In a world of shares and follows, what do we owe the wild?
The pandemic sparked a surge in wildlife photography. With more time, less travel, and a deep yearning for connection, people turned to local nature—and cameras. Social media became the gallery. Instagram feeds filled with birds in flight, foxes at dusk, deer through mist.
It looked beautiful. And it is. But we need to ask: what’s driving us to share, and at what cost?
Are We Doing It for the Wildlife—or for the Likes?
Social media can inspire wonder. It can educate and amplify conservation. But it also rewards speed, spectacle, and attention.
- Are we going out with our cameras because we love nature, or because we need a new post?
- Do we pick subjects based on ecology—or virality?
- Are captions crafted with care, or curated for engagement?
There’s nothing wrong with joy or recognition. But when our presence in nature is shaped by online performance, we need to reflect.
The Hidden Stress: What About Wildlife Mental Health?
We speak openly now about how photography supports our mental health. That matters. But what about the stress it causes to animals?
- Repeated disturbances by well-meaning photographers can affect feeding, breeding, and parenting.
- Birds flushed from nests for one photo may never return.
- Animals chased or baited for a better angle may suffer unseen trauma.
If our healing comes at the cost of theirs, we need to reassess the balance.
The Competitive Edge: Nature as a Stage
Social media can turn nature into a leaderboard.
- Who got the rarest shot? Who posted first? Who got the closest?
- Do we gatekeep locations to protect them, or to build exclusivity?
- Are we sharing for advocacy—or accolades?
When we treat wildlife as a backdrop to our personal brand, exploitation creeps in. Not from malice, but momentum.
Tech and Access: The Double-Edged Lens
Advancing camera gear has democratized wildlife photography. You no longer need a £10,000 lens to capture a Kingfisher.
- This accessibility is powerful and positive.
- But more people, more often, in more places means more pressure on habitats.
We can celebrate access while still encouraging restraint.
Are We Actually Doing Harm?
Not always. Many photographers take great care. Some use their work to advocate, educate, and protect. But not all do. And intention isn’t the same as impact.
- A well-liked post can draw crowds to a fragile site.
- A tagged location can trigger habitat degradation.
- A “harmless” close-up can mislead others about safe distances.
Ethics means asking not just what we meant, but what happened next.
Posting With Purpose: Scenarios to Reflect On
Scenario 1: You photograph a fox den. You post it to a local wildlife Facebook group. Within days, the area sees increased foot traffic. The foxes relocate.
Scenario 2: You post a photo of a kingfisher, but include no context. Followers ask how you got so close. Some try to replicate it, risking disturbance.
Scenario 3: You share a hare in the snow, and include a caption about staying distant and patient. You inspire others to practice ethical fieldcraft.
Every post carries a story. Let’s be honest about what that story says—and who it affects.
Social media isn’t the problem. It’s a mirror.
What we reflect back is up to us.
Leave a Reply