there's a film being screened here at a local film festival called "Being Caribou" about a husband and wife team who follow a caribou migration by living among/as caribou (hence the title), and it is winning awards and winning some traction as a tool for environmentalists concerned with arctic drilling. the caribou people are being touted as heroic.

what is the difference between tim treadwell living among the bears, as a bear, and "being caribou." is it because tim came across as a possibly bipolar nut job in herzog's presentation? (i saw him in a live presentation, and he presents very differently live than he does in the film.)

i think i was more offended by "winged migration" than i was by what tim was doing. it was sad that he was ultimately consumed by who he was "consuming" (from a visual, consumer culture standpoint, eg he was supporting himself by importing these bear images out of nature into culture).

in "winged migration," you have to watch the behind-the-scenes footage, where it shows how they raised bird flocks specifically to make this film, acclimating the birds to ultralight technology so they wouldn't be disturbed by the presence of an ultra-light mounted camera. it was the ultimate in "un"-natural footage--wholly manufactured by humans for human visual consumption. i actually found the enterprise rather appalling. i didn't understand what i was watching while i watched the movie, it was only afterwards, in the behind-the-scenes "making of". and this film was nominated for an academy award.

so on one hand, we have tim treadwell, who without werner herzog's interest, would have operated in relative obscurity. then we have "being caribou" (which i've not seen personally, so can't specifically comment upon--it airs sunday) where people "being caribou" are heroes. is the difference that bears eat you, and caribous don't? is it that simple. and here's "winged migration," where you raise animals as your actors and acclimate them to the very technology that threatens them.

i guess i could throw in "march of the penguins," but i watched that "making of", and it seemed like those guys stayed at a fairly respectful distance to their subject, using long lenses, and not interfering much....

i don't have a bunch of conclusions, it just seems like the ethics of wildlife shooting is not at the forefront of discussion, even though these films are at the forefront of what we do.....so i have these three films on my mind and was thinking this might be something to discuss here, if there's any interest.

as the people who do this, what are your ethics of how you interact with the wild....? and what do you think about these examples of how others do it?

Ethics, Religion, Politics.

Is there ever a 'right' answer?

As someone who once made his living WITH animals, (horses) I've been accused of exploitation. I've also rescued horses from the slaughter, and nursed them to a strong working career for anothre half dozen years.

I think my personal ethics in working with animals - and that's what you are doing, whether it's filmmaking, dogsledding, farming, rodeo riding, keeping a zoo or running a circus - is to ask myself the extent to which I am 'advancing the animals well being'.

At what point does your effort cross the line into exploitation or abuse?

Frankly, whatever you might decide is the line, someone else isn't going to agree with it. That's life.

The elements that you see in filmmaking as exploitive or perhaps even abusive, might be seen as advancing the greater understanding of the species as a whole, and therefore advancing their greater safety and well being. (The best justifcation for well-run zoos).

Some might argue "What right do you have to enter their domain and film them at all?" The observer inevitably influences the environment. Others might say "Creating a compelling narrative, even with artificial inducements or editing is a necessary means to a justifiable end."

Ethics, Religion, Politics. It's a personal choice.

Hi Guys

This is a very interesting issue which deserves more attention than it seems to be getting. I think the matter ultimately comes down to what sort of soul you are - you are what you film. Our biggest problem is that natural talent tends to narrow us into specialisation, thereby robbing us to some extent of a more contextual view of what we do. I am not naming any names, but I worked with some very well known wildlife specialists back in the old days-when it was all sixteen mm, and I saw some things that were quite wrong. I remember walking into a licensed basement film lab to see a room full of emergent butterflies batting themselves on a skylight. The butterflies had emerged over the weekend without supervision and without being filmed. It seemed to me a shameful waste; moreover, those that did survive were released into a totally alien environment. Similarly, some prize winning filmed shrews were sacrificed over a weekend break - the footage was great, but the stock just died. I posed the unanswerable question: do you think they died of loneliness. This was not the least of the ill treatment of animals that I saw, and the excessive care, (as it was judged), ultimately lost me my contract. But the failure left me with the ambition to do my own thing in my own way, and I have been gifted so many natural compensations, that I am glad I was thwarted when I was. I too have transgressed along the way, but I am now glad to see that most modern wildlife film makers are more constrained than those of the old days. Judging from the posts though, there are still issues afoot, evidence Richard's self justifying remarks; but maybe he has a point - the more you take, the more you have to give back.

This is headed Aboriginal, because I think that when you are so steeped in Nature that there is little or no difference between your identity and the thing you predate a natural balance spontaneously arises. It is only when the will is interposed and an industry starts to develop that abuses really start to occur. Then it is obsessiveness that calls the shots, not a natural calling for the subject. This situation is not unique in life and although I am a fallible man, the maxim of: 'I must do', not, 'I want to', usually resolves my consternation. Fortunately, filming in the wild demands so much natural patience and care that only a handful of people stick at it long term. In my experience most of them do it for one reason, and that's because they love it and the animals they harmlessly shoot (mostly).

Rod Compton

Be a hunter, but kill nothing.

Well it looks like we are almost alone on this one Meryem, I wonder why.

Rod Compton

The difficulty you have with this thread is that with ethics its dependent from where you are coming from. First of all I wish to make it clear that I am a conservationists and in no way would I deliberately disturb, harm or manipulate wildlife to get footage, but judgeing by some of the threads here, there are hunters and probably those in between on the forum.

I maybe wrong , I'm sure there are those who will tell me so, but this forum is all about how to aquire good footage and to do so within the law (some laws that you may disagree with) and guidelines set out by some broadcasting companies (BBC being one). Equipment and how to use it etc etc.

When we talk about ethics it becomes very political (broadest sense of the term). Not to long ago many blue chipped wildlife films contained contrived scenes and sets without reference being made to it. This now is very rare.
If this is the type of ethics we are talking about great.

On the other hand if we start to criticise the filming of legal activities or filming in a legal way that I and I am sure others would find offensive, then the forum could become a sounding off board for various activists.

I think Richard is right here, tread very carefully.

Regards

Mick

it's fine with me if no one wants to chime in. i figure, if people want to talk about something, they will. i'm pretty interested in this subject and just figured this would be the place...

also, i thought it would be worth discussing in light of the recent attention wildlife films have been getting. they seem more popular than ever. penguins, grizzlies, bird migrations, etc. are drawing people to theaters like never before in recent history.

and the story behind these stories--the insane lengths that people go to get the shot--is very interesting to me. this is certainly not the only context for such a discussion, but it seemed logical at the time.

i disagree that "ethics" is this big, fat loaded term. that's cowardly. we can get into flame wars over which camera has the highest resolution, and we can't engage in a civil discussion over whether it's right to stick your lens into a birds' nest to get the shot? nonsense.

i'd like to be able to say that i've never disturbed wildlife in shooting wildlife, but it simply isn't true. the same fox that is unafraid of me when i'm out for a walk alone balks when i point an XL2 his direction. the question is the degree to which it is an acceptable practice. which i think is worth considering. i may be (nearly! thanks for chiming in rod, as the other voice in the proverbial wilderness.....) alone in thinking this way, then again perhaps not...

It's when you interact with them, as opposed to observing, that the trouble begins. Many creatures have never met a human, and every encounter changes their perception, and their reaction. If they lose the initial fear of humans, it will ultimately turn out for the worse. The grizzly man found out the hard way.

