... and no one sees it, does it matter?

If people weren't destroying the habitats and otherwise harming the wildlife that the hidden cameras document, then I can see a case being made to have some areas truly wild. However, the reality is that we as a species are very invasive. We are the kudzu of the planet. And if we don't see it, it doesn't happen (or at least, it seems, it doesn't matter).

If in the 17th century, we had camera on Mauritius, and people could see the dodo population being decimated, perhaps we would have been more aggressive in saving them. And the article itself points out that certain populations are further in trouble than we had thought.

The irony is that if we can get to a place to drop a camera, then it is already less "wild" or "unspoiled", and others can go there, further despoiling the area.

A problem with filling our wilderness with cameras was illustrated in the book, "1984" by George Orwell. In this book, nobody was safe from "Big Brother", no matter where they went. The woods were filled with cameras. So if a good American citizen wants to get away from this screwed-up society for a day or a year, they can still be found and spied upon. We are no longer safe from scrutiny anywhere.

Cozmiccowgirl - your arguement is only relevant if the government is conducting the surveillance. That level of paranoia is the kind of thing that stresses humans - not animals.

Does a bear shit in the woods?

Enquiring minds want to know.