Would you believe that some advocate that those who want to photograph wildlife should stay back hundreds of feet from their subjects? Or that an approach on a wild animal that alters its behavior in any way is a breach of ethics?

While a small minority hold the most extreme views, it’s worth noting that “nature photographers” are coming under increased scrutiny at national parks where annual visitation by millions of tourists is having a cumulative impact on wildlife.

It may sound strange to folks who fish, hunt, or trap, but this hot topic among serious nature photographers bears a message for all who enjoy the outdoors.

Is establishing an arbitrary distance for approach to wild animals the best way to protect them? And do distance rules protect nature photographers? Whenever I encounter approach setbacks, I think of some Maine moose that will approach within five feet of you. That’s part of why I don’t think approach setbacks really work.

I’ve also experienced a backoff-my-baby approach by a mad mother moose whose calf I never even saw; a talons-extended attack by a goshawk whose nest area I entered unawares; and a too-close encounter with an angry bull elk – at three feet I could see his breath – whose space was violated by someone else as he grazed beside the road. In each case I was outside the approach distance usually recommended.

Approach setbacks also often make it impossible to get truly great images, including the images that managing authorities often use in their own brochures to attract and to educate people about their resource area.

For instance, Denali National Park in Alaska a few years ago increased the approach setback for moose, sheep, caribou, and other non-bear species from 75 to 150 feet. Professional wildlife photographers worked with the park officials to reduce it back to 75 feet when it still gives wildlife adequate space while permitting photographers to get the type of images most publishers have come to demand.

But so many of us go to the woods with a camera these days. Don’t we somehow need to protect nature from ourselves?

I believe that we do. But I believe that it’s better for those who want to photograph nature to learn the needs and behavior of each species they pursue and to be aware that each animal they encounter will behave differently based on its unique temperament, because of the training it received from its parents, and from its own experience with humans.

Anyone who attempts to capture the beauty of wildlife on film should develop greater appreciation for each species sought. That appreciation should include an awareness that no photograph is worth endangering the well-being of either your subject or yourself. Anyone who thinks that 150 feet provides a safe distance from the wrong bull moose in the wrong place on the wrong day is kidding himself. You should learn how to approach it, if necessary, to hide from wildlife so that you don’t interfere.

We were blessed with a rich diversity of wildlife. Because we now heavily populate much of what was once wild, our activities have adversely impacted many species – some even to extinction. We have the chance to make a difference for the wildlife that survives.

Many folks who care are making a difference: biologists and bird watchers, land trusts and nature groups, environmentalists and conservationist hunting and fishing enthusiasts, wildlife managers and game wardens, even hikers and campers who use low impact methods.

The North American Nature Photography Association has developed suggested field practices for nature photographers that make sense. To receive a copy or to learn more about NANPA, write to: North American Nature Photography Association; 10200 West 44th Avenue, Suite 304; Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-2840.

As a NANPA member, I urge all who pursue the photography of nature to care enough about our cumulative impacts so that we do the resource – and ourselves – no harm. We should learn how to control ourselves before we are regulated.

Please think about that when you’re out there with a camera this fall, going for it.