Meryem,

Your comment about the reaction of the fox to a camera pointed in its direction is interesting. I have been photographing and later videoing birds for over thirty years now, and I have always noted the frequency with which a bird which has been perched doing its own thing for some time takes to the wing the instant I get focus!

My gut feeling is that the average bird is less concerned by binoculars.

In New Zealand where all mammals are immigrants, birds seem less bothered by lenses pointed in their direction.

In my opinion, this is the single most important topic going on this site. Thanks for all your input,

Here, here, Chris,

On Alan's point.

For someone that has done a lot of field work, nearly forty years, I have inevitably come to understand that some animals are tamer than others, and how some animals, especially birds, are more shy around nesting time. For instance, the common or garden Robin is literally tame during the winter, but come breeding time it becomes quite secretive. I started photographing birds back in the seventies and my first subject was one of the tamest of all the British woodland birds: the long tailed tit. This beautiful little creature is very confiding indeed and builds a nest which is one of the miracles of nature - a ball of lichen, hair and cobwebs. Inevitably though, when you get very close to your subjects you are bound to witness tragedies. Nature is as full of violence as it of beauty and I think one must not forget that some of the most beautiful creatures are by nature predators. I hope I am not alone here in seeing homo sapiens as part of this contextual view; our very existence inevitably endangers the environment in which we live - it is unavoidable. The issue is then not whether we do harm, it is whether we can redeem the harm we do by creating something beautiful.

On the point I was making earlier, I am convinced that an individual attracts or is attracted to his subject. There is much on record about natural tribesmen having an unconscious link with the animals that they predate as part of their daily existence. The famous cave paintings of prehistoric tribesmen are now thought to support this view. Instead of these depictions showing actual creatures, they are now thought to be of shamanistic Dreamtime objects. In this sense the depictions are anticipatory rather than retrospective. Whichever way round you put it, it means that the first art was about, either the souls of the creatures our ancestors hunted, or the creatures themselves. Distinct from many others in film making, we work very close to nature and as such our instincts are sharpened by similar influences to those in our common ancestry. I think Nature film making can be every bit as spectacular as Holywood and a lot more wholesome and informative in the process.

Rod Compton

I don't think there is anything wrong with the techniques used in winged migration. The filmmakers were completely up front about what they did. I have a much bigger problem with staged documentaries involving human subjects.

Rodney's comment about Homo sapiens inevitably endangering our environment is fair comment, but we go far beyond that!

Before the polynesians arrived New Zealand had no mammals except for two fruit eating bats. Most endemic birds were either flightless or poor fliers as they had little need for flight. The polynesians brought dogs and rats, which meant three predators.

The europeans added cats, dogs, other rats, even stoats and weasels (to try to control the rabbits we had introduced), and later the possum (for its fur). The result is that many species of native birds can now exist only on predator free off-shore islands. The black robin was down to six individuals at one stage.

In Florida, the walking catfish and here in the DC area there is a bounty for this really ugly fish that is creating havoc for the native species. (looks like a snakes head I think).

An interesting article I read last year was about a man who raised orphaned bear cubs. There was wide spread fear they would be too attached to humans and would 'visit' peoples homes for food when older. He raised them as bears, fed them like bears, interacted with them like a bear. When they were finally released, they didn't bother humans at all. The only human they would allow near them (especially when one of them had their own cubs) was the human who raised them. But they were also that way with other bears and wildlife. Animals, must like humans, can't be all bunched in generatlities.

I want to say also I support hunters and fishermans and pet owners rights. I too am a amateur conservationist and believe in a well rounded view point, not an extremist one. I am much more worried about the petroleum based toxins we are putting into the environment vs the ethics of hunting fishing or owning pets. If we don't stop there wont be anything left at all.

Well done guys, at least we now have a discussion

Rod Compton

It's when you interact with them, as opposed to observing, that the trouble begins. Many creatures have never met a human, and every encounter changes their perception, and their reaction. If they lose the initial fear of humans, it will ultimately turn out for the worse. The grizzly man found out the hard way.


this comment by keith points to something that i'm really curious about. is there a line drawn between humans and non-humans that should not be crossed? i mean, i've read all of the discussions about "grizzly man" on this site, and every thread contains condemnatory comments about what tim treadwell was doing--"being" the bear. the grizzly man as keith says, found out the hard way, and yet no one seems to have a problem with "winged migration" or "being caribou," where the filmmakers are similarly collapsing the category of the observer and the observed....

is the only difference that tim treadwell was consumed by his subject? how is it that one set of filmmakers are heroes and the other considered a nut when their shooting practices are in some ways so similar? and their metaphysics "be the bear"--"be the bird"--"be the caribou" are absolutely identical.

in "grizzly man," there was a native american briefly interviewed who was highly offended by what tim did, because he said it crossed a sacred line recognized by his ancestors between humans and beasts. he appeared to care less that the guy died than that his behaviors were taboo, in violation of a sacred distinction between humans and beasts.

does this even matter anymore?

if it only matters if you get munched by your subject, i.e. if it's every bear or man for himself, or, as richard says, just a matter of personal choice and not a matter of ethics at all, then perhaps the sacred line between animals and beasts is in a state of collapse in spite of what we humans do, rather than because of what we humans do. or, to put it another way, if we have no ethics regarding animals, then indeed we can't distinguish ourselves.

i like what rod said about we are what we shoot. i wonder if there is a corollary to that: we are "how" we shoot....

gives me a lot to ponder....thanks for persisting, y'all....

I have also seen docs, where man has lived with the wolf, gorillas, etc. While it is both entertaining and informative, I still stand by my statement, that there should be no interaction.

People down here are surrounded by Gators, and they don't heed this warning. Since man has already displaced them, they have to struggle for food and habitat. Then, you have those folk who think it is cool to feed the little gators... which grow up to be big gators with no fear of man. Usually, it is someone's dog that gets eaten, but humans have been attacked as well.

And Meryem- the biggest difference between man living among Caribou, and man living among Grizzlies... Caribou aren't known for eating people.

this comment by keith points to something that i'm really curious about. is there a line drawn between humans and non-humans that should not be crossed? i mean, i've read all of the discussions about "grizzly man" on this site, and every thread contains condemnatory comments about what tim treadwell was doing--"being" the bear. the grizzly man as keith says, found out the hard way, and yet no one seems to have a problem with "winged migration" or "being caribou," where the filmmakers are similarly collapsing the category of the observer and the observed....

is the only difference that tim treadwell was consumed by his subject? how is it that one set of filmmakers are heroes and the other considered a nut when their shooting practices are in some ways so similar? and their metaphysics "be the bear"--"be the bird"--"be the caribou" are absolutely identical.

in "grizzly man," there was a native american briefly interviewed who was highly offended by what tim did, because he said it crossed a sacred line recognized by his ancestors between humans and beasts. he appeared to care less that the guy died than that his behaviors were taboo, in violation of a sacred distinction between humans and beasts.

does this even matter anymore?

if it only matters if you get munched by your subject, i.e. if it's every bear or man for himself, or, as richard says, just a matter of personal choice and not a matter of ethics at all, then perhaps the sacred line between animals and beasts is in a state of collapse in spite of what we humans do, rather than because of what we humans do. or, to put it another way, if we have no ethics regarding animals, then indeed we can't distinguish ourselves.

i like what rod said about we are what we shoot. i wonder if there is a corollary to that: we are "how" we shoot....

gives me a lot to ponder....thanks for persisting, y'all....

