“When Social Media Makes Inappropriate Wildlife Tourism Look Normal”
How sharing direct-contact wildlife encounters can influence what others see as acceptable.
What happens when tourists don’t just participate in wildlife encounters — but promote them to everyone watching?
A traveler holds a tiger cub. Someone kisses a dolphin. A tourist climbs onto an elephant. Another person poses with a monkey wrapped around their shoulders.
The encounter may last only a few minutes.
The photograph or video can remain online for years.
And once it is posted, the visitor is no longer simply documenting an experience. They may also be advertising it.
New research published in the Journal of Sustainable Tourism examined how direct-contact encounters with captive wild animals are portrayed on YouTube. The findings raise a question that extends far beyond one social-media platform:
When we share our encounters with wildlife, what are we encouraging other people to want to experience?
WHEN THE VISITOR BECOMES THE ADVERTISER:
Researchers analyzed 1,224 YouTube videos depicting direct or very close interactions between tourists and captive wild animals at more than 400 venues across 58 countries.
At least 129 wild animal species were represented, and nearly half were classified as threatened or Near Threatened in the wild.
Most of the encounters involved exactly the kinds of activities now familiar throughout wildlife tourism. About 62% involved touching or holding animals, while others depicted riding, kissing, swimming or diving with wildlife.
But one finding may be even more revealing.
Nearly 87% of the videos were posted by visitors — not by the wildlife attractions themselves.
That fundamentally changes how wildlife experiences are promoted.
A facility may sell someone an opportunity to hold, ride or swim with an animal once.
The visitor can then promote that experience to hundreds, thousands or even millions of other people.
And unlike traditional advertising, it doesn’t look like advertising.
It looks like a vacation memory.
A smiling photograph effectively says: I did this. It was wonderful.
For someone scrolling through social media, the next thought may easily become:
I want to do that too.
WHAT THE CAMERA DOESN’T SHOW:
The problem isn’t necessarily what appears in the photograph.
It is everything outside the frame.
A photograph of someone cuddling a young wild animal doesn’t tell us where that animal came from, how frequently it is handled, what happens when it becomes too large for visitor contact, or whether more animals must continually be bred to maintain the experience.
An elephant carrying tourists doesn’t show how the animal was trained or managed.
A dolphin beside a smiling swimmer doesn’t tell us whether the animal could choose to avoid the interaction.
And a wild animal sitting quietly in someone’s arms doesn’t tell us whether it is comfortable simply because it remains still.
Social media can show us the experience the visitor had without showing us the experience the animal had.
That distinction matters.
WHEN AN EXPERIENCE BECOMES NORMAL
Some of the most popular videos examined by the researchers portrayed activities that conflicted with existing wildlife-tourism guidelines, restrictions or legislation.
That exposes an important challenge.
The tourism industry has increasingly recognized concerns surrounding certain direct-contact wildlife experiences. Some travel companies have stopped selling particular attractions. Governments and organizations have restricted others.
Yet the images continue circulating.
And every new participant can create another advertisement.
This creates a powerful feedback loop.
Someone sees an extraordinary photograph of another person holding, riding or swimming with a wild animal. They seek out a similar experience. They take their own photograph and share it.
Someone else sees that photograph.
The cycle continues.
The people participating may genuinely love animals. They may believe their money supports conservation. They may have been told that the animals enjoy interacting with visitors.
That is precisely why education matters.
Good intentions do not automatically produce good outcomes for wildlife.
THE QUESTION WE SHOULD ASK BEFORE WE POST:
This research does not prove that seeing a wildlife encounter on social media causes someone to purchase one. It is an observational study of YouTube content, and the researchers acknowledge limitations in determining why individual videos became popular.
But the study demonstrates something important: direct-contact wildlife experiences are being portrayed across social media on a substantial scale, and visitors themselves are responsible for most of that content.
Responsible wildlife tourism therefore isn’t only about asking:
Should I buy a ticket? Should I participate in this encounter?
There is another question now.
Should I promote it?
Before posting a photograph or video, perhaps we should consider what someone else will see.
Will they see a wild animal behaving naturally — something that encourages appreciation for wildlife as wildlife?
Or will they see an animal presented as something to hold, ride, kiss, hug or use as a photo opportunity?
And there is an even simpler question:
If someone sees my photograph and wants to recreate it, am I comfortable with what I am encouraging?
THE ENCOUNTER MAY LAST MINUTES. THE IMAGE CAN INFLUENCE PEOPLE FOR YEARS.
Social media has given ordinary travelers something previous generations rarely possessed: An audience.
That audience can be used to inspire respect for wildlife, celebrate animals behaving naturally and encourage responsible tourism.
But an audience also brings responsibility.
Wildlife tourism no longer ends when we leave the attraction.
Every photograph we upload, every video we share and every encounter we celebrate contributes to what other people come to regard as normal.
We vote with our money when we choose wildlife experiences.
Increasingly, we also vote with what we choose to amplify.
Research Source:
Harrington, L. A., Elwin, A., Paterson, S. & D’Cruze, N. (2026).
The role of social media in promoting inappropriate wildlife tourism: a case study of direct contact animal-visitor interactions portrayed on YouTube. Journal of Sustainable Tourism.
Evidence • Education • Accountability
