One of the biggest privileges being a primatologist spends time in distant places with monkeys and apes, living close to those animals in their habitats and experiencing their each day lives. As a twenty first century person, I actually have a direct impulse to take photos of those encounters and share them on social media.
Social media may help scientists raise awareness of the species we study, promote their conservation, and procure jobs and research funding. However, sharing photos of wildlife online also can contribute to the illegal pet trade and harmful interactions between humans and wildlife. For threatened or endangered species, this note may expose them to further risk.
My research goals to seek out ways in which scientists and conservationists can harness the power of social media while avoiding its pitfalls. My colleague, ecologist and science communicator Cathryn Freundand I feel we’ve got some answers. In our opinion, wildlife professionals should never depict themselves in photos with animals. We also consider that showing baby animals and animals interacting with humans leads viewers to take into consideration these creatures in a way that’s environmentally counterproductive.
Show and tell?
Many conservation biologists are considering hard about what role social media can and will play in their work. For example, the Section on Human-Primate Interactions of the International Union for Conservation of Nature has issued guidelines on the right way to use images of untamed primates AND the right way to conduct primate observing tours.
These guidelines recommend that scientists showing photos of themselves with wild primates should state in the caption that the person in the photo is a trained researcher or conservationist. However, there will not be much data assessing the effectiveness of this approach.
We desired to see if people actually read these captions and whether the informative captions helped reduce viewers’ desire to have an identical experience or to own an animal as a pet.
In a study published in 2023, my colleagues and I created two fake Instagram posts – one showing a human near a wild gorilla and the other specializing in a gloved human hand holding slim Loris – a small lemur-like primate native to Southeast Asia. Half of those photos had basic captions reminiscent of “Me with the mountain gorilla” or “Me with the research subject”; the other half contained more detailed captions that also stated: “All animals are observed” (gorilla) or “captured and handled (loris) safely and humanely for research, with appropriate permits and training.”
Smitha Gnanaolivu/Rescue and Rehabilitation Wildlife Bangalore, CC BY-ND
We showed over 3,000 adults one in every of these fake Instagram posts and asked them to finish a survey. The results shocked us.
Viewers who saw Instagram posts with a more detailed caption noticed that the photo depicted research. However, no matter the caption, greater than half of viewers agreed or strongly agreed that they would love to have an identical experience with a loris or gorilla.
More than half of viewers agreed or strongly agreed with this they would love these animals to be pets and that the animals would make good pets. The participants probably knew nothing about the living habits, behavior and survival needs of animals, or that none of those species are suitable as pets in any respect.
Why media influence matters
While these responses could seem merely sentimental or naive, research shows that the media – especially social media – contributes to harmful human encounters with wildlife and the exotic pet trade.
For example, the Harry Potter movies and books, which featured owls as magical creatures utilized by wizards, led to: a pointy increase in the illegal owl trade in Indonesia. Owls were once commonly known in Indonesia as “Burung Hantu” or “ghost bird”, but are now commonly called “Burung Harry Potter” in the country’s bird fairs.
Research shows that images of individuals holding lorikeets contribute to the illegal capture and sale of lorikeets lorikeets and other primates. The owners then post more videos showing how they mishandle the animals – for instance tickling Loris, which makes him raise his arms. Viewers see this behavior as cute, but in reality the animals do it to activate themselves toxic glands in the arms and inject the venom into their mouths preparing to defend.
In previous research, we found that YouTube videos in which orangutan rescue and rehabilitation centers feature baby orangutans and other people interacting with orangutans, these posts received more views than videos of adult orangutans or orangutans that don’t have any contact with humans. However, individuals who watched videos of baby orangutans or people interacting with the animals posted comments that were less supportive of orangutan conservation. They were also more prone to say they would love to own or interact with orangutans as pets.
Many individuals who seek contact with wildlife are unaware of the damage that such experiences cause. Animals can transmit diseases to humans, but it surely also works the other way around: humans can they transmit potentially fatal diseases to wild animalsincluding measles, herpes viruses and influenza viruses.
When humans move around an animal’s habitat – or worse, touch or chase it – they cause stress responses and alter the animal’s behavior. Animals may avoid feeding sites or spend time and energy escaping somewhat than foraging.
Having wild animals as pets is even more problematic. I actually have worked with several rescue and rehabilitation centers that provide shelter to orangutans that were previously kept as pets or as tourist attractions. These animals are typically in very poor health and should be taught the right way to socialize, navigate trees, and find their very own food because they’ve been deprived of those natural behaviors.
The last item any responsible conservation biologist studying endangered species desires to do is encourage this sort of human-wildlife contact.
Chaideer Mahyuddin/AFP via Getty Images
Comment as a substitute of sharing
Many well-intentioned researchers and ecologists, including: members of society, posted photos of themselves near wild animals on social media. I did it too before I understood the consequences.
Our findings show that the information contained in the captions will not be enough to stop people from searching for animal encounters. We consider the answer is for researchers to stop taking and sharing these images with the general public.
When scientists create posts, we recommend selecting images that show only wildlife in the most natural context possible, or only people in the field – not each. Scientists, conservationists and the general public can review their social media history and delete or crop images of human-wildlife interactions.
Scientists also can contact individuals who post images of individuals interacting with wild animals, explain why the images could also be harmful and suggest removing them. Leading by example and sharing this information are easy actions that may save animals’ lives.
