Nature Photographers: Environmental Scourges or Environmental Saviours?
Discussion
29 replies
Posted by Brad Hill on August 10, 2010 at 12:55 PM
Hey all,
Not really a "new" topic, but some of you may find this interesting...
Way back in 2007 I posted an essay on my photography website entitled "Nature Photography as a Resource Extraction Industry". Long story short, there were a few key points in my essay, specifically:
1. Like it or not, nature photographers DO have a negative impact on their subject matter and, because of this, can be likened to a typical resource extraction industry.
2. Because of this negative impact on the environment, nature photographers have a responsibility to go above and beyond in their conservation efforts (if, for no other reason to perserve their subject matter and "neutralize" their impact).
3. I don't accept that the standard "line" that the photographer is "creating awareness" of the environment is doing enough. Sorry - "creating awareness" is simply too vague and too unmeasureable to resonate with me, regardless of how many books or calendars you sell!
The essay has attracted thousands of sets of eyeballs (and has been used in a number of college and university courses), but not too much feedback.
Recently, however, Steve Fletcher (an ex-pat Canadian and biologist now living in Los Angeles, CA) sent me a very well-reasoned rebuttal in essay form. The following points summarize his thinking:
1. Give your head a shake Brad - the impact of nature photographers is trivial compared to the massive impact of habitat loss.
2. In any conservation battle, ultimately the dollar rules.
3. The best approach is to turn our subjects into cash-cows (via a big increase in ecotourism and charging to haul an increasing photographers into the field) - in other words - make that bear (or orchid, or meadow, or snail darter, blah, blah, blah) worth a lot more money ALIVE than DEAD!
My response to Steve's feedback? One part of me is saddened by the idea that western society attaches no true value to nature or the natural world for its intrinsic value. But I have to admit I think Steve is mostly right - I still cling to my thought that nature photographers have to do more to offset their own impact on the environment, but I DO believe that increasing the economic impact of ecotourism is a very sound strategy. In fact, Steve's clearly worded essay has convinced me that I should expand my own ecotourism offerings (i.e., Photo Tours) in the future. So...expect to see more and more fantastic photo tours in the coming years!
Feedback on this issue of the impact of nature photographers on the environment would be very, very welcomed!
If anyone wants to read the original essay and Steve's rebuttal, here they are:
I agree that it was/us a bit of an "About Face" - and definitely caused me more than a few second thoughts. After leading photo tours into some of the more remote places in North America I honestly feel that bringing other photographers into the area does more good than harm. We team up with the local indigenous populations (coastal First Nations folks) whenever possible - it's amazing how their involvement in ecotourism can influence government policy and help shift it away from more intrusive (and less sustainable as currently practiced) economic development (like clear cutting, oil tankers, etc.) in the region.
Cheers...
Brad
Posted by John Mumaw on August 10, 2010 at 2:51 PM
One part of me is saddened by the idea that western society attaches no true value to nature or the natural world for its intrinsic value.
That's an awfully broad brush you use there. Are you referring to yourself, as well? I know you aren't referring to me or many of my cohorts, and we're a part of Western society.
Posted by Bill Stice on August 10, 2010 at 3:00 PM
Brad, hats off to you for being so honest and open about such a tough subject. I waffle back and forth about the whole issue. As humans we are part of the environment and yet we have the unique position of being able to analyze with intelligence (some of the time) what our impacts might be while other living things pretty much do what they are naturally programmed to do. As a part of the environment we have an impact by default and like other organisms when we exceed the carrying capacity of our environment we tend to foul it or destroy it in one way or another. The important difference that I see for us is that we can make a conscious choice to do otherwise and aren't driven by pre-programmed forces. The fact that we have choice makes it difficult. I can see the arguments on both sides and think the best answer is somewhere in the middle although I'm not quite sure where yet. I have a few more years left ( I'm a biologist by training and am 62 years old) to try and figure it out. I'm still searching for the answer. Good luck and with your attitude you will undoubtedly choose the best course and make a difference in the natural world.
Posted by Nate Chappell on August 10, 2010 at 3:07 PM
I'd have to say I generally agree with Steve Fletcher's take on this.
One example I can cite is that we have used Sani Lodge in the Ecuadorian Amazon region for our photography tours. Part of the reason we use Sani Lodge is that it's owned by and provides many jobs for the local indigenous community. Before Sani Lodge was started an oil company was trying to get permission to drill on the Sani people's lands which would have resulted in huge impacts to the environment. One of the lodge elders convinced the community to start an ecolodge to provide income instead of striking a deal with the oil company. With a successful ecolodge now in place both the community has an incentive to protect both the environment and the wildlife. Wildlife photographers are not the majority of visitors to Sani but I imagine they are a significant portion of Sani's clientele.
In my opinion calling wildlife photography a "resource extraction industry" and thereby comparing it to oil companies or miners is quite far fetched. I think in general we do more good for the environment by "raising awareness" than by our small impacts on individual subjects. That being said, I would agree with you that we have a duty to be responsible with our photography and encourage conservation efforts.
Posted by John W. Wall on August 10, 2010 at 3:27 PM
Making a living running photo tours doesn't strike me as particularly ecologically destructive, nor does taking a vacation to attend a photo tour. I can see how leading people into a sensitive area they wouldn't otherwise visit would give you pause, but I think you're right that those people will better appreciate and want to protect the place. We're always going to be extracting stuff to make a living -- and greed will often lead to bad outcomes -- but if some of us can at least save the few wild places we have left, we'll have done some good.
Sorry (and with no offense intended) but your comment:
That's an awfully broad brush you use there. Are you referring to yourself, as well? I know you aren't referring to me or many of my cohorts, and we're a part of Western society.
totally confuses me.
The statement you quote is referencing the viewpoint of Steve Fletcher, not my viewpoint. It's not my brush. I'm referring only to the fact that if his view of the dollar ruling virtually all environmental decisions is true, it saddens me somewhat. It needn't sadden anyone else - I can't think of a narrower brush than referring to myself (for being saddened).
To Nate: Re: far-fetched nature of calling photography a resource extraction industry. Not sure I agree that it's far-fetched - not doubt a logical extension of standard thinking on resource extraction, but drawing the line of what type of resource use is extraction and what isn't is a "shades of grey" issue - if harm is done to the resource - and economic benefit is derived from that harm (think selling images) - I think an argument can be made that it's a form of resource extraction.
The goal of all this is to provoke thought. For me it is a reflection of a lifelong struggle to reconcile my actions and make them as consistent philosophically as possible. And, of course, it's IMPOSSIBLE to make them totally consistent (even if one chooses to go live in a cave!!).
