the presence of a fence.
6 Likes
This discussion has been fascinating and raises really important questions but I think this addresses the most relevant issue – the criteria of “what is wild/captive” is not defined well enough and therefore should not be applied selectively. Any pronghorn, sheep, bear, etc. that are also restricted by fencing or other forms of management would also need to be tagged, and getting to the minutia of that would likely show how that would be improperly applied.
Based on this discussion, “wild” might no longer exist. But there are still differences between “captive”, “domesticated”, “cultivated” and “managed”. To blur those lines would be to oversimplify the ways any species lives in a human-influenced world.
2 Likes
The same thought occurred to me at the start of this topic - ‘Angels on the head of a pin’, much ado about nothing, and so on.
2 Likes
You don’t even have to go backpacking. The buffalo wander through Sage Creek campground, probably b/c they like the nearby prairie dog town. I got huffed at once just wandering to the creek. Every bison worker I know says they will kill you if they want to, especially the cows with calves. The males in rut won’t necessarily try to kill you; they just want to fight and if you happen to be in the way…
Also, @raymie I think I have mentioned this to you before but I suggest you leave a comment explaining your reasoning for unwilding as a courtesy. It feels very random and a little odd to have an observation of an organism made within a national park not be considered wild.
National parks are not zoos nor are they farms, so I am firmly on Team Wild. I get the reason others might not be but I bet most people would consider the buffalo wild since they are not intentionally bred nor fed but are there in that place, fenced though it may be, primarily for the functioning of the ecosystem. If iNat ever revises the guidance on what constitutes wild, I think including the why it’s there is an important consideration.
Getting back to the request for a comment: You’ve unwilded some of my bison observations and once it really hosed me over when the change in DQA removed that observation from a project I created to teach trophic levels of Badlands National Park. The culminating observation of bison poop had disappeared from the lesson.
I won’t lie. I was flustered. A head’s up would have been appreciated.
I thought iNat was going to set up a notification system about changes in DQA w the last revamp but I don’t know what triggers a notification. I don’t think I received a notification about the unwilding of one of my buffalo poop observations]
5 Likes
I guess it will be added with the whole notification system revamp.
The dichotomy of fenced/unfenced that you’ve arbitrarily chosen is pretty meaningless. There are fenced herds that are less “managed” than some unfenced herds. As many have pointed out, taking the fenced classifier to its logical conclusion renders some of the worlds largest intact ecosystems as essentially zoos. That’s absurd and basically renders the wild/captive designation meaningless. What’s the difference between a fence and an invisible line after which animals are killed or rounded up?
Andy
3 Likes