I haven't seen it mentioned here yet, so what about the new TV series 'Meerkat Manor'? The narration anthropomorphizes the actions of wild animals for the sake of entertainment, which works to some extent but leaves me feeling uneasy about the whole thing. I don't feel like I'm gaining an appreciation for Meerkats as a species or nature in general so much as being lured into thinking of the animals portrayed as individuals in a soap opera. The background setting is allegedly a scientific study of these animals, but can that be maintained if the animals are personalized so much? Maybe I'm just used to a drier documentary approach, but what do other people think?

As far as living with bears is concerned, I've camped in the wilds of Alaska and never had an urge to have a close encounter with a grizzly bear. Same goes for moose or caribou or other large animals: I can appreciate them just fine from a distance. If I was hired to do a nature documentary I'd buy telephoto lenses, not move in with the subjects of the film.

Digging into Dale (new Topic?) can reveal a lot ... like my mother's answer to my question at age 13 ... Why did Uncle X die? She said quietly, "Because he ruined his stomach drinking whiskey." I had liked Uncle X because he told me (50+ years ago) there was a book about Aztecs & Incas I could get in the library ... and how to find the library! Anyway, I still don't know what it is to be drunk, have a hangover, feel a buzz from any drug ... wow, I am so ignorant! Get a life marnell, look what you're missing ... according to what, according to whom ... ah, that's where Dale hits the nail on the head, or at least identifies the nail to be hit ... THE MEDIA ... that's easy, Let's all hit the media ... but which media, what media? Embarrassing answer: the media WE decide to look at, read, absorb, consciously or sub-consciously. Whaddya mean subconsciously?

When will 50% of us believe that trillions of dollars, euros, pounds, yen are spent annually on commercials, ads, merchandising, promotions and sitcom accessories to fool/persuade/pressurize/cajole us into thinking that we could be happier (or less unhappy) if we looked like that, wore that gear, talked like that, drove around in that, stuffed our faces with you know what, drank ourselves to heaven with the other, rocked around the clock with that noise, believed the Word, the images, the messages, the spin? ... and then, what about the other 50% ??? Steady on now, you can't have everyone knowing how to see through the trash, the greed, the cunning of those who want us to be stupid, addicted, dependent, CONSUMERS ... oh dear, oh dear, now I've spilled the beans ... fact of the matter is that we are all predators or prey all of the time .. the only difference is that some of us are aware of it some of the time and some of us are unaware ...

Dale's story about the less aware Inuit and my Mam's about Uncle X help us to be more aware ... in all this everyday organised chaos I pay ethics about the same level of attention as etiquette ... the Victorians developed a whole string of ethical sayings (sometimes proverbial) to pass on "education" to the masses ... some of those sayings were quite cunning ... here's one of them, still used by the half-alert ... "Nature abhors a vacuum" ... this was devised to persuade common folk to remove weeds and grow vegetables on every spare yard of soil ... sounds perfectly reasonable, indeed prudent. But look critically and you'll find the ONE word that has been avoided while 2 unfamiliar words [abhors & vacuum] were introduced ... EXPLOIT ... now you don't want the masses to learn that they too are being exploited left right and centre, do you? Not then, and not now ... we're like that ... you just be half-alert, half-aware, half-educated, too busy, too focussed, too dedicated, too sure of yourself and I'll find a way to exploit/prey on you ... if you're too drunk and I didn't sell you the booze well I'll be around to exploit you when you sober up ... disneyland does a bad job well ... it's easier to see that from a distance ... but it's worth it ... a case-study of glitter, glibness, glamour and superficiality ... what more do you want?

I missed the recent Cousteau show, but upon hearing
they rode great whites around like Flipper, I am saddened.