Thanks all...I'm sure the additional viewpoints we'll see will be interesting...
Brad
Posted by Mel Ladewig on August 10, 2010 at 5:42 PM
I can't say that I really understand your perspective that my presence in the wilderness is creating a negative impact.
I stay on existing trails. If I must cross tundra off trail, I minimize my trips and distribute my tracks which reduces impact. I do not walk, ride or drive on crypto-biotic soils. I camp for short periods in areas in an attempt to cause no impact on vegetation. I do not bring pack animals into the wilderness. I do not use campfires. I do not leave trash. If I'm in an area where decomposition of waste isn't possible, I pack out my waste. In other words, I ascribe to the philosophy of leave no trace. I also do not use my photographic output for the purpose of encouraging tourism or for political grandstanding against development, extraction, etc...
I can point to the Wilderness Act as a counterpoint to Steve Fletcher's response. This act was put into place with no predisposition that there would be greater economic value gained from the wilderness area than alternative economic drivers could generate. Since there is no permanent human habitation permitted under the wilderness act, there is also no provision for a gift shop, hotel or other tourist amenities that would generate greater economic activity than mining, logging or ski areas alternatives. It stands as a primary example of non-economic valuation of significant swaths of American lands. The fact that land is continually added to the Wilderness catalog stands as a testament of the success of this law.
I might also refer you to more current economic thinking on valuation for the repair of environmental degradation. NPR publishes a podcast called Planet Money. A recent episode discussed the valuation of a Pelican. I highly recommend that you listen to this entertaining episode related to the oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico and the valuation of the environmental damage inflicted by BP's well. The podcast is free.
I think the biggest problem "between" our viewpoints is my inability to condense my original 1700 word essay into 3 bullet points (I thought that might be a bit of a problem ).
I commend your efforts to minimize your impact, but would contend that it still isn't zero (and my rationale for this IS contained in the original essay and references contained therein). In fact, the responsibilities I talk about photographers having (to partially mitigate their impact on the environment) are close to what you already do. I wish all photographers and wilderness users were as conscientious as you! But, they aren't - and I think my basic contention that nature photography DOES have an environmental impact is valid.
I am aware of the current economic thinking on the valuation for the repair of environmental degradation and have seen some interesting and apparently valid models, especially for damage done to riparian zones by cattle. I am also aware that only a very limited subset of damage types have been given a dollar value. But, most importantly, I'm convinced that finding a way to place a real economic value on keeping pristine areas pristine in the first place (or even keeping grizzly bears alive), such as can be done through well thought out "leave no trace" ecotourism, is another good way to argue for the conservation of an area. As an example, I know of one particular 30-year old grizzly that has now drawn in thousands of viewers over the last 20 years (at about $1500 per head for a 3-day visit). That same bear would generate between $10,000 and $15,000 if bagged by a legal hunter during the single time it can be killed. Economically, that bear is worth a whole lot more alive than dead (and, speaking partly tongue-in-chee, can only be shot with a gun once, but an unlimited number of times with a camera!). So, in defense of Steve Fletcher, I think there can be valid "money talks" arguments made for conserving areas through conscientious ecotourism.
I think the missing dimension to both arguments is time. Any and all impact can be minimized to nothing at all by simply extending the time scale. If you consider your impact within the next couple of seconds then even drawing a breath can be considered extractive. Expand it to minutes and you may with a single misstep devastate another life form as profoundly as if you set off a nuclear explosion. Within hours our collective actions may lead to extinctions of species (by some estimates around 3 species per hour disappear forever) etc. Our very existence alters the environment in some way every single second and when any life form is no longer fit for its environment it becomes extinct. This is as true for bears as it will be for humans some day.
It intrigues me that people, and especially scientists, seem to have a blind spot when it comes to humanity and present day reality. Why would we assume the universe has come to some kind of steady state just because we happen to exist? Why would bears or orchids or humans be spared the same fate that befell untold numbers of other species for over 4 billion years when their resources became scarce, their climate changed, competing life forms became more successful, etc.? If a meteorite ended the Cretaceous and eliminated the dinosaurs (a hugely successful life form), why would we assume that global climate change or some other cataclysmic event won't end the Quaternary, and us and bears with it? Are we so special that we can halt evolution, avoid extinction under any environmental conditions, save life on Earth from the expansion of the sun, or prevent our solar system from ultimately recycling into cosmic dust?
Kinda puts "conservation" in perspective, doesn't it? Expand the time scale a few hundred million years and we can't really conserve anything, ourselves included. In fact, we can't make the least bit of difference no matter what we do.
Where we CAN make a difference is within the scope of our own lifetimes and for the sake of life as we know and appreciate it. Measure it in dollars or karma or any other way, the only reason to protect the gifts of wildness is purely egotistical: because it does have value for us and enriches our own brief experience as living beings. When you adopt a dog, you saved a life. When you vote to set aside wilderness, you may save species... for a little while. That's about all we can hope for.
Bears and orchids and people WILL be extinct one way or another. So will every other species. Like it or not, we will likely be fossils or dust when another form of life masters the planet, and recast into who knows what when the Earth itself is incinerated by the sun.
At best we can hope to preserve the things we love a little while longer than they otherwise may, so we and possibly a couple more generations can appreciate them as well. The biggest threat humans pose to other species is not photography or hunting or any other individual pursuit, it's habitat loss. The most environmentally-friendly thing any of us can do is to work towards reducing and stabilizing our population and switching from a growth-based economy to a sustainability-based model.
Don't see it happening? Neither do I. May as well admit we're only working to delay the inevitable. The extent of the delay will depend on cumulative measures, not on whether any one of us is out there with a camera. Rather than scrutinize photography or other individual pursuits, consider your overall footprint. A photographer driving a Hummer 50,000 miles a year and dumping their used batteries into pristine alpine lakes may still have 1/40th of the environmental impact of a Prius driving, recycling, carpooling father of 2 (according to study reviews in the NY Times) not to mention entire corporations and nations. Political correctness will not save the planet.
Guy
Posted by Luke Ormand on August 10, 2010 at 9:16 PM
Brad,
I'm going to stay away from the hot and heavy arguments here and point to a recent experience. I visited a County Park in search of a specific Osprey nest that needed to be photographed for a client. While I didn't find what I was looking for, I found an extensive stand of Sabatia stellaris aka Saltmarsh Pink, which is on the NYS threatened species list. The County had been mowing a path (literally to nowhere) right through this area of flowers and was seemingly unaware of the plants presence. I took some photographs and sent them to the state's Natural Heritage Program, which confirmed the species and informed me that this was a previously unknown population - bringing the total number of known populations in New York State to just 9 (I also found the 8th a few years back). I subsequently e-mailed a contact of mine at the County whom I've worked with on endangered plants before and informed her of the mowing and just like that the mowing has ceased and the population is now being actively protected by the County.