Meryem,

An interesting discussion indeed. And thanks to those who have responded with well thought out and rational posts. I 'personally' view us homo sapiens as animals, albeit highly developed ones (in some areas). We are civilized, but what does that actually mean? It means we 'overcome' the desire to do what we would 'natuarally' do.

I have done lots of hunting and fishing and I only kill for two reasons... food, or self-defense. I have never sent anything to the taxidermist. And frankly, by being respectful of nature, I haven't had to deploy that second reason in a long time (grew up around lots of snakes).

Ironically Meryem, I am guessing that wildlife films of wolves, coyotes, or dingos have led mankind to an understanding of the canine world that I now benefit greatly from in my daily interactions with Misty. For those who don't know, Misty is my 80 pound, 5 year old Black Labrador Retriever. The books I have read about her breed and dogs in general are things I see in her natural behavior everyday. I understand why she does or needs things in a certain canine way. And at the same time, she tries to do some things in a 'human' way. Almost uncanny times just how much she understands but that's for a different thread.

-gb-

Hey Meryem - brother!

You've redeemed my view - I am not alone.

The 'how you shoot' corollary is perfect to the general point about ethics.

If our instincts determine what we do, its how we do what we do, that counts. Unfortunately, it opens up a whole new argument about predetermination and free will. In my case, I think the only choice I have, is to do what I do as best I can - with what energy and intensity my life has left me at 61.

Rod Compton

'You are what you shoot..., its all in synchronicity - the results will speak for themselves.

p.p.s, Oh and Meryem, just to underline the synchronicity, the little critter I am working on at the moment, I just found out was imported from the States two hundred years ago, it ain't fierce, but it is a wise one - Athene noctua.

www.xyris.tv/%20%20%20pages/diary.htm

Hope you enjoy the pic

www.xyris.tv/%20%20%20pages/diary.htm

that's a gorgeous photo. i've been walking around looking for an owl for about two weeks with no luck.

which is odd, because often when i want to shoot something, it shows up. my favorite story about this is shooting a certain species of black squirrel which used to run rampant in these parts. i was telling a friend about how i used to see these all the time and was wondering what happened to them. my friend told someone else, who knew a member of the wildlife management staff, and, indeed there had been a plague which wiped out most of the population. the next week, when i was out hiking with this same friend, lo and behold a black squirrel appeared. it was quite magical. something along those lines. i'd been taking this same hike several times a week, for a period of years, without ever seeing one, and as soon as this conversation took place, one showed up. and more recently, its mate. which is a good sign.

i have found that i have very good connections to the fur animals. i can think a fox, for instance, and it won't be too long before i can video a fox. but the birds just, uh, give me the bird. i've had lousy luck with shooting video of birds. but oddly, since i gave up trying to video birds and now only do still photographs of birds, they seem to be more willing subjects. which is weird to me, because the lenses only get bigger with still photography. they don't seem to mind so much.

okay, maybe now i'm venturing into my own crackpot territory (well, with rod as my stalwart friend in animal shamanism), but i'm pretty sure i'm not alone in this....what makes some people bird people or fish people or fur people. or even phallus impudicus people, like my friend rod! heh.

i find too much synchronicity in wildlife videography to be convinced that it is complete dumb luck or coincidence. or maybe that's just a yearning for more magic, mystery, beauty, and wonder than a rationalist view of the world is capable of providing, i don't know....

Getting back to the ethicity of using animal actors and specifically about the "Winged Migration" production: Sometimes, for a dramatic presentation, it's the only way it could be done. However, I don't like it at all, if it portrays something unnatural or worse yet, anthropomorphic. When they use trained critters in documentaries and don't openly reveal it, I'm offended. But, there seems to have been no attempt to deceive anyone in this movie, so why should we object?

The training of birds to fly alongside motorized vehicles dates back a couple of decades and has had some practical benefits for preserving endangered species and for up-close studies of their aerodynamics. I believe this started
when some biologists hand-raised a brood of Snow Geese on the tundra in Canada. They became attached to the people and followed them everywhere, even flying alongside their van. They hoped to bring them back to the U.S., to a wildlife studies center. But, the border guards wouldn't let them bring the wild birds across in the van. So, they let out the geese on the Canadian side and drove across into the U.S. Without hesitation, the geese flew across on their own, swooped down on the van and were invited back inside for the rest of the trip. This is all on video and if anyone knows the title of this program and where it could be seen again, please speak up.

The true-life "Father Goose" story was about someone who wanted to try something like this to help rare Trumpeter Swans and Whooping Cranes re-establish migratory patterns that had been lost. He used Canada Geese to prove out the theory that it could be done with ultralight aircraft as guide vehicles. After it was shown this could work, it was used successfully with both these swans and cranes. The movie that came from this was well-received and may have sparked an interest in Nature in many people. It's likely the producers of "Winged Migration" had learned the technique from these earlier projects.

Regarding the ethics of manipulating wild species in this way, for either movie/TV production or for preservation, it is highly controversial and many people come down on opposite sides of the issue. There are some purists who oppose all the efforts to save these endangered species, including California Condors, if any captive breeding or transplanting is involved. Others, like myself, completely support such last-ditch efforts, as we would have surely lost most of those mentioned, without it. The Nene goose and the Laysan Duck are two other examples that would be gone, if we hadn't done something to offset the damage we had either directly caused or had been instrumental in setting in motion. I see the use of film/video in support of the preservation of wildlife as coming under the heading of interceding on their behalf, rather than interfering with them. Not to say that some people haven't abused wildlife under the pretense of helping them and really serving no interest other than their wish to make a successful movie or video. This falls into the same category as Japan and Iceland killing a substantial number of whales, in order to do "scientific studies" on them.

If you're going to pursue wildlife to make movies or video, ask yourself if you will be telling truth or fiction and who or what is going to benefit from it?

Ok Stephen, keep us on track.

Going back two and a half decades, a very good acquaintance of mine was experimenting with some of the techniques you were referring to - in particular with model aircraft and helicopters. Simultaneously, one rather disgusting way he tried of controlling the flight path of insects was to glue them to a travelling metal stylus. I am very gratified that you and every other person that has contributed find this type of practice unethical. This proves to me that wildlife filming has been taken out of the hands of the intellectuals, who mostly worked indoors under controlled conditions, and is now in the hands of true lovers of wildlife.

Rod Compton

P.S Meryem, as soon as I get to grips with finishing my web site I shall put some movie footage up of the owl film. Incidentally, at the moment I am working and living in a very urban area near London and I am astonished at the diversity of wildlife around here.

This is real can of worms that has been opened up here but I think that we are looking at a wide range of issues here; posts have touched on the practice of imprinting species (especially birds) through to the human animals that have convinced themselves that they can go beyond the bounds of their physical form and become for example, the non- human animal that is the bear.

There have been a number of really valid points made in these threads but I think that they have got a little muddled.

In relation to the Treadwell story. I don't believe that we can compare the work that he was doing in Alaska and some of the other material mentioned as we are talking about very different issues. In Treadwells work we are talking about somebody who was obviously a passionate conservationist but who, as the other other posts and general opinion seem to echo, pushed the limits of what is acceptable fieldwork. This led to a somewhat unsuccessful experiment in the habituation of wild Grizzly bears.
Winged Migration was a cinematic spectacular that involved the imprinting of several hundred migratory species. It gave the public a deeper insight into the mechanics of flight, the migratory instinct and so on, that earlier films with the technology and knowhow available were able to. It gave the scientists involved a really unique chance to learn a little more. It also sparked another fierce ethical debate on the practice of imprinting animals. This has been going on in the name of science for years so it is not a new practice or debate. In everyday life we are responsible for a multitude of injustices: Chicken anybody, Turkey, or would you like some battery eggs with your milk fattened bacon?

