There’s one thing about nature photography that doesn’t always occur to us, the viewers: not all photos are as natural as one might think. In fact, photo staging and interfering with wildlife is not an uncommon practice. The ethics of wildlife photography are quite murky and while some publications present their own rules (such as the National Geographic and the BBC), they are not universal.

Of course, there are laws that prohibit certain actions, such as feeding animals in national parks or harassing endangered species. However, there isn’t a specific rulebook that photographers have to follow when composing their shots. Baiting animals with food as well as moving them around for a better backdrop can both be used to get that perfect shot. When talking to National Geographic, photographer Jeff Hogan also pointed out that professionals can sometimes barricade an animal in to prevent them from running away.

John Dominis, the late staff photographer for LIFE magazine for more than 20 years, claimed that back in the '60s, wildlife photographers often staged their images. “I felt that my job was to get the pictures, he stated years later. I learned how to bait animals and do things from the experts in Africa. We shot a gazelle and put it in a tree and waited for a cat to come. I didn’t feel bad about it at all. It sounds terrible now, I know, and maybe my attitude would be different now. But it wasn’t then, and I don’t know what more to say about it. I know I’ve been criticized a lot. But to me, I had to do what I did.”

In a way, it’s sort of understandable that back in the day, when technology wasn’t as advanced, maneuvering around with clunky cameras without being noticed was hard. It makes sense that things had to be arranged for perfect snapshots. Yet these days things haven’t changed. Luring animals with food is still commonplace. For example, chumming, or baiting sharks with fish, is a popular practice for underwater photographers that want to capture the great predators. However, the long-term impact of that is still unknown.

Some photographers are prepared to go even further and go to so-called photography game farms. Popular in the US, states like Montana and Minnesota, these farms keep captive wild animals in enclosures only releasing them to perform for their clients. There, professionals and enthusiasts alike can snap pictures of exotic animals such as snow leopards and tigers as well as local species like wolves and lynx. They can capture clean animals with impeccable fur leaping through the snow or looking around with their piercing gaze. Neat, fast, and efficient.

It's important to note that many high-profile publications and competitions prohibit submitting images from game farms. Still, you might find plenty of them shared online.

So, what are the basic guidelines for ethical wildlife photography? Well, there are a few things you have to follow if you want to take pictures of nature. The most important one is doing no harm. That goes both for landscapes and animals. For example, not altering or destroying a habitat for a better picture. Sure, moving a few branches off of an animal’s den might give you better view of what’s inside, but it might endanger the animal as it ruins their camouflage.

Another great practice is getting to know the species you are taking pictures of. Things like, mating season time and signs of stress and alarm are especially good to know. That way, you’ll know when to back away and give the animal more space. In any case, it’s crucial to keep your distance and avoid any contact with the animal if possible. Interactions might alter their behavior which can be detrimental to their survival.

Feeding animals is also something to be cautious about. Many predators such a bears, wolves, and foxes can get used to getting handouts quite fast. They can get quite comfortable with asking for food to the point that they become aggressive about it. Then, the wildlife agencies have to eliminate them for the danger they pose. Getting used to humans also means they get closer to roads where they can get run over and places where people live where a similar fate awaits.

However, feeding animals can be a grey area. As the photographer Jeff Hogan notes, there are exceptions to every rule. “I knew a filmmaker once who, after working with an animal for many days, would leave it some food to make up for any interference, in case it had been distracted from finding food or something. That seemed respectful to me.”

Ethics are involved when it comes to postproduction part of the images as well. Many photographers like to “clean up” their compositions by erasing a stray leaf or a blade of grass from the photos, and this is fine. Altering the colors to make the subject pop is also quite innocent. Others, though, go a little further. “I've seen people do things like add more animals to a zebra herd to fill it out, says Hogan. That's misleading; it gives viewers a false sense of that environment, of how plentiful a species is.” This type of alterations crosses the line of photojournalism.

Using drones for wildlife photography is quite controversial, too. From the first glance, the whole thing is quite innocent—the drone is quite far away and out of reach, and it’s not damaging or interfering with the environment, just observing it. Animals may even seem peaceful on camera, like they are not at all bothered by a drone. However, they are very loud and make an unusual noise that disturbs the animals. A study has shown that the heartrate of bears goes up to an alarming rate when hearing the drone. Sure, when they were being observed they did not run away in fear, but they did feel threatened. 

A few other basic rules involve simply obeying the laws of the country and the rules of the sanctuary you are at. That can involve getting the necessary permits and maintaining appropriate distance from the animals. Also, once you’ve taken the photos and are wanting to publish them, be transparent about them. Brian Skerry, a photographer for National Geographic, says it plain and simple: “If I’m taking a picture of a tiger shark and don’t disclose the use of chum to attract it, in the caption or when questioned, then I’m being dishonest. In the most basic terms, if the intent is to deceive the viewer, then it’s wrong.”