I make this point to counter that we don't HAVE to have a negative impact every time we go out. A lot of our work can have a positive impact (well beyond "awareness" which is rather dubious and usually means awareness in one's wallet), but we must put fourth the effort to do so. I could have easily kept the information of that plant to myself but that would have caused quite a bit of inadvertent damage.
I make it a habit to "donate" images to non-profits and organizations that I think do good work because it doesn't "cost" me anything. I will gladly donate a few of my images to the local marine mammal rescue organization for an auction, or let the local Audubon society use my images on their website for free. I look at these opportunities as ways to offset my photography footprint (just thinking about the amount of gas I use driving around looking for birds is rather sickening) and balance things out.
- Luke
Posted by Nate Chappell on August 10, 2010 at 9:53 PM
Luke, I guess I have a hard time understanding why the idea of nature photographers raising the public's awareness is dubious and necessarily related to one's wallet. For example a few decades ago conservation groups were able to educate the public as to the plight of the Whooping Crane and increase public support for saving this beautiful species. I'd be willing to bet that some nature photographers great images were a part of this campaign. In my opinion some of our images help educate the public as to the beauty of animals and their environment, I don't think that's dubious at all.
I'm not saying that's why I do photography, I do it because I enjoy it and it has become part of the way I make a living. But at the same time, I don't think our contributions to raising people's awareness about the environment and different species should be minimized or looked down on.
Posted by Luke Ormand on August 10, 2010 at 10:04 PM
Nate,
I'm guilty of making a generalized statement. What I meant to communicate is a lot of photographers who don't want to be bothered with the actual depth of Brad's question run to the excuse that their images create awareness and that's good enough. There are plenty of nature/wildlife photographers on art show circuits who will trample anything in their way to get the shot and then boast that they are "creating awareness". There is a lot more to "creating awareness" then selling your artwork. It needs to be published in conservation publications, splashed across the internet and accompanied by news reports. It may be hard for some on NPN to grasp this concept because people on NPN are inherently concerned with Nature and have good ethics, but we all know photographers out there that will harass a nesting bird to get the shot.
I hope I'm wrong, and feel free to prove me so.
- Luke
Posted by Brad Hill on August 10, 2010 at 11:05 PM
Hi Guy,
You know, I once sat at a dinner table on a sailboat in the middle of the Great Bear Rainforest and watched the most fascinating discussion between a hard-core "I don't give a damn about the environment" (his own description of himself) businessman and the leader of a prominent American environmental foundation. The businessman used the "well, in 4 billion years the sun will burn out anyway so why should I give a rat's ass about the environment?" argument. The leader of the environmental movement responded with "...so then it doesn't matter if I bash you across the head with this wine bottle right now?". Believe it or not, this is a true story (tho' the environmentalist did manage to restrain himself!). With all due respect, your philosophical points seem akin to the businessman in my story. And, I don't know of a single scientist who isn't aware of the time scale issue or the fact that eventually we'll all be extinct. But that "we're all going extinct anyway" viewpoint really serves no purpose (and I hardly see how it "puts things in perspective")...other than to perhaps encourage those among us who might be easily disturbed to jump off a bridge 'cuz we're all going to die anyway (OK, maybe I'm exaggerating just a little!! ).
I'm not sure I fully buy this statement either:
"Measure it in dollars or karma or any other way, the only reason to protect the gifts of wildness is purely egotistical: because it does have value for us and enriches our own brief experience as living beings."
While I suspect we may be getting into semantics, I don't see a desire to preserve the biological diversity of the planet and to slow down the highest rate of extinction on this planet as "egotistical". All the folks that I know that are employed by conservation groups are putting in mega-hours and are doing so for low wages. I think they'd be a tad miffed to be called "egotistical" for doing so. Naive? Maybe. I think a simpler explanation is that they care about doing what they can to conserve what they can.
Brad, I was trying to take an objective position and make the link from why objectively it may seem like we shouldn't care to why, when placed in proper context, we really should. When someone tells me they don't give a damn about the environment, they really are saying they don't give a damn about the things that make my own life worth living. It's no longer about "we're all gonna die anyway" but rather about "my perception of value is more important than your perception of value". Within that limited scope it is, objectively, is a valid reason to counter such claims in argument or, as the case may be, with a wine bottle. When it comes down to it - the value we derive out of living is all any of us really has. If environmentalists didn't see value in prolonging the existence of bears, they wouldn't do it.
No disrespect intended to those who work for conservation (as I do myself). Still, as a biologist I'm sure you're familiar with the works of Dawkins and others explaining altruism in "selfish" terms. When it comes to the emotional aspect of terms like "egotistical" you're right - it is just semantics. Taken literally, though, as in something done for the self, it does seem to apply. I don't know a single activist who would pursue their cause if it did not feel rewarding to them.
Thanks for the clarification Guy. And I do agree that environmental activists (at least the ones I know) largely do what they do because it is rewarding to them. I see why you consider this egotistical (in terms of personal gratification), but I think their actions do fall outside what most folks think of when they think of the term "egotistical". Which is why I mentioned that I thought we were starting to play a game of semantics.
This is something I sent to Brad in reaction to his post on his website and above. I'm posting this as per his suggestion here. Take into account that the text below is cynical and should not be taken literally in all it's forms
Also, I feel many/most/all people on this website belong to the category who do care, but hey, we're on a nature photography website so the statistics here are not really representative of the general human population
Altough it saddens me I must wholehartedly agree with Steve on the matter, the only way to keep the natural world alive is to turn it into a cash cow. There are two very simple explenations for this:
1. People think people are the most important thing in this world, in the sense that people and the interest of people should top all. Is there a great forest here? So what, we need more houses! This because people need to live right? This is crudely put, but in my personal (european?) experience, often close to the truth.
I think this is a fundamental flaw in humanity (yes I realise this is cynical) but simply put humanity (or a large part of it anyway) feels the world is there to serve their needs instead of realizing they are a part of the world, not better of worse then anything else inhabiting this planet. This coupled with the fact that there simply are too many of us results that the only thing able to save nature is money. This because everything in our society needs to have a use, and making us money is THE biggest use there is.
Closely tied to this is my second point:
2. People see nature as an object to use and consume to serve their own desire and needs. Many people, especially city dwelling people, have no connection to nature what so ever. Nature is a very small or even no part of their lives, therefore it has no real significance in their eyes other then to be used. I even know people who have never had a pet and therefore dislike animals. Hell, I even have a neighbour who hates trees! Sadly lots of people simply lack a bond and understanding with nature.
