Commentary: Nature Photography as a Resource Extraction Industry

When we use the term "resource extraction industry" many people think of activities like logging, commercial fishing, mining or the production of fossil fuels. Nature photography would likely be one of the last things that would come to mind. But perhaps it should. And, as nature photographers, we have a responsibility to ensure that we operate our industry in a sustainable fashion!

Decades of Cogitation

I believe that nature photography is best thought of as a resource extraction industry. While many may immediately cringe at this thought and think I'm being overly pessimistic or negative, I believe there is positive value to this characterization - it almost begs us to ask the question "How can we manage our resource sustainably?" How did I come to take such a position? Well, it was decades in the making...

The Myth of the Non-consumptive User

Back in the late '70's, while I was still an eager undergraduate in Biology, I ran into a journal article entitled "The Myth of the Non-consumptive User" (full bibliographic reference at the end of this commentary). While I don't recall all the subtle details, the author argued that no outdoor recreational activity is truly non-consumptive - they all have some impact on vegetation, or on wildlife, or on the overall quality of the environment. The author went on to argue for various user restrictions and presented a rationale for dedicating some wilderness areas as "non-use" areas.

Like a bad song that you can't get out of your head, this concept of the impossibility of non-consumptive use came back to haunt me when I least wanted it to. Sometimes it was when I was out snowshoeing - I'd stop moving forward and look back at my trail and wonder what impact the snow compression had on the subnivian ecosystem (that community of organisms that lives in the thin layer between the bottom of the snowpack and the surface of the soil). Certainly I had less impact than a snowmobile, but I had made an impact nonetheless. Or, to make matters worse, I'd follow a trail I established in the snow weeks before and notice that, in order to save energy, all the deer and elk were following my trails. And, by the next week coyotes, the occasional wolf, and even cougars were using my snowshoe trails! Here I thought I was being environmentally conscientious in choosing a non-motorized means of backcountry travel, while in reality I was having a major impact on the distribution and movement patterns of all the local large wildlife!

Other times I'd quietly approach an isolated pond in the woods just to have a flock of ducks explode upwards the minute they detected me. Every time I turned around in the outdoors I was hit in the face with another example of an impact I was making just by being there! Eventually, I just accepted the premise of that cursed journal article and admitted to myself that I was a consumptive user, albeit a careful one!

Years of Observation as a Nature Photographer

I've been a nature photographer for decades, and, like most nature photographers, I've spent a lot of time in the out-of-doors and often in very remote locations. And, much to my dismay, I've seen first-hand that individually, collectively and cumulatively, we, as nature photographers DO have a significant impact on what we photograph. I don't mean that our presence immediately dooms our subjects to imminent demise, but unintentionally we can have subtle and almost invisible - yet very significant- effects.

As an example, over the past couple of years I've spent several weeks in the Great Bear Rainforest along the northern British Columbia coast. Our major photographic "prey" on these trips have been coastal Brown (or Grizzly) Bears. I have always gone in with excellent guides and all members of our party were extremely careful not to unduly disturb the bears (if they didn't our guide would have had them on the next floatplane out of the area!). Yet, we did, over time, approach the bears very closely. And, they came to accept our presence and go about their activities as though we weren't there. But, you argue, these bears were in a no-hunting zone and couldn't possibly be hurt simply by becoming tolerant of close approach by humans. Where's the harm? Well...bears wander. A lot. What happened to these bears after we left? Had the bears learned that humans were harmless, and did this cause any of them to wander into places where they normally wouldn't (like into a local village or hamlet) and end up dead? The possibility bothers me.

Besides these vague and arguably obscure effects, I have seen some very visible direct negative effects on the environment caused by nature photographers. The first type is accidental - anyone who has photographed any of the "charismatic megafauna" of North America (or Africa) can probably recall situations where photographers were climbing over one another - and vegetation and wildflowers - to get a better shot of that _______ (bear, lion, elephant or whatever). They didn't mean to trample that rare and endangered orchid, but they still did it. And, unfortunately, I've also seen examples of intentional negative impact - I've actually watched a photographer painstakingly line up a shot of a flower and then, after getting his shot, promptly pluck the flower - presumably to keep anyone else from getting the shot! It would appear that some of us are no more immune to petty jealousies and infantile behaviour than the rest of the human population. And why would we be?

