william_deml's Journal

Here is the substance of what I wrote in an identification that I undertook of an observation a Naturalist submitted of an American Black Bear (Ursus americanus) that was on display as a dramatic taxidermized specimen in the showroom of a large chain sporting goods store, such as have sprung up all over the country. These are great places to learn something about certain species of "big game," as one can study some aspects of anatomy up close (for free), and compare similar species of mountain sheep for instance, and for buying aids to observation such as binoculars and hiking boots. The observation as posted raised a few questions in my mind however, especially as the mounted Black Bear was starting to be identified on iNaturalist as a Human (Homo sapiens), which seemed to me a problematic direction to take it, and in my mind did not properly acknowledge and honor the bear itself, as "casual" as it must remain, as an observation. I have no reason to link to the observation itself at this time. I am interested to see where the discussion there might go, but I don't want to excerpt or misrepresent any of the participants in that discussion as it evolves; only to raise those few initial iNaturalist relevant questions here, as a Journal entry of my own words on the subject so far:

This is an interesting case, as an iNaturalist observation. How to best characterize it?

As I see it, [name withheld], what you photographed is clearly a Black Bear. It may be dead, and subsequently stuffed and chemically preserved, but it is still the actual remains of a certain individual Black Bear, albeit with the addition of a pair of glass eyes, some papier-mâché and a little paint. The hide and claws at least undoubtedly remain. They are of that particular Bear.

The fact that that Bear was likely shot by a hunter does not alter its identity. That just makes it a dead bear that someone killed (or perhaps even was found dead, it does not matter). A roadkill rabbit remains a rabbit. If that rabbit is dried and hung on a wall, it is still that particular dead rabbit. You can still know and tell the story of the poor rabbit's demise, and even take its picture if you like.

What is different in this case, is that the Black Bear that you photographed has been completely removed from its origin-al native environment. It is now in effect a Zoo animal on display, that also just happens to be dead.

Where did it come from? When was it removed from the wild? How?

iNaturalist is all about locating a specific organism in a certain place and time. Here, we have absolute tangible evidence of a specific organism, but unfortunately absolutely no place or time to contextualize it with. And, because this particular Bear did not choose to be where it is now found, it is by definition, captive, rather than wild, in the same sense that an animal in a zoo, though still a "wild" animal, now lives in captivity, where it, itself, did not choose to be.

Here then is a dead Black Bear (from who knows where), effectively in captivity, on public display.

It is surely not an observation of a Human (Homo sapiens). No more than a picture of a dead road-killed Deer is an observation of a Human - just because it happened to be killed by a Human controlled machine (car). That doesn't change the fact that it is a dead Deer.

The undeniable artistry of good taxidermy as a Human endeavor is of no relevance either, as it is the physical remains of that bear that are the subject of the observation, not their condition, or means or reason for preservation. It would not matter if the hide were stuffed with nothing but sawdust, or the entire animal freeze-dried intact. To whatever degree, these are still the physical remains of that particular dead Bear, not some artist's artificial compilation, toy, or simulation.

So, in my view, such a dead animal on display in a museum, or store, or zoo, is a "casual" observation on iNaturalist because it lacks three things - the record of a time and place where the animal was found in nature; and because it, being removed from its location involuntarily, can no longer be considered wild.

Therefore, in the Data Quality Assessment, I would vote that both the date and location (of that particular Bear in the wild) are not accurate (because unknown), and that it is "not wild" in the sense that it is in effect in captivity (not where the Bear itself chose to be).

By the way, I telephoned the [Sporting Goods/Outdoor shop] in [city], California, and they assured me that those are all actual taxidermized specimens of wildlife and big game, including that Black Bear, in lifelike poses and settings, in their store. [This last comment because someone asked whether this observation was of an actually taxidermized Bear, or just "a diorama."]

We have a large "Cabela's" store near Wheeling, W.Va. here that displays many similar real taxidermy specimens of not only North American "big game" animals, but African species as well. It is not at all unusual at "outdoors" stores like that.

Thanks, [name withheld], for presenting a situation that invites discussion!
Keep up the great observations, and have many a wonderful time in Nature!