Now I've lived my whole life in what you'd call a sub-urb, but my parents made sure to have me experience nature through trips and pets and I view nature as an important aspect of my life. Sadly even among most of my friends this is non-exsistant, oh they generally don't hate animals and trees, but nature serves no interest to them other then to amuse them. Even a few people I photographed with have these notions, the animals are mostly there to so they can get their shot (enough to say I dislike photographing with these people and I try to avoid it, even though they are nice enough people).
I think that through awareness and putting our children into contact with nature often we can change a lot, in the future. For now on the short term however (and lets be honest time is running short for a lot of species and places) I think the dollar/euro/yen is indeed the only thing able to save these species and places, simply because people care about themselves first and they do not realise they are a part of this world.
Cheers,
Jorne
Posted by Wick Smith on August 11, 2010 at 7:05 PM
Most of this thread seems to assume Brad's initial premise that "nature photographers DO have a negative impact on their subject matter", and I find this most disturbing, along with the notion that most of the discussion above and in this world couches the debate as a man vs. nature struggle. I'm not for bulldozing parks, or paving open spaces. My take is that we are all part of nature. Man is another animal on this planet, with the distinction of opposable thumbs and the ability to reason and problem solve well beyond any other species.
If I hike to the top of a mountain to photograph a fabulous sunrise, and happen to inadvertently step on a blade of grass or leave a boot print on the trail, how is that different than if a black bear tramples grass or leaves a paw print? We are both “natural” and part of the environment. God didn’t create this world and his many wonders to hide it, He wanted it to be revered and enjoyed by all.
We must work to preserve the land and not abuse it, for many of the reasons Guy states above. Mostly, we must preserve it so the next human, and the next bear or deer can still enjoy it and sustain life from it.
We must also share our experiences with others. As I understand, it was the fabulous photography that was first brought back east to the wonderment of our population that prompted Congress to set aside land for the first few National Parks. While we’re not necessarily discovering new lands and natural wonders, we are freezing fabulous scenes and natural occurrences, and allowing the world to enjoy those moments with us, whether in an art gallery, or in a Barcalounger.
Thanks for your feedback. I have to admit that I find "we are all part of nature" arguments troubling - partly because they're part of a philosophical belief system that is mostly dogmatic and thus beyond debate, and partly because they can be used to justify virtually any type of behaviour - including environmental catastrophes - as OK because it's "natural" (to wit - if humans are "natural" then, by default, anything they do must be natural - including the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico). I'll definitely agree that we're animals that for much of our history evolved under the same of rules that all lifeforms did. However, I think an argument can be made that once our species developed to the point where we could (and do) impose worldwide change at a rate that almost no other species can adapt to, we became quite unnatural. But this "is man natural?" debate is akin to arguing "how many fairies can dance on the head of a needle?" and is both unwinnable and largely pointless, much like the creation VS. evolution debate.
Regardless of whether we're natural or not, I stand by my basic premise that nature photographers DO have a negative impact on their subject matter - my reasons are clearly laid out in my essay and the references contained therein. And "being natural" has nothing to do with the negative aspect our impact - the act of a mountain lion preying on a mule deer is totally natural, but is definitely negative from the perspective of one of the two participants.
If you read my essay, or my flawed attempt to reduce 1700 words to 3 short bullet points, I think you'll find my point is little different from those of Guy or many of the others who have added to this thread - simply that we as nature photographers should try to do as much as possible to conserve the resource we consume (regardless of how trivial each of our bites appear to be) in making those images. I'm not at ALL against nature photography or nature photographers (it IS what I do for a living!!), but I just think we should own up to the impact we ALL have (some MUCH more so than others) and do our best to mitigate that impact. Personally (and this is just MY opinion) I think simply "creating awareness" (and not doing any more) isn't doing enough if one is making their living from "using" nature as a professional nature photographer.
Cheers...
Brad
Posted by Mel Ladewig on August 11, 2010 at 8:40 PM
I'm sorry Brad, but the premise of this essay is like going vegan, then wondering if carrots have feelings.
I did read your essay in its entirety. I think you're being just a wee bit over sensitive and that you've extrapolated this concept to absurdity. The snowshoe segment was particularly over the top.
The snowshoe segment was particularly over the top.
Please explain why. I observed a change in the spatial distribution of cervids AND predators because of the snowshoe tracks. Similarly, wolves have been known (and shown) to use snowmobile tracks in alpine zones to access endangered populations of Woodland Caribou that would have normally been inaccessible to them due to deep snow. I see no other way to view these events other than as valid examples of unintentional (yet still real) impact by humans - and I see no reason to categorize them as absurd.
Just one half formed tidbit of food for thought, which is largely unrelated to the rest of the (interesting) discussion...
With regards to the article Guy mentioned (having kids = high carbon impact).. consider that if everyone conscious enough to consider not having kids in order to reduce their carbon footprint did so, then the only children left in the next generation would be those of parents that did not care about their carbon footprint. Since kids learn from their parents, that would mean we basically eliminated everyone that actually cared about their carbon footprint from the Earth. That would most likely result in an even worse state of the environment... so having a kid, and raising him/her to appreciate the environment and possibly even fight for it could in fact have a bigger positive impact for future generations than most things you could do - it certainly has the potential to be much more positive and proactive than not having any children at all...
Don't get me wrong, I agree that population control is the #1 problem when it comes to creating a sustainable way of life. But it's also the hardest thing to do without pissing off a LOT of people. It's generally a trend that the more successful, well educated, and environmentally conscious people are, the less kids they have. Trouble is, it is those people's children that I actually would like have around in future generations...
Interesting perspective and viewpoint - thanks for the contribution...
Brad
Posted by John Cubit on August 12, 2010 at 9:59 PM
I used to believe that photographers benefited the environment by popularizing it. Therefore, when I found interesting, but neglected, locations, I took notes, compiled information, and posted photos online to attract other photographers to these same places. I even shared files with my notes, maps, descriptions of the best places to photograph wildlife, etc. But then I saw the destruction. Greedy, me, me, me, photographers charged into roosting areas, shouted and blared car horns to get flight shots, and caused so much other disturbance the birds were chased off their nests and resting areas. Nests were trampled and predated. Migrant waterfowl lost their recuperation time. Pronghorns fled. Me-first photographers ruined it for the rest of us. Photo opportunities were ruined; long trips were wasted.
So, I don't share this information anymore--unless I know that the photographer is ethical and conscientious. Let the remaining animals on earth have the peace and tranquility they need to survive in the modern world. (And the same goes for wildflowers, too. This year Carol Leigh stopped her Wildflower Hotline for the same reason--selfish photographers trampling the landscape to get the shot they want at the expense of the plants in their path.)