In a bizarre reversed twist I can recommend that you try to see "A Natural History of the Laboratory Rat'; in this a group of lab rats were released into an wire enclosed farmyard set. They were filmed trying to adjust to life in the 'wild', drinking from puddles not bottles, meeting wild rats, experiencing rain for the first time and seeing how each rat coped. Very interesting and full of ethical irony.

I cannot speak for Being Caribou. I am not familiar with the exact details of the shoot but man has a very different history of interaction with the caribou and the caribou in the ANWR have been exploited by the Gwich’in Inuit for many generations. The Sami in northern europe live alongside reindeer daily, wild or partially domesticated. Much of the best wildlife footage come out of many days, weeks and months of following and 'shadowing' particular species and this inevitably leads to a partial habituation. When we film the cats, elephants and other big species here we do not go over trying to get cosy with them, respect for their space is absolutely fundamental to any work that we do. Some people do not work like this, others do. Some will push this space to get the money shot. Treadwell got too close.

There is a proliferation of 'wildlife' programming on the major networks that began with Steve Irwin and has mutated into the 'Wild Boyz'. The Elecam series ended with the death of a elephant through repeated tranquilization with M99, all in the name of TV. These programs raise difficult questions and highlight the numerous ethical questions about the level of interaction between the filmmakers and the subjects being filmed, and the techniques being used... it is no surprise that you never bump into these guys at the festivals.

I think that we must all remember that this is an industry like any other, and like any industry it has its issues. I personally could not do the work that I do if I did not use some captive subjects. For a film about mangroves we set up a large saltwater tank, actually a kids paddling pool, in which we planted mangrove pneumatophores and some old roots for 'decoration' and pumped 24/7 changing the water every day. Into this we introduced Tiger shrimps (Penaeus) so that we could film them going about their business. This setup meant that I could get otherwise impossible close-up shots that were essential for the sequence, this film has gone on to be used as a policy tool for making decisions about mangrove preservation and the placement of aquaculture projects here. This project did have its casualties, I still have a slight guilt about the tiger shrimp that arced itself between the water and the pepper light above the tank.

Filmmakers for Conservation is an organization that I would suggest you take a look at and strongly recommend that you support. This link will take you directly to the FFC guidelines for ethical filming.

http://www.filmmakersforconservation.org/membership/ethics.htm

I think that there has been a lot of emotive stuff said about the ethics of filming. I think we have to keep a bit of perspective and I trust that we all are as passionate about the food that we are eating and the way that it is produced as we are about the invertebrate species.

PS Meryem, speaking for myself I am a Mosquito and Tick person, wherever I go they appear. Jellyfish too actually.

J

Meryem said -

"or, as richard says, just a matter of personal choice and not a matter of ethics at all,"

Funny, I don't ever recall saying that. In fact, those words appear nowhere in my post. Weird that you should infer it.

My point being, that ethics are personal - as indeed are religion, and politics.

I will stand by my comment -

"At what point does your effort cross the line into exploitation or abuse?

Frankly, whatever you might decide is the line, someone else isn't going to agree with it. That's life. "


I specifically did NOT illustrate what that line was to me, personally. I made the point that interacting with animals on ANY level - as filmmaker, farmer, zookeeper, naturalist, sportsman, scientist - has SOME effect. It's not much different than asking the question "Can a reporter be OBJECTIVE". The mere fact of deciding to observe,(Who,What,When,Where,Why) creates a subjective point of view. Set up a camera in some place where it wouldn't NORMALLY exist to observe wildlife... (And frankly, that's anywhere) and your immediate concern is how to minimize it's effect on the life being observed.


Ethics, Religion, Politics - These ARE personal choices. But that doesn't make them non-existant as Meryem implied I said.

Meryem - my question to you is - Do you believe that there is one objective ethical approach to filmming wildlife? And that someone who differes from that approach is "un-ethical" in your view? I would not go so far as to assume that is your position.

Is the point of this thread, to determine everyone's particular ethical standards in filmming wildlife, and then to discuss the various reasons why they do or don't coincide or perhaps clash? Is that in the hopes of changing someone's mind? Or just in the spirit of cordial debate?

Hi Richard,

Meryem might not be willing to come right out and say it, but my experience of forty years in the field informs me that ethical standards have evolved into a much more enlightened and caring approach to wildlife filming. You guys are what you are - more caring and more passionate than your forbears, just because things have moved on.

'No animals were harmed in the making of this movie' - would not have appeared anywhere in credits when I was younger. The fact they do now indicates nothing less than a consensus of opinion. Which is to my understanding a general ethic.

The more objective the film maker the more objective the film, of that I have no doubt.

Rod Compton

apologies, richard, if i mis-interpreted your comments, truly...i read the combination of your opening question, "is there ever a right answer?" and your closing comment "it's a personal choice" as implying that personal choice is the only answer. and that discussions such as these are self-indulgent or unnecessary or thinly veiled smokescreens for someone's (read: my) personal agenda, given that we will do as we do do.

doo-doo?

if i have mis-read you in any way, please please please feel free to elaborate, correct, re-interpret, etc. mis-reading anyone is never my intent. i really have no agenda here, beyond civil discussion. opening this thread was really about seeing these recent films, having them generate a bunch of questions in my head, and turning to those who i perceive as experts in the "doing" of wildlife shooting rather than the "viewing" of it. i have no personal agenda, though i have my own opinions, naturally.

usually, i don't feel that i disturb wildlife in general, though there have been occasions which have felt more invasive than others. i'm interested in a bit of self-scrutiny around these instances, to move these reactions from the gut level to the level of understanding them. and i am curious how others react to the same. several folks here have been very helpful in enabling my own ruminations. and i'm wondering why certain moments give me those gut responses and certain moments do not. as i ruminate, fulminate, and listen to what others have to say on the subject, i am getting a bit more clear on how to listen to my own internal compass on these matters. and a bit more clear on what was puzzling me in viewing the films previously named....

as rod pointed out, we generally live in more humane times, not less humane times, where filmmakers make it a point to not harm their subjects.

in the early 1900s, thomas edison's cronies electrocuted an elephant to prove edison's theories about electricity. imagine the public outcry if something so cavalier was done as a public spectacle by a contemporary filmmaker or videographer....

p.s. just read james' post about the filmmakers who shot the tranking of an elephant, funny how history recycles without repeating....

The tranquilisation of the elephant was actually far more than to film the actual darting operation. The elephant died after being being tranquilised a number of times with the drug M99, the only thing that will drop an elephant is to be darted with this very powerful drug. This is used when elephants are having a radio collar fitted, or are having tusks microchipped etc. In this case the animal had a video camera fitted onto a collar and the tranquilisation was so that the filmmakers could retreive footage. This was done a number of times; the elephant died.

On a slightly different note, there is an article here that may well be of interest for this thread. David Attenborough talks about his films....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1713421,00.html

On the one hand, I agree that we are living in more 'humane' times when it comes to treatment of animals... when it comes to treatment of humans, I'm not so sure. But that's the topic of another thread.

Part of the difficulty in applying 'ethics' to any sort of documentary is "What do I as an objective observer - owe to my subject's well being." This comes up in crime and combat photography all the time. The same can be said of "Nature" photography.