My gut feeling that if Jacques Yves were still alive he would
not have allowed this "ratings booster" to have been filmed.
(Or at least I want to believe that.)
Then again, one never knows where the idea came from
(like the corporate office).

jacques, here's something to consider. what if we had only treadwell's edited footage, which is admittedly amazing and intense, his character issues notwithstanding. instead, we have herzog's interpretation, through the magic of editing, of treadwell's footage.

one difference i see is that cousteau had total control over the output of his footage, treadwell's footage was in someone else's hands entirely. i saw tim's live show, and it's interesting to me how differently he presents live than he does in herzog's interpretation. the medium is so often the message.

i'm no advocate of interfering with the space of wild animals and prefer to give them a wide berth with a strong telephoto. but it seems to be the trend in the most successful recent docs named throughout this thread to get right up in the animal's business in ways which are both disturbing and fascinating at the same time. mostly disturbing, i would say, but there's a strong and unmistakeable voyeuristic pull. it's the same pull that draws me to macro work, to be able to see what is not otherwise visible.

"meerkat manor" sounds quite bizarre....

If Tim could have collected his footage with cameras using nearby bait &
motion control stop/start then I would feel better about it, but he
didn't and those solutions are out of the price point of 'independent producers' like Treadwell. Any fool can make his way to a grizzly
and confront him. That is the scary reality . . . mauled humans and dead
bears. What make it especially intense is the certain knowledge of his
audience that he is in grave danger. That said, Treadwell also took
the easiest/laziest path to get great footage IMO. Kinda like stealing
is an easy way to make great money.

[/QUOTE]
i'm no advocate of interfering with the space of wild animals and prefer to give them a wide berth with a strong telephoto. but it seems to be the trend in the most successful recent docs named throughout this thread to get right up in the animal's business in ways which are both disturbing and fascinating at the same time. [/QUOTE]

And you know what really upsets me Meryem (not you, you're cool :) )?
With each profitable success story more folks will be strongly
influenced to follow a similar strategy . . . the consequences/animals be
damned. Extreme danger = BIG MONEY. Nothing new there, but
the executive producers, who enable films to be made,
may even now start to demand Nat Doc.
filmmakers go this direction in order to secure their funding.
Is that what our art is about?

This 'extreme danger' production method of taking great
personal risk does not raise the artistic bar imo, but lowers
it down past the level of "Jackass".

Has the Big Cat Diary by bbc reached you yet? It should.

Footage from Serengeti of cheetahs + cubs, leopards + cubs & lions + cubs; parents hunting wildebeest, antelope, wild pig, zebra even buffalo to feed themselves and their young. Insights of priority sorting, decoy tricks, team work, protecting the food & the young and 3 incredible clips of a cheetah escaping a lion(I think) by jumping on top of the cameraman's jeep. Did the same trick days later and stayed to pee down on the commentator; another time(having recognised that top of jeep = rock outcrop = overview) dropped a crap which your man saw coming & had the presence of mind to collect mid-air in a tissue (for study purposes I hope). The commentary is sentimental at times with snatches of human morals and emotions being smeared over the cats and little recognition of how much we have lost in denying our evolution ... but no sign I could see of any creature being disadvantaged by wildlife shooting ... the film crew had decided not to intervene in any situation and apparently they didn't ... they did admit to editing out much of the gory bits ...

... what are we having for dinner, after Grace before ...

jacques, you raise another interesting question. what is the difference between riding a great white aroud like Flipper and riding Flipper around like Flipper? besides the being munched part. i guess i'm getting clear that the only reason not to invade the animal's space is because of the getting munched factor. otherwise, it's perfectly ethical to raise animals as movie stars a la "winged migration" --we eat them instead of the other way around, so we can do as we please. might makes right. it's only stupid to get in too close to something which can eat you back.

these are the kinds of things that keep me up at night. you can take the academic out of the academy, but can you really??

I guess you have invited me to take a walk into the deep woods Meryem :)
This is getting into me sharing my own personal views,
and, I know I am but a single/tiny opinion in a very large complex world.

<GULP>

IMO, since every situation is different one has to decide
by referring to the facts of each case. How each of us is
raised, educated and experienced has a great deal to do with
what we 'believe' to be correct, true and beautiful.

Many animals we see on shows are essentially 'actors' in that they
have been raised as pets. Others have been injured and rehabbed
or find themselves born in a zoo. There are a million scenarios and
we could try and go through them one by one, but I would refer
to animals in these situations as "humanized". That means that
without human assistance they would not survive very long in the wild.

Then there are WILD animals. Personally, those are the ones I try to
keep from being humanized.