Posted by Carl Donohue on August 13, 2010 at 1:06 AM
Hey Brad
From my reading of your essay, it seems your point is largely that we, as nature photographers, have both a responsibility and good cause to work harder towards conservation. I've no issue at all with that, and I think it's a worthy argument to make. But if you prop that argument on "logic" like "nature photographers DO have a negative impact on their subject matter and, because of this, can be likened to a typical resource extraction industry", then I think you probably lose that argument. A typical resource extraction industry? When nature photographers spill 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico your comment might hold water .. until then, it's a bit crazy.
Likening nature photography to a "typical resource extraction industry" simply because both processes engage their environment is akin to likening a stubbed toe with decapitation. They're a difference in kind, not just quality.
"Sustainability" (not my favorite word, but I'll play along) problems are largely problems of scale - either population or consumption. And certainly that scale must be measured on both sides of the coin - the impacter and the impactee. And I agree that we do, all of us, impact our immediate environment to some degree. But if 2 wolves follow our snowshoe tracks and eat a few caribou, that's not quite the same thing as, say, clear-cutting swathes of forest that extirpate the Spotted Owl, or dams that extirpate salmon and the countless critters/plants that in turn rely on those salmon.
If nature photography is as environmentally unfriendly as your essay implies, I don't see how turning it more commercial is a solution. Suddenly going from a solo gig (which 99% of nature photography is) to a tour operator is hardly likely to see improvement in our ecological footprint. On that particular subject, I don't believe we'll find an economic solution to an environmental problem. I believe, for a host of reasons, the more we turn our sense of value into mere dollars and coins, the more we'll turn the world around us into the same thing - and I think history has shown that process to be remarkably destructive.
Some interesting arguments, especially the insight from about population control Floris touches something I've been thinking about for myself but did not share before because, like he said, it pisses off a lot of people.
I'm not advocating any drastic measures here, but I do feel that aside from creating awareness with our children we do need to do something about our own numbers, it's simply impossible to sustain the current growth of humanity and expect to survive in the process. (another discutable argument would be that less people = better living standards for people).
All in all I do feel that we as photographers can have a very negative impact, but also a very positive one on nature. Like with all things in life though, in the end it really comes down to the person itself.
Cheers
Jorne
Posted by Katja Rosvall on August 16, 2010 at 8:43 AM
As a side note, the impact of a nature photographer isn't restricted to the trips (s)he makes; it also involves all her/his gear. While the effect may not be directly visible to the photographer wherever (s)he is, it's there somewhere.
Relatively speaking, I don't have all that much equipment, but I do have a body, a few lenses, a flash, batteries, two bags, two tripods etc. that I sure wouldn't have bought if my main hobby was something else. I've lately also thought about getting a solar panel for charging all those batteries, but would it really be more ecological overall, considering everything needed to produce that solar panel? As I see it, all industrial production is resource extraction, so in my view, I certainly do have a negative impact on nature. I just hope I'll be able to give something back, preferably more than I take.
Meanwhile, I'll try to keep my negative impact small. Thanks for this interesting thread Brad, it really got me considering my own impact (and that really was a thanks, not an accusation ).
Discussion
29 repliesNot really a "new" topic, but some of you may find this interesting...
Way back in 2007 I posted an essay on my photography website entitled "Nature Photography as a Resource Extraction Industry". Long story short, there were a few key points in my essay, specifically:
1. Like it or not, nature photographers DO have a negative impact on their subject matter and, because of this, can be likened to a typical resource extraction industry.
2. Because of this negative impact on the environment, nature photographers have a responsibility to go above and beyond in their conservation efforts (if, for no other reason to perserve their subject matter and "neutralize" their impact).
3. I don't accept that the standard "line" that the photographer is "creating awareness" of the environment is doing enough. Sorry - "creating awareness" is simply too vague and too unmeasureable to resonate with me, regardless of how many books or calendars you sell!
The essay has attracted thousands of sets of eyeballs (and has been used in a number of college and university courses), but not too much feedback.
Recently, however, Steve Fletcher (an ex-pat Canadian and biologist now living in Los Angeles, CA) sent me a very well-reasoned rebuttal in essay form. The following points summarize his thinking:
1. Give your head a shake Brad - the impact of nature photographers is trivial compared to the massive impact of habitat loss.
2. In any conservation battle, ultimately the dollar rules.
3. The best approach is to turn our subjects into cash-cows (via a big increase in ecotourism and charging to haul an increasing photographers into the field) - in other words - make that bear (or orchid, or meadow, or snail darter, blah, blah, blah) worth a lot more money ALIVE than DEAD!
My response to Steve's feedback? One part of me is saddened by the idea that western society attaches no true value to nature or the natural world for its intrinsic value. But I have to admit I think Steve is mostly right - I still cling to my thought that nature photographers have to do more to offset their own impact on the environment, but I DO believe that increasing the economic impact of ecotourism is a very sound strategy. In fact, Steve's clearly worded essay has convinced me that I should expand my own ecotourism offerings (i.e., Photo Tours) in the future. So...expect to see more and more fantastic photo tours in the coming years!
Feedback on this issue of the impact of nature photographers on the environment would be very, very welcomed!
If anyone wants to read the original essay and Steve's rebuttal, here they are:
My essay: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/resourceextract.html
Sreve's response: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/resourceextract.html#anchor_stevefletcher
I agree that it was/us a bit of an "About Face" - and definitely caused me more than a few second thoughts. After leading photo tours into some of the more remote places in North America I honestly feel that bringing other photographers into the area does more good than harm. We team up with the local indigenous populations (coastal First Nations folks) whenever possible - it's amazing how their involvement in ecotourism can influence government policy and help shift it away from more intrusive (and less sustainable as currently practiced) economic development (like clear cutting, oil tankers, etc.) in the region.
Cheers...
Brad
One example I can cite is that we have used Sani Lodge in the Ecuadorian Amazon region for our photography tours. Part of the reason we use Sani Lodge is that it's owned by and provides many jobs for the local indigenous community. Before Sani Lodge was started an oil company was trying to get permission to drill on the Sani people's lands which would have resulted in huge impacts to the environment. One of the lodge elders convinced the community to start an ecolodge to provide income instead of striking a deal with the oil company. With a successful ecolodge now in place both the community has an incentive to protect both the environment and the wildlife. Wildlife photographers are not the majority of visitors to Sani but I imagine they are a significant portion of Sani's clientele.