One type of wildlife photography might be just passive observation over time. Show up, hide out, roll film, hope for the best.

But what happens when the subject of your study, IS A STUDY ITSELF? In other words, you are documenting the study of migration habits, and therefore shooting the rangers or vets as they tranq and handle the animal. To take it to the extreme, what if your subject is poaching? See where it gets tricky?

There is a parlor game, I believe its called “Scruples”, wherein people sit around and ask each other pointed questions to determine their personal positions regarding ethical situations. One might draw a card that asks “If you found a wallet, what would you do?” The question will have variations such as “There is NO name” – “It has $5 dollars in it” – “It has 5,000 dollars in it” Other questions might be “You found out a friend of yours is cheating on their spouse, what do you do? Tell the spouse? Remain quiet? Tell the friend you know? Would YOU want to be told?” etc. etc.

In the interest of cordial debate that I assume the thread was started in – I will posit a question for ethical debate among wildlife filmmakers.

Assume you have invested a great deal of time and money in filming your subject. Now assume, suddenly before your eyes, the subject’s life is threatened. What do you do when

1)The subject falls to a natural physical threat: IE gets stuck in quicksand, trapped by a falling tree, caught in a natural fire, etc.

2)The subject falls to a threat by being STARTLED by you. Is spooked by your presence and falls off the cliff, is stuck in quicksand, dashes into danger.

3)Falls prey to a man-made danger IE Might wander into electrical field, drink poisonous water, stray onto highway , wander into land mines, etc.

4)Is attacked by a natural predator.

5)Is attacked by a predator, and left for dead, but you could save it.

6)Is attacked by a human predator. The human is lawfully hunting your subject, and has every legal right to kill it, no matter what your personal objection to the ethics of hunting might be.

7)Is attacked by a human predator, that is ILLEGALLY hunting your subject… and the topic of your film is the danger of poaching?

These questions will have various answers, depending on one’s personal ethical viewpoint. I think they will also illustrate the various concepts and personal boundaries regarding the definitions of ‘interfere’ and ‘influence’.

It's easy enough to say "I will not harm an animal". But does that extend to "I will not SAVE an animal?"

I think it was Miliken who said something about how simply observing a thing shapes how it will act and react. I have used that all my life. If you want to understand wildlife, in my view, it should be done with a long lens from far away.

As soon as an animal senses the presence of a foreign "animal" it is going to react differently. The idea that someone can wheel a small radio controlled car with a mic and a camera fitted with lights or an IR emitter on it down into a animals den, and not expect it to alter the actions of an animal (or insect) is an odd one.

Sort of like saying hey, if a race of really large green people with 2 heads pulled the roof off your house and replaced it with glass, lights and a camera, you would go about your daily life. I find that just silly. And yet we find people who slice away half a Gopher hole and do just that, or they string up radar like devices to catch bats in flight, etc. (I can only imagine a cartoon of a blinded bat hitting a tree here)

I think a drive to fame and possibly fortune drives an awful lot of what we do. I am in a rousing online discussion right now on the concept of - can art be judged? It goes hand in hand with defining art vs entertainment. This discussion sort of splits things in the catagories of the persuit of scientific knowledge vs entertainment.

What is the goal of shooting wildlife? Are we simply making pretty moving images of an eagle soaring over the peaks at Yellowstone or are we trying to make a saleable movie that will attract an audience? If the later, what is the motivation there? To do it well and technically accurate? To make money? To get publicity for ones self or perhaps political interest, as in conservation movements or hunting advocacy?

Everything to me ultimatly comes down to the underlying philosophy of "why"? Why is someone making a documentary on Bears? Why in hell is he living with them if he is trying to make a documentary on bears? He has tainted any natural reaction of the animals by attempting to live with them, etc. Why then is he doing this? Hey, he may have been a great guy, and I am sorry anyone has to go out the way he did but, I don't think anyone can deny, he was not fully loaded but he probably knew all the risk he was taking.

In the case of the bear film, the documentary was not focused on the bears. The thing we are all studying was the guy making the film. It's his story we are watching, not the bears. We do see their reactions to him in their space but mostly we see him.

So, for me, after the why?, I have to ask, how? Was it done in a way that truely is detached? I often wonder if the folks shooting these don't feel compelled to "help" nature a bit. I would have a tough time watching a baby rabbit starve to death or a a wounded animal crawling off to die without treatment. I would not be a good animal documentary person due to that.

Anyway, more fodder for discussion.

Sean McHenry

Appropos of intervention, observation and intrusions... the following thread

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=61083

Just posted, illustrates the paradox of being "Objective" in a documentary setting. Whether human or animal.

It goes back to my first posted response. I think at some point, the filmmaker must ask themselves "Am I advancing the subjects well being?" as opposed to simply my own? That in turn, raises the question of "The greater good". In other words, by allowing this incident to happen unimpeded or unaided, am I helping the species as a whole, even though this subject is suffering?

Very very difficult questions.

<<<[QUOTE=Sean McHenry]I think it was Miliken who said something about how simply observing a thing shapes how it will act and react. I have used that all my life. If you want to understand wildlife, in my view, it should be done with a long lens from far away.

<<<EDIT>>>

What is the goal of shooting wildlife? Are we simply making pretty moving images of an eagle soaring over the peaks at Yellowstone or are we trying to make a saleable movie that will attract an audience? If the later, what is the motivation there? To do it well and technically accurate? To make money? To get publicity for ones self or perhaps political interest, as in conservation movements or hunting advocacy?

Everything to me ultimatly comes down to the underlying philosophy of "why"? Why is someone making a documentary on Bears? Why in hell is he living with them if he is trying to make a documentary on bears? He has tainted any natural reaction of the animals by attempting to live with them, etc. Why then is he doing this? Hey, he may have been a great guy, and I am sorry anyone has to go out the way he did but, I don't think anyone can deny, he was not fully loaded but he probably knew all the risk he was taking.>>>>


In my personal view, Mr. McHenry has it nailed. That guy filming a
'bear doc' was making an ego centric movie about himself.
It is possible, like Jane Goodall, he wanted to learn about the
bears close up, but by putting himself in close proximity to the
bears he wasn't doing them (or himself) any favors.

I am completely ignorant of what actually happened, but it would
seem to me that his death probably resulted in at least one bear being killed.
I can only find fault with the human here. Grizzleys eat meat and this
guy darn well knew it. People who try to acclimatize large predators
to humans put their subjects at TERRIBLE PERIL.

The way I see it, wildlife filmmakers should be trying to show the beauty
of nature and thereby get people to love and care about it.
At the same time we should educate the public and finally get them interested in preserving and restoring wild places and the creatures
and plants that live there.

<<<The way I see it, wildlife filmmakers should be trying to show the beauty
of nature and thereby get people to love and care about it.
At the same time we should educate the public and finally get them interested in preserving and restoring wild places and the creatures
and plants that live there>>> sez Jacques Mesereau ...

... and I agree with every word of that. I'd go further and say that in the process of learning about nature we might learn to respect it in all its diversity and then feel just a little bit encouraged/obliged to respect each other in all our diversity ... helping others to do so as well is just part of the deal ... it's an ongoing thing ... nothing to do with macho displays or bravado

Hi Folks,

I think that Jacques raises an interesting point when he writes about the ego-centric qualities that he feels impelled Grizzly Man to explore the world of the grizzly bear from the inside. I am sure there are quite a few who might echo these sentiments. I am not sure one can be so black and white about the issue, though it is very tempting to be so. My doubts surfaced long before this latest stunt, when I saw the film about Jane Goodall. She almost become a saint in the eyes of the general community, yet to me the Holywood style film painted her character in such black and white terms that I could only guess at what type of woman she really was. This iconographic portrayal certainly set a trend for the study of wild communities of animals, which perhaps culminated in what we see with the demise of Grizzly Man. The difference with Jane Goodall perhaps, is that she was motivated by need rather than desire.

