Opinion: If There is a Surveillance Camera in the Woods, Is the Wilderness Wild?

If you go out into the woods today you may be in for a big surprise, you just may, unknowingly, get your picture taken. No the paparazzi are not stalking the woods and the cameras in question are situated well off the well trod path but they are there nonetheless. They are hidden in a plastic or metal case approximately the size of a decent hardcover book. They are strapped to a tree and painted to match the bark. Their purpose is to capture images of the wildlife that pass by and to record them with a minimum of intrusions, no humans are present when the pictures are taken, but a human has to put them in place and do any maintenance, upkeep that is needed. This means the path is not untread but has a possibly small human footprint or two upon it, thereby raising the question, is the area still wild. Apparently, there has been a 50 percent increase in the number of scientific cameras that have used data obtained by the camera traps and it is possible that at any given time, there may be about 10,000 deployed in research projects. There could be many, many more. The hidden cameras have proven to be very useful and this seems to mean that the consequences or side effects of their presence are going unnoticed or at least undiscussed. Great pictures aside, what is the effect on the animals that are the subject and what if any is the effect on humans? One thing we do know is that the cameras are making the hunter’s job easier. The hunters can sue the cameras too study the behaviour of their prey or to look for a trophy buck. I, many years ago, used to go hunting, deer and bear, with my uncle and part of the experience was tracking the animal. I do not oppose hunting but this use of the camera does not feel right, especially as we are not talking survival, for the hunter, but trophies. Camera traps have helped prove that India's tiger populations were declining far faster than the government would admit. In addition, they have produced the first-ever photographs of certain rare and elusive species, such as the Bornean rhino, and tantalizing glimpses of as-yet unidentified species. Both the National geographic Society and the World Wildlife Fund have benefited from their use. But what about the animals, the Slate article says

“That the traps have some kind of impact on the animals is obvious from the images themselves, which often show animals startled by, fleeing from, investigating, or even attacking the traps. This sequence of photos, for example, shows a bear investigating a trap belonging to retired Smithsonian biologist Chris Wemmer, who keeps a blog about his camera-trapping activities in Northern California. The same bear destroyed another of Wemmer's cameras a few days later. WWF has posted footage of a rare Javan rhino attacking a video camera trap (see embedded video), as well as photographs of a tiger destroying a camera trap in Sumatra.”

Does it matter whether the animal was angry , scared or curious, what should matter is that the camera had an effect on the animal, one that would not have happened if humans had not entered the scene. Now there are natural events, fire, thunder, lightening, and floods for example, that affect the wild residents of the world’s wilderness zones; given that do they need another? What effect is the human encroachment, through urban sprawl, highways, mining, logging and various recreational activities already having, is another needed? To date, no one has systematically studied the impact of camera traps on wildlife. The newer cameras are quieter which is a plus and longer life batteries and larger memory cards in digital cameras can reduce the frequency with which researchers have to visit each trap. Despite these and other improvements to the technology what still remains is the reality of surveillance, cameras can be used to catch poachers, which is a positive but what effect, if any, do they have on the hiker seeking the wilderness and solitude? I know when I went hiking in the forested areas in northwestern Ontario; one of the most powerful aspects of this was to be alone, away from the devices of humanity except for a walking stick and a good knife. If I suspected I was being photographed it would not have been the same, the sense of being alone away from the noise and dependent upon my skills would change, I think. I can’t deny the benefits that camera traps have brought: an increased knowledge of the species with which we share the planet; they do cause fewer disturbances than many other research methods. Possibly they, if used thoughtfully, they can give us a deep sense of connection to nature which is certainly missing from much of our society, and they will make a record of what currently exists, a record that we one day might treasure. Still, there is part of me that does not want to see the truly wild completely vanish, the places where humans do not walk but perhaps it is already too late for that.