One could maliciously argue that photographing intruders only bring unrest to the forests and pressure animals in their already shrinking habitats and living spaces. That they startle living beings or lure them in, all just to get a great shot. So much for the prejudices. But how much of that is actually true?
"Every person who sets even one foot into the forest, in turn, sets some animal in motion somewhere."
First, it must be stated—without intending to legitimize any specific behavior—that the forest, in general, is being subjected to ever-increasing stress caused by us humans. This is because everyone feels entitled to spend their leisure time there. Do we want to stop the mushroom foragers from trekking cross-country to gather supplies for themselves? The forest-bathing workaholics who want to escape everyday life among the trees, even off the beaten paths? The forestry workers carrying out their assigned tasks? The foresters harvesting wood so that more local timber can be purchased? Or the hunters pursuing a practice that is becoming increasingly popular and supposedly necessary? On top of that, there are the hikers, the runners, the birdwatchers, and of course the children, who can finally romp around there in a way that isn't possible in the big city.
Consequently, there are no specific "troublemakers." At the same time, however, it must be taken into account that every person who sets even one foot into the forest, regardless of their motives, sets some animal in motion somewhere. That much reflection is necessary. In doing so, I am not even necessarily referring to those who recklessly trample over plants, step on moss, and restlessly chase after a passing animal. One shouldn't be surprised if the forest feels like a deserted place devoid of life.
Wild animals adapt to their surroundings to a certain extent. The noise of cars from the nearby highway is no longer anything new in the long run; hikers on main paths are largely ignored, and cyclists are waited out until they have passed. However, if you walk cross-country, things look quite different.
I can only refer to sustainability indirectly. There is no such thing as "sustainable nature photography"—that would be nonsense, because the immediate environment does not benefit from the photographers. Neither the grass nor the animals do. And yet, the actions of photographers can have a sustainable effect. By presenting images from the surrounding area, one presents a world that remains hidden from the average passerby. Images can increase the significance and value of our forests and the nature around us. The goal, therefore, is to sensitize our fellow human beings to our forests and the wildlife that is having a harder time than ever before.
For this to succeed, it is not enough to present only beautiful, perfect shots where spectacular animals are seen framed by a picturesque setting. On the one hand, the increasing destruction of habitats must not be concealed, and on the other hand, too many large-format portraits can prevent the habitat itself from being shown. The viewer cannot place the image in context; it could have been taken anywhere.