On a completely philosophical note, it was an interesting point that was raised earlier that the nearby indigenous people gave an adverse reaction to the filming. This criticism was issued for a particular reason and I am not surprised no one picked it up, since it expresses a viewpoint that is completely alien to modern minds. To paraphrase: It is not in the remit of humans to remain as an animal, humans are obliged to differentiate themselves. Looking at this statement carefully I am of the mind that it originated out of a recognition, generated by shamanistic practice, of the real danger of animal possession – which certainly applied to the tribes-folk if not to modern people.

I noticed on James Ewan’s website that he completed a film on a Jungian topic. Jung frequently referred to his time in Africa with the Bushmen - which subsequently stimulated the efforts of Laurens Van de Post in the same area of study. Jung knew from many years of psychiatric practice about the matter of possession and was interested to correlate his findings with the activities of the tribes-people he met. Some of his most interesting findings were to do with Shamanistic practices, and I remember reading in a book by Jung about the matter of a crocodile fatality. In the view of the tribe elders the fatality was not to be regarded as a contingency of living near crocks, but a meant to be event - betokening some important particular activity of the river spirit. Statistically, Jung conjectured, a native should have been eaten once every month, except that they were protected by participation with a natural deity that governed both predator and prey.



There is no doubt that Pandora’s box is well and truly open in Africa, (where they tell us it all started), and it seems to me symptomatic of the whole destructive process going on in nature. Jung foresaw this crisis in humanity and prescribed that man needed to assimilate his instincts, the ignorance of which amounted to one of the most destructive of personal and social problems. This way, we could live in harmony with our own nature and with the nature around us. Jung knew we could not approach this matter through our ego-centric personality, but that we had to rely on the alchemy of our chosen path. In this respect, I have always found Natural Historians quite unique. I believe their intimacy with nature often allows them a peek behind the veil of their own instincts, - it certainly vitalises them in a way I have not seen elsewhere.

Grizzly Man was obviously no Jungle Boy, but the myth persists and is still amplified, even in modern society, about a person who is nurtured by an intimacy with the animal kingdom.

So, Grizzly Man: mythic possession, or misguided sensationalism – you judge.

Rod Compton

P.S My sincere condolences to his family and loved ones

Wow! What a thread! This has been the most interesting reading I've ever seen on this kind of topic.

I am not currently a wildlife videographer (although I would like to be), but I have shot several video and audio documentaries about human subjects. I'm struck by how many of the ethics questions we are asking in this thread parallel the ethical questions in the making of ANY documentary.

The first is a question of fairness. When I am dealing with human subjects, I always ask myself, "Am I treating this person fairly?" "Am I doing my best to present them in a way in which they would present themselves?" This is a little harder to do with subjects that can't speak for themselves, such as animals, but it seems like the principle is the same. If you are putting animals in an unnatural situation and making them behave in a way that they wouldn't ordinarily, you are being unfair to the animal, (and to science!).

Second is the question of objectivity. Frankly, I don't believe it exists, and I have always thought it is more ethical to wear your heart on your sleeve than to claim (falsely) to be utterly unbiased. If you are making a documentary, you have a point of view, or you wouldn't be making the movie. I think "balance" is a more worthy goal -- you need to present multiple (not just two!) sides, but also make sure your thesis is clear and transparent, so that intelligent people may disagree. A wildlife film that makes it clear that the filmmaker thinks wolves are wanton killers, and cites evidence to back it up (and perhaps opposing views), is likely to promote a spirited debate. On the other hand, a supposedly "authoritative" or "objective" news report on the same subject, with a subtle and unacknowledged bias is less likely to be challenged, or to stimulate any debate at all.

Finally,at the risk of stirring the beehive a bit more, I'd like to throw out a question. We seem to agree that Timothy Treadwell in "Grizzly Man" overstepped the bounds of appropriate behavior in the wild -- and paid for that with his life. But I think a more interesting question is how do we feel about Werner Herzog's ethics as the maker of the movie? Is Herzog exploitative? Should Herzog have made the film? Might it not inspire someone else to emulate Treadwell's bad example?

Personally, I think if you apply the tests I've described above to "Grizzly Man," you'll see that Herzog approached it about right. He gave Treadwell lots of time to explain himself in his own words, he talked to people who both agreed and disagreed with Treadwell's methods, and finally, Herzog made very clear how he felt about Treadwell himself.

I'd be very interested in hearing what other people think.

Okay, I just went to this site


http://bigscreen.com/NowShowing.php?movie=48582&view=media

and viewed the trailer.

My personal view is that there is NO DOUBT (in my mind) that
this is an EGO CENTRIC "documentary." Timothy was making
a movie about himself. The bears he ignorantly put at great peril
are not the stars of this movie, he is.

You can watch him actually wade up to and touch a
bear in a river. WHY? That is totally unacceptable! Who is this guy who
goes up to a wild animal and has the audacity to touch it? IMO,
this guy is trying to prove he has cojones, but in reality he has NO
sense and his purported 'love' for the bears he will "die" for is _completely_
misplaced. To acclimatize these predators to humans will (and I'd
bet did) result in bears being killed . . . so much for Tim's love.
Not only did he die for the bears, but I am fairly sure the bear died too.

Before he was killed by a bear, IMO, Tim should have been arrested and
put in jail for harassing an endangered species.

I will NEVER pay even a single penny to see this movie.

Thanks Brian, it’s interesting that it all started very quietly with very few posts.

I am interested in your description of ‘objectivity’. When I talk I am often misunderstood if I don’t define what I mean when I use the term ‘objectivity’. In this context we are talking about detachment; in an earlier thread I said, ‘wildlife filming was being taken out of the hands of the intellectuals’, by which I meant, it was now ‘not’ being done with detachment by people who repressed compassion for the subjects they were observing – as in lab rat experiments.

Jung used the notion of an ‘objective psyche’, which to me completes the circle of reality along with the notion of ‘objective material reality’. So in my world, ‘objectivity’ is the correlation of these two entities in a balanced judgement, (or at least that is the goal). When I spoke about ‘the alchemy of the craft’ it was this process I was referring to, which acts as much on the subject as it acts upon oneself.

You mention your dealings with human subjects; I have just this moment completed an interview with an old character of eighty and the spontaneous thoughts I generated on the way back were all about my reasons for doing the work at all. There is no money at stake and it was done at my request, so there were no commissioning factors involved. My thoughts generated to my Father, and as a corollary to the type of relations this man had with his family, to which he scarcely referred. This dual, subject/object reflection and interaction is the alchemy I was referring to.

In the wild we shoot what we are directed to shoot, by whatever forces are involved in the dynamics of our lives. I think it is essential that this process challenges us in every way that we are susceptible, because ultimately it ought to provide the platform, not only for more developed work, but also for a more developed personality.

Rod Compton

As for Mr Herzog, if you look at his work I think you will see he is a myth maker and knows a good story when he finds one. Jung influenced almost every person he came into contact with from the founder of AA to Wells, and by contrast said, that some of his most illuminating conversations were with completely anonymous people.