Flipper was humanized. The great white shark is wild. Treadwell's grizzlies
are wild. When a person's filmmaking effort results in a wild animal
becoming "humanized", especially a large wild predator, that person
has essentially created a dangerous monster.

Tim Treadwell created a dangerous monster. The bear was always
a dangerous animal, but we accept that and allow bears to live (now days).
Monsters we kill. That "killer" bear died in a hail of rampaging human bullets.

The ethics of raising 'wild' birds from the egg to then be imprinted (hijacked)
by a human to serve a purpose OTHER than that normally graced by nature
is still ANOTHER scenario. Again, my one man's opinion is
that this is okay when you are trying to help a species
survive extinction like the California Condor or Whooping Crane.

When you raise wild birds for use in a movie like, "Winged Migration",
I start to get uncomfortable. When you exploit them for the primary
reason of coining dough or personal achievement
(HEY EVERYONE, LOOK WHAT I DID!!!)
I get queasy, and when you have them killed for dramatic effect, I get sick.

the personal views of an emmy-winning animal documentary producer carry a great deal of weight with me, gulps included! (it's one of the great things about dvinfo, that we humble wannabes can be in touch with those who are more accomplished and experienced.)

this is such a topic that is near and dear to me, that it almost makes me want to drop the video camera and go write another dissertation!

i said ALMOST!

thanks for responding to the nudge. i agree that there is something called the WILD which seems intrinsically sacred and worth preserving. but increasingly, i believe preserving it through moving images is desperately complicated, because moving images as we have defined them culturally, are often the opposite of sacred--and are even quite profane. maybe that is TT's real "sin"....

Disturbing
 

Talk about disturbing:!!!

When I was in Africa I was sick for about a week at a friends ranch. I laid up in a chair and watched a special on an Elephant killing lion pride!!! I was intriqued at first.

I was totally disgusted when the guys filming, at night driving closely with lights on the animals from a land rover, caused a calf to get away from the protection of the adults and the lions killed it like lions do. Most people would not have noticed. Is that for education or sensationalism??

anyone that knows wildlife and lives the outdoor life could easily recognize the guys caused the kill.

To me that is as bad as biologists killing young peregrine falcons to test for ddt back in the early 70's.


Everyone has to draw their own line, but that doesn't mean I have to sanction it by watching their programs which in fact suppports what they do.

I still have a nasal memory of ddt my mother dusted on my bedclothes to control wildlife back in the '40's & 50's ...

Apart from nostril nostalgia, I would like to know how it could have been established that ddt was gradually wiping out raptors without studying the corpses of many of their young to identify that levels of ddt were increasing to danger-point (unlike my childhood experience) as they were being fed with prey that lived in an environment over-sprayed with ddt ...

If anyone thinks I condone shooting wildlife with guns for sport, I don't and I'm impressed by the reversal of culture swallowed by the former colonial powers (notably the Brits) in curbing that old perk of a job in the colonies ..."game shooting" ... now there's a disgusting pre-occupation, whether you're on an elephant or a shooting stick or skulking in a "hide" but I suppose it escapes attention here under the guise of "belonging to a different forum" ... roll on bum steers & side issues at the expense of reality

Can you explain this statement?

explanation
 

All I was trying to portray was that what was accomplished could be done with out instigating or causing the death of fine animals.

DDT residues could have been acessed without requiring the death of supposedly endangered species. When I personally questioned them about the practice they said they were willing to kill whatever they felt necessary and would only quit if only 20% of the remaining population left. We got into some heated arguments (the biologists were friends of mine at that). It is all ancient history now and a discussion for some other forum I suppose.

Pretty much everything I do of any importance in my life is based around and with wildlife. It is very important to me and my life style. We (Friends and myself) had a program here where we repelled over cliffs, used a jack hammer to cut hoes into the cliffs to create good nesting habitat which was a limiting factor in falcon populations here. We increased the population from 4 natural nest sites in about 100 miles of river to 22 nest sites.
Of interest we found a natural site with a wild hybrid pair of falcons, a female prairie falcon and a male peregrine falcon. I have pictures of them over the cliff. Pre video time unfortunately.