In my opinion calling wildlife photography a "resource extraction industry" and thereby comparing it to oil companies or miners is quite far fetched. I think in general we do more good for the environment by "raising awareness" than by our small impacts on individual subjects. That being said, I would agree with you that we have a duty to be responsible with our photography and encourage conservation efforts.
Sorry (and with no offense intended) but your comment:
totally confuses me.
The statement you quote is referencing the viewpoint of Steve Fletcher, not my viewpoint. It's not my brush. I'm referring only to the fact that if his view of the dollar ruling virtually all environmental decisions is true, it saddens me somewhat. It needn't sadden anyone else - I can't think of a narrower brush than referring to myself (for being saddened).
To Nate: Re: far-fetched nature of calling photography a resource extraction industry. Not sure I agree that it's far-fetched - not doubt a logical extension of standard thinking on resource extraction, but drawing the line of what type of resource use is extraction and what isn't is a "shades of grey" issue - if harm is done to the resource - and economic benefit is derived from that harm (think selling images) - I think an argument can be made that it's a form of resource extraction.
The goal of all this is to provoke thought. For me it is a reflection of a lifelong struggle to reconcile my actions and make them as consistent philosophically as possible. And, of course, it's IMPOSSIBLE to make them totally consistent (even if one chooses to go live in a cave!!).
Thanks all...I'm sure the additional viewpoints we'll see will be interesting...
Brad
I stay on existing trails. If I must cross tundra off trail, I minimize my trips and distribute my tracks which reduces impact. I do not walk, ride or drive on crypto-biotic soils. I camp for short periods in areas in an attempt to cause no impact on vegetation. I do not bring pack animals into the wilderness. I do not use campfires. I do not leave trash. If I'm in an area where decomposition of waste isn't possible, I pack out my waste. In other words, I ascribe to the philosophy of leave no trace. I also do not use my photographic output for the purpose of encouraging tourism or for political grandstanding against development, extraction, etc...
I can point to the Wilderness Act as a counterpoint to Steve Fletcher's response. This act was put into place with no predisposition that there would be greater economic value gained from the wilderness area than alternative economic drivers could generate. Since there is no permanent human habitation permitted under the wilderness act, there is also no provision for a gift shop, hotel or other tourist amenities that would generate greater economic activity than mining, logging or ski areas alternatives. It stands as a primary example of non-economic valuation of significant swaths of American lands. The fact that land is continually added to the Wilderness catalog stands as a testament of the success of this law.
I might also refer you to more current economic thinking on valuation for the repair of environmental degradation. NPR publishes a podcast called Planet Money. A recent episode discussed the valuation of a Pelican. I highly recommend that you listen to this entertaining episode related to the oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico and the valuation of the environmental damage inflicted by BP's well. The podcast is free.
I think the biggest problem "between" our viewpoints is my inability to condense my original 1700 word essay into 3 bullet points (I thought that might be a bit of a problem
I commend your efforts to minimize your impact, but would contend that it still isn't zero (and my rationale for this IS contained in the original essay and references contained therein). In fact, the responsibilities I talk about photographers having (to partially mitigate their impact on the environment) are close to what you already do. I wish all photographers and wilderness users were as conscientious as you! But, they aren't - and I think my basic contention that nature photography DOES have an environmental impact is valid.
I am aware of the current economic thinking on the valuation for the repair of environmental degradation and have seen some interesting and apparently valid models, especially for damage done to riparian zones by cattle. I am also aware that only a very limited subset of damage types have been given a dollar value. But, most importantly, I'm convinced that finding a way to place a real economic value on keeping pristine areas pristine in the first place (or even keeping grizzly bears alive), such as can be done through well thought out "leave no trace" ecotourism, is another good way to argue for the conservation of an area. As an example, I know of one particular 30-year old grizzly that has now drawn in thousands of viewers over the last 20 years (at about $1500 per head for a 3-day visit). That same bear would generate between $10,000 and $15,000 if bagged by a legal hunter during the single time it can be killed. Economically, that bear is worth a whole lot more alive than dead (and, speaking partly tongue-in-chee, can only be shot with a gun once, but an unlimited number of times with a camera!). So, in defense of Steve Fletcher, I think there can be valid "money talks" arguments made for conserving areas through conscientious ecotourism.
Cheers...thanks for your feedback...
Brad
It intrigues me that people, and especially scientists, seem to have a blind spot when it comes to humanity and present day reality. Why would we assume the universe has come to some kind of steady state just because we happen to exist? Why would bears or orchids or humans be spared the same fate that befell untold numbers of other species for over 4 billion years when their resources became scarce, their climate changed, competing life forms became more successful, etc.? If a meteorite ended the Cretaceous and eliminated the dinosaurs (a hugely successful life form), why would we assume that global climate change or some other cataclysmic event won't end the Quaternary, and us and bears with it? Are we so special that we can halt evolution, avoid extinction under any environmental conditions, save life on Earth from the expansion of the sun, or prevent our solar system from ultimately recycling into cosmic dust?
Kinda puts "conservation" in perspective, doesn't it? Expand the time scale a few hundred million years and we can't really conserve anything, ourselves included. In fact, we can't make the least bit of difference no matter what we do.
Where we CAN make a difference is within the scope of our own lifetimes and for the sake of life as we know and appreciate it. Measure it in dollars or karma or any other way, the only reason to protect the gifts of wildness is purely egotistical: because it does have value for us and enriches our own brief experience as living beings. When you adopt a dog, you saved a life. When you vote to set aside wilderness, you may save species... for a little while. That's about all we can hope for.
Bears and orchids and people WILL be extinct one way or another. So will every other species. Like it or not, we will likely be fossils or dust when another form of life masters the planet, and recast into who knows what when the Earth itself is incinerated by the sun.
At best we can hope to preserve the things we love a little while longer than they otherwise may, so we and possibly a couple more generations can appreciate them as well. The biggest threat humans pose to other species is not photography or hunting or any other individual pursuit, it's habitat loss. The most environmentally-friendly thing any of us can do is to work towards reducing and stabilizing our population and switching from a growth-based economy to a sustainability-based model.
Don't see it happening? Neither do I. May as well admit we're only working to delay the inevitable. The extent of the delay will depend on cumulative measures, not on whether any one of us is out there with a camera. Rather than scrutinize photography or other individual pursuits, consider your overall footprint. A photographer driving a Hummer 50,000 miles a year and dumping their used batteries into pristine alpine lakes may still have 1/40th of the environmental impact of a Prius driving, recycling, carpooling father of 2 (according to study reviews in the NY Times) not to mention entire corporations and nations. Political correctness will not save the planet.