Hi Jaques

Thanks for reviewing it for me, I don't have the stomach for it, nor for the rubbish we are getting in the UK from Australia - with swamp men jumping on alligators and snakes. It's clear that the work does not represent our craft and is just sensationalist - I take your word for it. It seems that the pendulum of involvement with the subject has swung too far. It is a lesson for us to learn, I hope we shall all be more circumspect in future.

Rod Compton

On "Grizzly Man," that clip is not really representative of the movie as a whole. It's interesting to me that people tend to assume that if a filmmaker makes a movie about someone, it necessarily follows that the filmmaker endorses the subject's point of view. Yet in some of the most interesting documentaries (Errol Morris' "Doctor Death" and "Fog of War" come to mind), the filmmaker deliberately sets him or herself in opposition to their subject.

I would put "Grizzly Man" in that category. Far from sensationalizing Treadwell's escapades with bears in Alaska, Herzog makes it clear that not only does he think Treadwell's escapades are foolhardy and naive, but he also, through voiceover commentary, questions Treadwell's entire world view. There's a scene where Treadwell is cavorting with a male grizzly and you hear Herzog's voice saying something like "When Treadwell looks into a grizzly's eyes, he sees love and compassion. When I look at closeups of grizzly bears, I see no empathy, no emotion only raw, uncaring nature." I see this movie as the very antithesis of "Crocodile Hunter," more of a cautionary tale about over-anthropomorphizing nature, rather than sensationalist hero-worship.

I also agree with Rodney's comment that Herzog is a myth maker. But looking at the word "myth" in the Jungian context brought up earlier in this thread, what's wrong with that? Isn't telling archetypal stories that teach us something about the human (and non-human) condition why we make documentaries to begin with?

Rodney, in answer to your point about "objectivity," I guess I would question whether anyone can really be completely detatched from their subject. Every observer brings a host of biases, beliefs, understandings and objectives to anything they observe. Every time you frame a shot, make a cut, or string two scenes together, you are responding, whether consciously or unconsciously, to your world view. That's why they call it "point of view." Truth, it seems to me, comes not from a single unbiased source, but through constructive dialogue between many people with differing points of view. The first is autocratic, the second is democratic. If people hide their points of view, this thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialogue can't take place.

<<<EDIT>>> <<<Far from sensationalizing Treadwell's escapades with bears in Alaska, Herzog makes it clear that not only does he think Treadwell's escapades are foolhardy and naive, but he also, through voiceover commentary, questions Treadwell's entire world view. There's a scene where Treadwell is cavorting with a male grizzly and you hear Herzog's voice saying something like "When Treadwell looks into a grizzly's eyes, he sees love and compassion. When I look at closeups of grizzly bears, I see no empathy, no emotion only raw, uncaring nature." I see this movie as the very antithesis of "Crocodile Hunter," more of a cautionary tale about over-anthropomorphizing nature, rather than sensationalist hero-worship.>>>

Did at any time Herzog make mention of the danger in which
this overzealous and misguided young man was placing these bears?

Maybe the fact that Herzog was rolling camera made this kid go beyond
(way over the top) what he would do without the presence of a famous
filmmaker looking for "good" footage? I would find Mr. Herzog
cupable in the criminal act of harrassing endangered wildlife.

No matter what the filmmaker wants his message to be in Grizzly Man,
the very fact that this movie has been 'picked up' will most likely create a
following of "monkey see monkey do" wannabes and similar 'nature film-makers'.

My heart is sickened at the thought.

Thanks Brian for clarifying the matter and attempting to differentiate 'Grizzly' from the crock and snake stuff for me; is Herzog one of your favourites.

I agree with you completely about being committed to your subject. The notion of an alchemy in your craft draws together the subject with his film maker in a completely intimate embrace, which in time should result in a higher synthesis. Thereby, we are always in the process of becoming.

When I referred to a 'myth maker', I was trying to differentiate an ideal of film making, which went beyond the prescriptive Archetype and truly touched the humanity or natural character of the subject. Obviously, since we are all so wrapped up in mythology, we are always being presented with a fusion of metaphysical and material entities. However, my experience of Archetypal possession in the human field leads me to understand that it is characterised by a sort of 'inflated drama personality'. The reason I mentioned Jung's anonymity factor is because of a tendency for famous humans to personify, or, more to the point, be possessed by archetypal forces. It seems to me that, the more famous a person becomes, the more open to this type of inflation they become. In the UK media and politics, it is so clear to me that this process is taking place. Symptomatic of this transformation, is where the individual politician unconsciously starts to change so as to personify their public image. In effect, they become a caricature of themselves. Politicians seem most prone to it, though TV presenters are also implicated too - it's as if the clothes they are wearing don't quite fit. I see it is a sort of archetypal imprinting and as such it enthrals both subject and audience alike. I believe most people not only like stereotypes and icons, whether of the human or the animal type, they actually crave them. Its as if they are attention seeking children, who having been given some goodies to start with will subsequently put up with all manner of other less appetising stuff because it comes from the same source.

I am basically talking about the craving for recognition that most people want and that includes film makers, whether in the social or natural history field. Many will bend to the prevailing wind in what they try to achieve and in the process cross the line. They know when they are doing it, but by habit they will become less and less sensitive to the impact that it creates with their subjects. The purity and innocence of natural history work mostly immunises against this, but the perseverance of scenes of death, where time after time we are shown antelope being dragged down by animals of prey, is just pandering to the morbidity of an anaesthetized public and achieves nothing more for the subject. I heard recently, through the trade, that around some water holes in Africa you can't point a camera without getting another crew in shot - this is the sort of pressure I am talking about with the phrase 'prevailing wind'.

I have given up a career in which I sometimes met and photographed famous people to go back to my first pure love: Nature; but even here it seems I am pursued by demons from the past.

Rod Compton

P.S

In the UK we satire ruthlessly to slay as many inflated icons as we can put our pens to. In the UK a certain world politician and a primate are often compared. I have to recount a pair of pictures I recently saw in a magazine in which a famous politician was being lampooned by comparing him with his comedic equivalent. No, it was not the current world leader, it was Picture Post, Summer 1939 and of Adolf Hitler and Charlie Chaplin.

I was going to comment on the Grizzly Man but on the page provided by Jacques we get:

Starring Timothy Treadwell, Amie Huguenard

'nuff said...

Actually, Jacques, Herzog didn't shoot any footage of Treadwell; I don't believe they ever met. Treadwell routinely carried a VX-2000 camcorder and a tripod with him on all of his sojourns to grizzly country. Treadwell shot hours and hours of DV tape of himself before he died. Herzog edited the movie from Treadwell's tape, supplemented with new interviews with Treadwell's friends, family, opponents, game wardens, coroners, etc. And yes, there is quite a bit of discussion about the risk to the bears Treadwell was creating.

Rodney, I think Werner Herzog, Errol Morris and Les Blank are the holy trinity of modern documentary filmmaking, so yes, Werner's one of my favorites. Though, I should note, I don't care for Herzog's fiction films nearly as much as I like his docs.

I think you're right; people do like stereotypes -- they're easy to understand and very convenient. What I have always found fascinating, and one of the reasons I do documentaries, is that EVERYONE and EVERY situation is far more complicated than the convenient stereotype would have you believe. There's a Zen koan that says "All categories are wrong." I think this applies to animals as well as people. You spoke of ego-centricity: what could be a bigger egocentric fault than trying to make animals appear like humans?