Point I am making I guess, it is one thing to always take, it is important to give back as well.

sorry for the digression

The reason why I questioned your statement is that it is really an outrageous claim and I wanted to know if it was true or just apocryphal. I did try to look for information on this for about half an hour and failed to find anything about such a methodology. I just don't see why researchers would resort to such methods when they could just as easily examine nests for unhatched eggs and dead chicks.

I can see this happening *by accident* such as from disturbing nests. But your statement implies they purposely would cull a species they wanted to save just for research.

Keith,

To tell it straight, they collapased downey youngsters lungs. I am not lieing, its just a sad fact of the past, sorry i brought it up. I have been involved in raptor biology for 44 years, during that time you see some sad things happen, fortunately most are by accident. I could tell good and sad stories all night long. things are in fact better today, though we still have to get south america to stop using ddt and its derivitives. I must say, however, and it is true that sense the ban of ddt all bird live has rocketed up in population the last 20 years!!!! While I do not like it, some good did come from some of these less than desirable methods.

Moving away from the DDT discussion and back to issues of proximity and disturbance of wild animals, I have to add to Jacques most recent view.As a recent college graduate with a degree in biology, I have a bit different view. Proximity and the level of acceptable disturbance while shooting wildlife shouldn't be dictated by whether it's wild or not, or based on the animals size. Rather, as videographers, we need to know our subject and know how interacting with it will affect it. It is important to understand the organisms typical interactions with people, the organisms life cycle, the organisms feeding preferences and so on.

The two primary considerations I think about are energetics and habituation to human contact. For example, disturbing a desert animal, such as a lizard, can cause it to drop all fluids in an attempt to get away. Those fluids and the energy it spent getting away could be impossible to reaquire depending on the environmental conditions. Habituation to human contact is something that can range widely from species to species. Spending a lot of time around an organism can allow it to get used to you, however that's not always a good thing for the animal (even if it leads to some good footage). Typically, animals that have very little contact with people should stay that way. This includes animals that aren't top predators. If a game animal gets habituated to human contact through spending time with a videographer, and then runs into Elmer Fudd, it may not realize the danger associated with humans until too late.

Fletcher,

I agree with you on your statement. I was saying somewhat the same thing earlier on, definitely not as elequently. To be a good videographer, observer, hunter or anything relative to the use of wildlife you have to be a natural biologist first, or behaviorist, or a combo of both I reckon. I have spent my life studying animal behaviors and I am astounded by new things all the time and I am certain it will stay that way for the rest of my life. These days I keep one of my cameras with me all the time.

It takes two life times, one to Get It and a second to Optimize it.

I agree with you too Fletcher.
Stressing animals during times of hardship can cause death
and is ANOTHER factor in the ethics of documenting nature.
BUT, I also believe what I said remains true. If that lizard was in a cage
or other enclosure and being fed as much food and water as it wants
then it is not in as much danger as a wild lizard who is barely surviving harsh elements. Wild creatures, imo, need to be handled with more
care and forethought.

.... just refreshing a favourite quote from the voice of experience

I know what you mean about thinking it a blessing to be able to power yourself long distances Steve. I was obsessed with that feeling for a while when riding my bike. It just seemed very strange to be able to ride a bike 100 miles in a day. It gives you a feeling of power or something I guess.

Now I have trouble with my health and I do miss that feeling. I use powered transportation now to get me out to the places I used to walk. Probably a lot of people think it's wrong to do that but it's the only way I can get there and I just can't give it up. It isn't like I'm out making new trails or anything. But I like being able to get out to the wild and there's only one way I can do it now.

I take lots of risks doing it because a break down can be a big problem for me. I guess there's something of Steve Irwin in all of us. It just shows up in different ways.

I try very hard not to disturb the wildlife I shoot (with a camera of course). I'm not one to invade a beaver lodge with a camera. I'm happy just to video them on top of the water. It's good that some people do video them in all aspects of their life. You just never know when we might lose a species and video will be all that we have left.

Do you recall that chilling passage in the movie, "Soylent Green", when one character was willing to turn himself in to be euthanized, if they would let him eat one fresh tomato and watch 15 minutes of film, showing wild birds, deer and fish, which were all extinct by that time?