Keeping it in Perspective

It would be really easy at this point to say "Whoa!" and point out how insignificant the impact of a nature photography is on our subjects compared to...say...hunting. Or compared to clear-cut logging. Or open-pit mining. Or...you get the picture. If our natural world was infinitely renewable I would tend to agree. But it isn't - what's left of our natural world is growing smaller every day. And our impact isn't mutually exclusive of the other more impactful resource extraction industries, it's being done IN ADDITION TO all the other resource extraction industries. So let's just accept the fact that we DO impact negatively on the environment and decide to do something about it!

Towards Sustainability

Why should a nature photographer really concern him/herself with minimizing their relatively "trivial" impact on nature? To begin with, presumably any nature photographer has chosen nature as their subject because they care about it (I doubt they chose it as a way to make a quick million)! So, you'd expect an emotional tie to protecting the environment an to sustainable behaviour. But, if you're making part of all of your income from photographing nature, then I would argue that it is not only logical that you treat "your" resource sustainably (you do want to have something to photograph next year, don't you?) but also that it's your RESPONSIBILITY to do so. After all, logging companies operating on public land in Canada have to pay stumpage fees for using the forest - why shouldn't nature photographers contribute equally?

So...how does a nature photographer "act sustainably?" A good place to start is to look at the North American Nature Photography Association's (or NANPA) website. NANPA publishes a code of ethics for nature photographers, and they now have a downloadable Environmental Statement that encourages nature photographers to get involved in conservation issues. It's a start point.

Is "Creating Awareness" Enough?

Enough mister nice-guy - now it's time to ruffle a few feathers. If you ask several nature photographers what they're doing to help sustain their discipline and what they're doing in support of conservation, one answer you'll often hear is that they're "creating awareness". It may be true. But is it enough? It's obvious that the creation of awareness (of some problem) is the necessary first step in driving any social change. But, in itself, creation of awareness does nothing. It must be followed by tangible action (e.g., changes in government policy, society's behaviour, etc.) before anything comes of it. I've spent a lot of time working with (and even for) environmental organizations whose sole goal was "conservation through research and public education" and I have to admit I rarely saw any real changes on the ground. The wolves still got trapped. The bears still got shot. The open-pit mines still opened up. Yet I have seen other conservation organizations, such as the Raincoast Conservation Society or Wildsight, that are amazingly effective. They "create awareness" as a first step, but then take concrete action that makes a true difference on the ground!

Another problem I have with the concept of just "creating awareness" is that it's pretty hard to measure - just how much awareness have you actually created? And, how much is needed before anything happens on the ground? It's tough to judge.

And, even if you're extremely good at creating awareness, the new owner of the awareness often (and very understandably) doesn't have a clue how to convert that awareness into action. It can take a LOT of work to find the effective conservation organizations relevant to any environmental issue, including those that someone has just become "aware" of.

So, for me, "creating awareness" alone doesn't cut it - I feel compelled to do more, and especially to do something that has a tangible effect (please note that I'm NOT saying that YOU should do more - perhaps the awareness you create is so far beyond what I can create that it DOES do a lot of tangible good!).

What Works for Me?

When I decided to make the plunge into full-time nature photography, I decided it had to be done with a strong emphasis on conservation. My experience with various conservation groups has taught me mainly two things: 1) I wouldn't be satisfied with "creating awareness" alone, and 2) that not all conservation groups are created equal - some are WAY more effective than others. My direct involvement with conservation is described elsewhere on this website (see Bio: Conservation), but, in short, I spent time researching various conservation groups (by attending AGM's, viewing their publications, talking to them, etc.) and then jumped in with both feet. It worked for me.

What should you do? It's not for me to say, but if you started thinking about nature photography as a resource extraction industry that must manage itself sustainably, it might be a good start. And checking out what NANPA recommends in it's Environmental Statement would be another step. And, the next really big step (and involving more effort) may be to spend a little time researching the conservation or environmental organizations relevant to the subject of your photography. Then, when you've made that important first step of creating awareness with your images you can follow it up by saying "and, if you'd like to find a way make a difference, check out Raincoast (or Wildsight, or whoever). Create awareness, and then take that next step or two. It's important.

February 22, 2007.

References

Wilkes, B. 1977. The myth of the non-consumptive user. Canadian Field Naturalist 91: 343-349.

Other Commentaries

Reality in the Age of Digital Photography	Digital Manipulation vs. Digital Correction	Nature Photography as a Resource Extraction Industry
My Top 3 Reasons for Shooting in the RAW	The Challenge of Being a Green Nature Photographer

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this section are solely those of Brad Hill and do not necessarily represent those of any other group, organization, or corporation. In fact, it is possible they do not represent the views of anyone else on the planet - yet!