Guy
I'm going to stay away from the hot and heavy arguments here and point to a recent experience. I visited a County Park in search of a specific Osprey nest that needed to be photographed for a client. While I didn't find what I was looking for, I found an extensive stand of Sabatia stellaris aka Saltmarsh Pink, which is on the NYS threatened species list. The County had been mowing a path (literally to nowhere) right through this area of flowers and was seemingly unaware of the plants presence. I took some photographs and sent them to the state's Natural Heritage Program, which confirmed the species and informed me that this was a previously unknown population - bringing the total number of known populations in New York State to just 9 (I also found the 8th a few years back). I subsequently e-mailed a contact of mine at the County whom I've worked with on endangered plants before and informed her of the mowing and just like that the mowing has ceased and the population is now being actively protected by the County.
I make this point to counter that we don't HAVE to have a negative impact every time we go out. A lot of our work can have a positive impact (well beyond "awareness" which is rather dubious and usually means awareness in one's wallet), but we must put fourth the effort to do so. I could have easily kept the information of that plant to myself but that would have caused quite a bit of inadvertent damage.
I make it a habit to "donate" images to non-profits and organizations that I think do good work because it doesn't "cost" me anything. I will gladly donate a few of my images to the local marine mammal rescue organization for an auction, or let the local Audubon society use my images on their website for free. I look at these opportunities as ways to offset my photography footprint (just thinking about the amount of gas I use driving around looking for birds is rather sickening) and balance things out.
- Luke
I'm not saying that's why I do photography, I do it because I enjoy it and it has become part of the way I make a living. But at the same time, I don't think our contributions to raising people's awareness about the environment and different species should be minimized or looked down on.
I'm guilty of making a generalized statement. What I meant to communicate is a lot of photographers who don't want to be bothered with the actual depth of Brad's question run to the excuse that their images create awareness and that's good enough. There are plenty of nature/wildlife photographers on art show circuits who will trample anything in their way to get the shot and then boast that they are "creating awareness". There is a lot more to "creating awareness" then selling your artwork. It needs to be published in conservation publications, splashed across the internet and accompanied by news reports. It may be hard for some on NPN to grasp this concept because people on NPN are inherently concerned with Nature and have good ethics, but we all know photographers out there that will harass a nesting bird to get the shot.
I hope I'm wrong, and feel free to prove me so.
- Luke
You know, I once sat at a dinner table on a sailboat in the middle of the Great Bear Rainforest and watched the most fascinating discussion between a hard-core "I don't give a damn about the environment" (his own description of himself) businessman and the leader of a prominent American environmental foundation. The businessman used the "well, in 4 billion years the sun will burn out anyway so why should I give a rat's ass about the environment?" argument. The leader of the environmental movement responded with "...so then it doesn't matter if I bash you across the head with this wine bottle right now?". Believe it or not, this is a true story (tho' the environmentalist did manage to restrain himself!). With all due respect, your philosophical points seem akin to the businessman in my story. And, I don't know of a single scientist who isn't aware of the time scale issue or the fact that eventually we'll all be extinct. But that "we're all going extinct anyway" viewpoint really serves no purpose (and I hardly see how it "puts things in perspective")...other than to perhaps encourage those among us who might be easily disturbed to jump off a bridge 'cuz we're all going to die anyway (OK, maybe I'm exaggerating just a little!!
I'm not sure I fully buy this statement either:
While I suspect we may be getting into semantics, I don't see a desire to preserve the biological diversity of the planet and to slow down the highest rate of extinction on this planet as "egotistical". All the folks that I know that are employed by conservation groups are putting in mega-hours and are doing so for low wages. I think they'd be a tad miffed to be called "egotistical" for doing so. Naive? Maybe. I think a simpler explanation is that they care about doing what they can to conserve what they can.
Brad
No disrespect intended to those who work for conservation (as I do myself). Still, as a biologist I'm sure you're familiar with the works of Dawkins and others explaining altruism in "selfish" terms. When it comes to the emotional aspect of terms like "egotistical" you're right - it is just semantics. Taken literally, though, as in something done for the self, it does seem to apply. I don't know a single activist who would pursue their cause if it did not feel rewarding to them.
Guy
Cheers...
Brad
Also, I feel many/most/all people on this website belong to the category who do care, but hey, we're on a nature photography website so the statistics here are not really representative of the general human population
Altough it saddens me I must wholehartedly agree with Steve on the matter, the only way to keep the natural world alive is to turn it into a cash cow. There are two very simple explenations for this:
1. People think people are the most important thing in this world, in the sense that people and the interest of people should top all. Is there a great forest here? So what, we need more houses! This because people need to live right? This is crudely put, but in my personal (european?) experience, often close to the truth.
I think this is a fundamental flaw in humanity (yes I realise this is cynical) but simply put humanity (or a large part of it anyway) feels the world is there to serve their needs instead of realizing they are a part of the world, not better of worse then anything else inhabiting this planet. This coupled with the fact that there simply are too many of us results that the only thing able to save nature is money. This because everything in our society needs to have a use, and making us money is THE biggest use there is.
Closely tied to this is my second point:
2. People see nature as an object to use and consume to serve their own desire and needs. Many people, especially city dwelling people, have no connection to nature what so ever. Nature is a very small or even no part of their lives, therefore it has no real significance in their eyes other then to be used. I even know people who have never had a pet and therefore dislike animals. Hell, I even have a neighbour who hates trees! Sadly lots of people simply lack a bond and understanding with nature.
Now I've lived my whole life in what you'd call a sub-urb, but my parents made sure to have me experience nature through trips and pets and I view nature as an important aspect of my life. Sadly even among most of my friends this is non-exsistant, oh they generally don't hate animals and trees, but nature serves no interest to them other then to amuse them. Even a few people I photographed with have these notions, the animals are mostly there to so they can get their shot (enough to say I dislike photographing with these people and I try to avoid it, even though they are nice enough people).
I think that through awareness and putting our children into contact with nature often we can change a lot, in the future. For now on the short term however (and lets be honest time is running short for a lot of species and places) I think the dollar/euro/yen is indeed the only thing able to save these species and places, simply because people care about themselves first and they do not realise they are a part of this world.
Cheers,
Jorne
If I hike to the top of a mountain to photograph a fabulous sunrise, and happen to inadvertently step on a blade of grass or leave a boot print on the trail, how is that different than if a black bear tramples grass or leaves a paw print? We are both “natural” and part of the environment. God didn’t create this world and his many wonders to hide it, He wanted it to be revered and enjoyed by all.
We must work to preserve the land and not abuse it, for many of the reasons Guy states above. Mostly, we must preserve it so the next human, and the next bear or deer can still enjoy it and sustain life from it.
