Why we don't track animals and why real protection works without intervention
Tracking sounds like cutting-edge science at first: satellite data, maps, points moving across the ocean. Many projects market this as progress in species conservation. But the deeper we've delved into the topic, the clearer it's become that traditional animal tracking often does more harm than good . To track animals, they usually have to be captured, restrained, or even sedated. Then, transponders or transmitters with barbs are attached to or implanted in their shells or skin. These procedures can cause injuries, inflammation, and infections, and alter the animals' natural behavior. Some animals lose energy or orientation as a result, and some don't survive the procedure. Death from stress or infection is unfortunately often the consequence. To us, this doesn't feel like protection, but rather like unnecessary stress.
What hardly anyone considers is that many of these transmitters detach or break off over time. They get lost and remain in the ocean. What was supposed to be a conservation tool then simply becomes additional marine debris. Plastic, electronics, and batteries float in the ocean, once again harming the very animals that are meant to be protected. At the same time, the data collected is often less valuable than one might think. It is incomplete, outdated, or offers little genuine scientific benefit. The animal thus bears the risk, while the benefit remains minimal. This balance simply doesn't work for us.
When we had the idea of incorporating tracked animals live into our communication, we deliberately sought out organizations that work with these species on a daily basis. Both Janek Andre from the Iberian Orca Guardians and Martin Stelfox from the Olive Ridley Project strongly advised against it. They both share our approach: protection must never come at the expense of the animals. At that moment, it was immediately clear to us that we didn't want tagging for consumer purposes. We wanted to protect and support.
We are collaborating with the Olive Ridley Project again because their research is based precisely on this respectful principle. They don't attach transmitters or manipulate animals. Their work is based on long-term observation in their natural habitat. When animals feel safe, they naturally return to the same places time and again. They can be observed and documented while feeding, sleeping, or laying eggs without altering their behavior. This is how honest, reliable data and genuine conservation are generated. It's science that respects rather than intervenes, data that is collected anyway and serves a purpose.
With our Hope Edition, you can support precisely this approach. The name you've chosen couldn't be more fitting. You're following Hope in her natural habitat based on scientific observations, without her wearing a transmitter or being harmed. We want to take a stand against unnecessary animal tracking and against projects that primarily cater to our desire for consumption but do little for the animals. We want to be a good alternative, also for companies, and raise awareness. Therefore, always look closely at where your money really goes and what work is actually involved. For us, nature conservation means leaving animals in peace and giving them the space to simply be animals. Sometimes, the best way to help is by not holding on to anything.
➡ You can support Hope Edition here