I have a couple of ideas about some wildlife docs I'd like to do; they all involve commonplace animals people see every day in suburban environments. I'd like to explore the complex, hidden life of these critters that everyone thinks they know well.

Oops -- double post.

THanks to this thread I made my girlfriend rent "Grizzly Man" tonight.

Fantastic! I look forward to the sequels: "Great White Man", "Crocodile Man" and "Tiger Man".

Even if the filming is done with all due regard for the welfare of the wild subjects, the results can still be diastrous. Last Novemner the BBC broadcast a film about a pair of Eagle Owls that had been nesting in the North of England for twenty years. From what one could see of the broadcast, the filming had been done to the highest ethical standards, and the birds appeared unaffected.

Efforts were made to conceal the whereabouts of the birds' territory by including a shot of a conspicuously shaped hill some 25 miles from the site ( I think I recognised the location of the nest site). This hill was carefully chosen as it was said in the film that the nest site was on Ministry of Defence land. The hill is close to another area of MOD land.

The male bird was found dead early this year. Initial reports were that it had been shot, though subsequently other reports have cast doubt on this.

I suspect that if the film had not been made, the bird would not be dead.

Interestigly during the film more than one "wildlife expert" who was interviewed took a very negative view to the arrival of these birds in the UK. The allegation was that they were released pets! There is clear evidence that the Eagle Owl is extending its range in Europe naturally.

Hi Alan

What a tragedy. I have long held the view that there is almost an unwritten law of the opposites, that as soon as something wonderful enters general consciousness, its negative aspect will follow suite. I have expressed this view privately to another member on this site, who I think shares a similar range of sensitivities: 'to drag all that is sublime into the dust' - these are the risks we run by revealing the beauty of nature.

I think some of our American friends would be aghast at the horror stories that constantly pour from the Highlands of Scotland, where barbaric gamekeepers regularly persecute some of Britain's most majestic creatures to the tune of a 'slap on the wrist' from a court if they are discovered.

What is needed in our overcrowded Island is a more coherent practical approach to conservation. We need to get real about the abuses that are going on, and I can't see that happening while the official bodies are populated by volunteers, do-gooders and nice guys, who are being ridden roughshod by career politicians that have degraded public office to a semi-media circus.

In the meantime, I am considering very carefully how much exposure my latest film will get, since it concentrates on a creature in a very public breeding site. Thanks Alan.

Rod C

Alan,

I think to say (that we need to get real about abuses) is maybe an over statement judgeing by the number people belonging to animal groups..
There are many organisations highlighting abuses and lawbreaking here in the Uk. The RSPB, RSPCA, League against cruel sports, Badger Federation etc all these have full time paid staff. The first 2 also have investigation units.
Most Police forces have Wildlife Liaison Officers (I being one before I retired 8 years ago). If it were not for the the public and volunteers drawing abuses to our attention then the prosecutions that do happen would not have come to court in the first place.
I have to agree with you that enforcement needs to come higher up the agenda. this can only happen when, as you say, it becomes politicaly topical to do so.
The Metropolitan Police have a very strong section dealing in wildlife crime, not only for crimes commited in this country, but working closely with organisatons abroad and enforcing CITES regulations.
Worldwide wildlife crime is second to drug crime and therefore a major issue though out the world.
Please do not under estimate what is already being achieved in this field. There are several egg collectors and gamekeepers who have either been imprisoned or heavily fined as well as a well top London store prosecuted for selling Shahtoosh. The metropolitan police wildlife unit web site is well worth a look.http://www.met.police.uk/wildlife/new%20site%20docs/docs/index.htm
On lighter note getting back to ethics and disturbances I have just returned from Kenya where in the reserves it is sometime like rush hour with the number of vehicles chasing around. We were watching some distance away fr a converging group of vehicles wathching two lions stalk a Zebra they were crouched low creeping through the grass that deliberately detoured so they could get the vehicles between them and the pray, where they promptly rose and used the vehicles as a sheild to get even closer to make their attack.
The irony was not lost on me that we can also be used by animals to their advantage.

Hi Mick

Thanks for that repost, and I have to agree that the police are doing a great job - as are the RSPCA, its a shame that some of the court sentences are so lenient, but I guess you know that one. To illustrate my point though, when I filmed some netters up on my local butterfly patch - SSSI and all, my local Butterfly Conservation branch didn't even reply to my emails and phone calls, even after I mentioned that I had filmed butterfly maps from the internet that had been left on the rear seats of the netters car. These people might have been monitors for all I know, but they certainly were very camera shy; I call that response apathetic. There is also the matter of actually getting an SSSI, which took forever, even after I produced film evidence of the number of rarities on the site.

I have also sat on local area conservation committees in my area and been appalled at the lack of real determination in the people around me. Unless it concerns them or is near there property they are not interested in really committing themselves - they are too nice. As for farmers, I have never come across such a bunch of vandals in any other walk of life. In my own experience I know of at least one registered colony of bats that was wilfully disturbed, just so a roof could be done cheaply by a farmer. This is not to mention the havoc that was created in the local woodland on the pretext of thinning - it was a blatant money making adventure.

I have to agree that the younger generation are better all round when it comes to a real commitment, they realise they have most to lose if the current assault on the countryside continues, especially in our patch down here in the South East - how many new homes... If you are amenable, the next time I come across any blatant acts of countryside vandalism, maybe you would not object if I dropped you an email.

Thanks

Rod C

Wow, what a read. I've just spent quite some time going through this thread and it seems that there are many different opinions on what is deemed acceptable and right when it comes to filming wildlife. For my part, if I can add my two pennies worth, I have had to make decisions in my work thus allowing me to continue in my chosen field of filmmaking with a clear mind. I basically work underwater and without going into a long drawn out post I would just like to explain my mind set when it comes to my working ethic.

Initially I would just like to say that it is, IMO, impossible for any wildlife filmmaker to say that their practices have 100% zero impact on either their subject or that subjects immediate environment. As someone mentioned earlier, point a lens at an animal and it will react. Positively or negatively, either way you have made your impact on their lives.

Underwater I guess I don't have the opportunity, nor the desire, to 'set the stage' so to speak. One chance and one chance only at any given time to collect any behavioural shots I may be after. That can also be true for most other natural history filmmakers but in many cases, due to the financial implications (its always about the money) there remain a lot of 'staged' sequences (especially within the macro realm). There are risks involved with my work but being underwater is where I prefer to be. I have been filming for 15 years so far and as such have, during that time, had encounters, so far touch wood all good ones, with many species of animals which in the main stream mentality are termed as potentially dangerous. I guess it all boils down to your personal comportment around those animals. I know for one sharks can pick up on the electrical impulse generated by the muscle spasms of our heart. So in order to come face to face with a Great White, as I did last year in South Africa whilst filming for a documentary on that particular species, my decision to enter the water with these creatures was made after carfeul consideration and study of the immediate conditions and environment. Did the shark react? Of course it did, it wanted to see what this strange bubble blowing creature was in front of it and gave the camera a little nudge. Nothing more, nothing less. I like to think that my intrusion into that environment left as little impact as possible. The shark did react so therefore I changed its natural course of behaviour during that time.

In wildlife filming I can only say that if the integrity of the environment and animals is of the utmost concern of the camera person or production company and that these entities comport themselves in a manner to address and abide by an acceptable code of ethics of wildlife filming in order to produce educational and scientifically interesting studies on animals then I, for one, support their work.

Great thread and stimulating reading,
Mark.