We must also share our experiences with others. As I understand, it was the fabulous photography that was first brought back east to the wonderment of our population that prompted Congress to set aside land for the first few National Parks. While we’re not necessarily discovering new lands and natural wonders, we are freezing fabulous scenes and natural occurrences, and allowing the world to enjoy those moments with us, whether in an art gallery, or in a Barcalounger.
Thanks for your feedback. I have to admit that I find "we are all part of nature" arguments troubling - partly because they're part of a philosophical belief system that is mostly dogmatic and thus beyond debate, and partly because they can be used to justify virtually any type of behaviour - including environmental catastrophes - as OK because it's "natural" (to wit - if humans are "natural" then, by default, anything they do must be natural - including the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico). I'll definitely agree that we're animals that for much of our history evolved under the same of rules that all lifeforms did. However, I think an argument can be made that once our species developed to the point where we could (and do) impose worldwide change at a rate that almost no other species can adapt to, we became quite unnatural. But this "is man natural?" debate is akin to arguing "how many fairies can dance on the head of a needle?" and is both unwinnable and largely pointless, much like the creation VS. evolution debate.
Regardless of whether we're natural or not, I stand by my basic premise that nature photographers DO have a negative impact on their subject matter - my reasons are clearly laid out in my essay and the references contained therein. And "being natural" has nothing to do with the negative aspect our impact - the act of a mountain lion preying on a mule deer is totally natural, but is definitely negative from the perspective of one of the two participants.
If you read my essay, or my flawed attempt to reduce 1700 words to 3 short bullet points, I think you'll find my point is little different from those of Guy or many of the others who have added to this thread - simply that we as nature photographers should try to do as much as possible to conserve the resource we consume (regardless of how trivial each of our bites appear to be) in making those images. I'm not at ALL against nature photography or nature photographers (it IS what I do for a living!!), but I just think we should own up to the impact we ALL have (some MUCH more so than others) and do our best to mitigate that impact. Personally (and this is just MY opinion) I think simply "creating awareness" (and not doing any more) isn't doing enough if one is making their living from "using" nature as a professional nature photographer.
Cheers...
Brad
I did read your essay in its entirety. I think you're being just a wee bit over sensitive and that you've extrapolated this concept to absurdity. The snowshoe segment was particularly over the top.
You say:
Please explain why. I observed a change in the spatial distribution of cervids AND predators because of the snowshoe tracks. Similarly, wolves have been known (and shown) to use snowmobile tracks in alpine zones to access endangered populations of Woodland Caribou that would have normally been inaccessible to them due to deep snow. I see no other way to view these events other than as valid examples of unintentional (yet still real) impact by humans - and I see no reason to categorize them as absurd.
Cheers...
Brad
Pete D.
With regards to the article Guy mentioned (having kids = high carbon impact).. consider that if everyone conscious enough to consider not having kids in order to reduce their carbon footprint did so, then the only children left in the next generation would be those of parents that did not care about their carbon footprint. Since kids learn from their parents, that would mean we basically eliminated everyone that actually cared about their carbon footprint from the Earth. That would most likely result in an even worse state of the environment... so having a kid, and raising him/her to appreciate the environment and possibly even fight for it could in fact have a bigger positive impact for future generations than most things you could do - it certainly has the potential to be much more positive and proactive than not having any children at all...
Don't get me wrong, I agree that population control is the #1 problem when it comes to creating a sustainable way of life. But it's also the hardest thing to do without pissing off a LOT of people. It's generally a trend that the more successful, well educated, and environmentally conscious people are, the less kids they have. Trouble is, it is those people's children that I actually would like have around in future generations...
Interesting perspective and viewpoint - thanks for the contribution...
Brad
So, I don't share this information anymore--unless I know that the photographer is ethical and conscientious. Let the remaining animals on earth have the peace and tranquility they need to survive in the modern world. (And the same goes for wildflowers, too. This year Carol Leigh stopped her Wildflower Hotline for the same reason--selfish photographers trampling the landscape to get the shot they want at the expense of the plants in their path.)
From my reading of your essay, it seems your point is largely that we, as nature photographers, have both a responsibility and good cause to work harder towards conservation. I've no issue at all with that, and I think it's a worthy argument to make. But if you prop that argument on "logic" like "nature photographers DO have a negative impact on their subject matter and, because of this, can be likened to a typical resource extraction industry", then I think you probably lose that argument. A typical resource extraction industry? When nature photographers spill 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico your comment might hold water .. until then, it's a bit crazy.
Likening nature photography to a "typical resource extraction industry" simply because both processes engage their environment is akin to likening a stubbed toe with decapitation. They're a difference in kind, not just quality.
"Sustainability" (not my favorite word, but I'll play along) problems are largely problems of scale - either population or consumption. And certainly that scale must be measured on both sides of the coin - the impacter and the impactee. And I agree that we do, all of us, impact our immediate environment to some degree. But if 2 wolves follow our snowshoe tracks and eat a few caribou, that's not quite the same thing as, say, clear-cutting swathes of forest that extirpate the Spotted Owl, or dams that extirpate salmon and the countless critters/plants that in turn rely on those salmon.
If nature photography is as environmentally unfriendly as your essay implies, I don't see how turning it more commercial is a solution. Suddenly going from a solo gig (which 99% of nature photography is) to a tour operator is hardly likely to see improvement in our ecological footprint. On that particular subject, I don't believe we'll find an economic solution to an environmental problem. I believe, for a host of reasons, the more we turn our sense of value into mere dollars and coins, the more we'll turn the world around us into the same thing - and I think history has shown that process to be remarkably destructive.
Cheers
Carl
I'm not advocating any drastic measures here, but I do feel that aside from creating awareness with our children we do need to do something about our own numbers, it's simply impossible to sustain the current growth of humanity and expect to survive in the process. (another discutable argument would be that less people = better living standards for people).
All in all I do feel that we as photographers can have a very negative impact, but also a very positive one on nature. Like with all things in life though, in the end it really comes down to the person itself.
Cheers
Jorne
Relatively speaking, I don't have all that much equipment, but I do have a body, a few lenses, a flash, batteries, two bags, two tripods etc. that I sure wouldn't have bought if my main hobby was something else. I've lately also thought about getting a solar panel for charging all those batteries, but would it really be more ecological overall, considering everything needed to produce that solar panel? As I see it, all industrial production is resource extraction, so in my view, I certainly do have a negative impact on nature. I just hope I'll be able to give something back, preferably more than I take.
Meanwhile, I'll try to keep my negative impact small. Thanks for this interesting thread Brad, it really got me considering my own impact (and that really was a thanks, not an accusation