We're thankfully a long way from that extreme but I do like watching video of Tasmanian tigers. That's the only place we will ever see one again because they went extinct back in the 1930's.

Meerkat Manor
 

I've been trying to figure out how I feel about your comment as I've watched several half-hours of Meerkat Manor since July. Overall I'd say it was quite tight on script and even though it was blatantly prying into the social interactions within a meerkat tribe and their neighbours it seemed to do so without invading their "territory" or their "privacy". Meerkats' world seems to be very sharply defined as to what constitutes a threat ... it's either another meerkat (or troupe of meerkats) or it's a raptor overhead. I've watched them in Dublin Zoo and even in captivity they have this tightly focussed view of life's dangers. In that respect, the documentary studied one of the tribe, Mozart, to great effect. To me they appeared to do so with considerable insight as well as video skills and enormous patience. Yes there were words used that amounted to anthromorphising but I'm not sure I could have understood a drier language ... it would have to have been a scientific lingo and I would be lost rapidly listening to that ... I was relieved that sentimentality and nostalgia were largely excluded, along with side shots of any tearful or breathless female presenter, however pretty, with trembling upper lip. I'd go further and say that I found the script and editing to be drier than that of "Osprey Homecoming" and all the better for that.

As everyone on this board has heard, Steve Irwin died yesterday.
This is a big blow. No one can deny that Steve has had a very
positive roll in educating people about wildlife.
I watched a hour long show with Larry King and Steve Irwin that
was rebroadcast last night. One interesting topic concerned
zoos and people using wild animals in shows.

Now, most know that Steve owns a zoo in AU. and is very much
in favor of everyone who humanly keeps and uses animals. His
reasoning being that many many animals are in grave danger of
becoming extinct and he (we) must get people to "know" animals
and to love them so that they will protect them and their habitat.
In short, his crazy means justified his ends. He had planned on
opening a zoo in Las Vegas to try and make as many people
personally familiar with wildlife.

Now, Steve Irwin, may he rest in peace, knows a hell of a lot more
than I do about the state of animal welfare in this world and his
attitude was that of desperation and of time running out.
Take action NOW!

IMO, each of us must do what our heart's tell us.
Personally, if I can make people love wild animals without
unnecessarily harassing them that is what I am going to try and do.
Steve's methods took a different approach imo, but his heart
was in the right place . . . conservation and protection.

My heartfelt best wishes go out to Steve Irwin's family and friends.
We lost a good man and there are now some big shoes that need to
be filled.

Steve Irwin vs. Timothy Treadwell
 

I don't mean to speak ill of the dead, but it's very curious to me the difference in people's reaction to Irwin's death compared to that of Treadwell. As far as I can tell:
- both built their reputations by putting themselves in extremely dangerous situations and then publicizing (sensationalizing, perhaps?) them;
- both had a consistent habit of "pushing the envelope" (some might say "harassing") their interactions with wildlife;
- both dedicated themselves to wildlife education and conservation;
- and both died as a result of ignoring normal precautions and warning signs from very dangerous animals.

Yet Treadwell is vilified as a dangerous lunatic and Irwin is lionized as a conservation hero. Why? I see no fundamental difference in their behavior. Is it just because Irwin had a network television contract and Treadwell did not?

I wonder also if it's because Steve Irwin - despite his escapades - was seen as more 'normal' than Treadwell. Irwin had a wife, child and business. His exploits were showmanship. His main face was entertainment paired with danger much like Houdini or Evel Knievel. I don't think anyone doubted these performers' intelligence or sanity - only that they preferred to risk their lives in obviously dangerous stunts but the audience trusts that they have the background and the preparation to pull themselves out of it.

Treadwell, if one goes by Grizzly Man, had something very wrong in the head that placed himself in constant danger. Whereas a magician or stunt performer recognizes the inherent danger in the risk they are about to undertake in the short time of their performance, it didn't seem like Treadwell understood the danger he was in in all the time he spent out there in the woods.

**Disclaimer**
I may have some facts wrong here, if so,
I hope I will be properly informed.

I think it could be stated that although Irwin puts himself in danger,
that he actually started out in the business of capturing and relocating
crocs . . . many of them he took back to his zoo where they were
at least allowed to live.

Capturing crocs is a dangerous business. Relocating them and taking
care of them (these days) could be considered noble.
Steve had been doing both since boyhood. Working with wildlife
was always his passion and people would call him to take care
of 'problem' animals. I am not sure what the deal is in AU, but
here one would need the proper licenses and training to do what
he did. If that is the case, I am pretty sure Irwin was licensed.
Treadwell went out on his own. No one ever asked Tim to do
what he did, and he did it without supervision, knowledge or
any kind reasonable guidelines from what I could tell.

Treadwell IMO was a lost soul looking for some
grounding/reason in his life . . .
almost panicked and desperate sounding. The bears
where a thin straw for him to try and hang on to.

Irwin was set in his life's calling very early on.
Many times Tim talks of self-esteem, how he had found himself in
the bears and that he would now die for them(?).
All Irwin wanted was for you, me and everyone else
to see how fabulous, cool and beautiful ALL animals are.

Although both guys sought to make city people aware
of wildlife in order that they might then want to protect it (that's good),
Treadwell seemed far more fixated with
proving his bravado to the viewers (bad).
His work is very egocentric and "troubled"
whereas Irwin's work is enthusiastic and gregarious.

Steve *always* seemed to be fixated on the animals . . .
"WhAT A BEAUTY!"

Treadwell's on himself, "Like a Samuri, I will lay down my life
for these bears."

Another difference, Steve's death was a freak accident
that had little to do with his "dangerous" work.

Treadwell's death was 100% predictable and resulted in the death
of that which he claimed to love and want to protect.

FWIW I don't believe Irwin actually died from pushing the envelope too much which is ironic because he did push it so often. He was the victim of a freak occurence really.

They weren't even filming stingrays at the time. They were filming sharks. He just happened upon a stingray at the wrong time and place they say.

It's very rare for a stingray to act so defensively but it does happen. Apparently if you approach them from above they are more apt to react defensively and that is what Irwin did.

People ride on stingrays quite often so they aren't usually considered extremely dangerous. Irwin just had his number come up in a way that was unexpected. I believe that's what happened anyway.

We have all assumed since yesterday that he was killed doing what he did so often - pushing his luck. He wasn't. He was killed in a way any ocean swimmer could be killed. That's the information I've been seeing. It could be wrong of course.

Thanks, Jeff for the info.

You are right, that if its true that Irwin did not deliberately provoke that stingray, then it is indeed ironic. As you point out, Irwin's career was based on "pushing his luck."

Which still leaves me bewildered. If we're talking about ethical behavior, the experience level, emotional health, "professionalism," financial backing, popularity, cultural icon status, or even motives, of the person engaging in that behavior really shouldn't matter. If it's wrong and dangerous to harass wildlife for entertainment value, then it should be wrong for ANYONE to do so, no matter who they are. No one should be above the law. I will agree that it may be worth violating the principle of "don't harass wildlife" if a higher cause is clearly being served, such as capturing, tagging and releasing an endangered tiger or shark in order to promote science-based conservation of the species. But if the purposes are purely for financial gain or entertainment value, then I'd have to classify that as unethical.

Let's also keep in mind that we know Timothy Treadwell primarily through Werner Herzog's eyes and we know Steve Irwin primarily through his own series, "Crocodile Hunter." I'm sure there is more to each of these individuals -- both good and bad -- than these two admittedly biased sources will reveal.

So, let's strip away all the trappings of personality, charisma, celebrity, alleged mental health and professional accreditation. Let's look at what both of these two men actually did in the field and judge them equally. Is their behavior ethical and acceptable or not? If you say one is and one isn't, please explain how that can be, when on the surface their actions appear identical.

I fail to see how their actions were identical, or even similar.

The place I see those two as being similar is the risk they took of their own lives plus the public's role in motivating them to risk their lives. Irwin didn't cause problems with endangered species that I could tell so I can't fault him for the way he dealt with animals. In fact he probably did much to help those species. It would be different if he was doing a program where fragile species were truly harmed. I don't think they were but of course I'm not an expert. The animals he truly had close contact with were generally not endangered.

Ripping up the ground around an endangered animal's den just to get video of that animal is a perfect example of going much too far. Wrestling with an animal that is far from being endnagered is another matter entirely.

if we add a drop of film theory and stir, then we get back to how treadwell and irwin were similar in terms of collapsing the conventional space between subject and object which seems characteristic of so many recent wildlife vids. to sum up, neither irwin nor treadwell relied on telephoto lenses, both handled very dangerous and potentially lethal wild animals, which humans have really no business touching, except, as someone pointed out, for conservation purposes, and both men attempted to educate through entertainment. i think that sums up quite a few similarities in methodology.

so if the methodology is similar--and i have yet to hear anyone take on this argument successfully to indicate otherwise, as i've put it forth ad nauseam!--then most of the arguments besides methodology are focused either on the perceived intent of the individual or on the cult of personality, either positive or negative, surrounding the individuals mentioned. those are valid, i suppose, but if we're a buncha videographers discussing videographers, shouldn't we be cutting through that stuff a bit?

even herzog acknowledges that treadwell was a talented videographer and serious craftsman....even though herzog thought he was a whack job for seeing anything in the eyes of the bear but cold impassivity. i wonder what sort of video herzog would make about steve irwin. don't get me wrong, i really enjoyed his show, but for wacky choices in handling nature's most poisonous and coldly impassive critters, he really had no equal. i watched a show of his outtakes once, and it was quite frightening and out of control, at times, and not at all the jolly display we were offered in the final cut of irwin's show, which was quite sanitized.

steve irwin
 

a very tragic outcome indeed. but in my opinion steve irwin's death had really nothing to do with his approach to wildlife. considering that he faced dangerous situations far more often than most of us can imagine whereas other people have fallen victim to fatal attacks by animals during their first encounter. in many cases to supposedly harmless domestic animals. it's simply part of the "your time's up feller" scheme. admittedly, many thrill seekers do go out of their way to find danger so they can bask in the glory of survival. steve irwin had a different agenda and far more noble. his aim was to promote nature and create awareness of it's dangers. may he rest in peace.

David Attenborough
 

I can think of one man who has done a lot more for me to break the 'barrier' between the screen and nature and hasn't resorted to stunts or risky behaviour to bring nature to the audience. That is David Attenborough. He's semi-retired now but I can't think of one other man who can evoke a sense of wonder, understanding, love and respect for nature and be able to communicate it the way that Attenborough does in every one of his series. Whether he is a host, producer, writer or just the narrator, he seems to communicate the best. Granted, he is the public face to very well-planned (and budgeted) productions but the moment he comes on the screen (or I hear his voice) I feel he is like the best biology teacher I ever had. When he is presenting something he evokes warmth and intelligence and .. more importantly, a wide-eyed wonder at whatever magic is about to be revealed to us over his shoulder.

You've hammered the nail on the head, Keith. I agree with every word you've written about David Attenborough.

He even survived the sound dubbing mafia who regularly usurp documentaries (with the help of producers who frequently feel threatened by a good script.)

No circus acts for David.

Amen to that, Keith. David Attenborough's productions are, in my opinion, the gold standard for nature documentaries.

The cinematography in much of the "Life of...." series often makes me feel unworthy to hold a camera.

In Attenborough's Nature productions, he's often right out in the midst of the jungles and isn't at all like some armchair producers who let others do the legwork. When he encounters wildlife, he's so gentle and unobtrusive in his manner, that it often eats from his hand, instead of eating him. Younger and rambunctious wildlife videomakers would do well to study his patient style.

I totally agree with all that Keith mentioned above, David Attenborough has a way with both young & old to spur their interest in Nature Conservation

Bob

David Attenbourough is fabulous!

To me Meerkat Manor is all about sentimentality in a way which I find uncomfortable after growing up on more staid National Geographic type documentaries. For example, the final episode of season 1 left us with a classic 'cliff hanger' ending where we're not sure what happened to the meerkat attacked underground by the other clan. It's good television and perhaps appropriate for today's viewing audience, but it's too personalized for my taste.