The Ethics of Wildlife Shooting

[Alan Craven]

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.

[Rodney Compton]

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

[Mick Jenner]

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/ne...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.

[Rodney Compton]

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

[Mark Thorpe]

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.

[Sean McHenry]

Someone brought up the question of objectivity a few notes back. In my opinion, if you are shooting footage for anything other than your own enjoyment, that you are not going to show to anyone outside yourself, you are by nature doing it for a selfish reason. In this case don't take the word selfish to harshly. Sometimes it's a good thing to be a bit selfish.

What I mean here is, if you are shooting video for anyone other than yourself, there is some motivation to do so. That motivation comes from something other than selfless love and by that I would mean, if you are shooting video say for a conservation group, you have a goal. If you are shooting for a hunting collective of some type, you have a goal.

If there is a goal, the video or film cannot be unbiased. You may attempt to show both or all sides of a question or controversy but, you will always have that goal, that motivation. Even if you claim to be working for yourself on a project, you have a goal and therefore you must have a bias. Nobody would commission an unbiased documentry, in my opinion. People don't pay for a non-opinion. They want an opinion that matches their goal, their opinion.

Even if it were possible to do a documentary as unbiased as possible, there is human thought put into the angles, the overall coloring, the editing, the sound, etc. All of these are psychological tools we can use to bias a story.

Take the colorations in Traffic as a simple example. Everything for the US scenes was as I recall blue while south of the border everything had a yellow cast to the scenes. Do we shoot a person from above or below, 3 point light or Rembrandt? All these things psychologically present a bias.

Mamet tells us in his book the best movies are uninflected images strung together in cuts. While I like this idea, it is impossible for me to imagine an uninflected shot. There is inflection of every shot. Color schemes, background choice, lighting, angles, movement, etc.

I know that migh drag things off topic a bit so please carry on. I just think it's impossible to shoot an "unbiased" anything.

Sean McHenry

[Rodney Compton]

Hi Sean

Turn the equation on its head. The proposition that some of us less material thinkers are putting forward is that the objects in Nature choose you. Its all summed up in the word 'teleology', it means end purpose. If all life originated in the conscious mind, then all it would create is a constant recycling of material components. Creativity actually derives from unconscious synthesis, intuition in other words - which can at its most sublime touch on the very nature of deity. Material thinking: sense perception, is very important for men, but redundant in many women, who negotiate life perfectly successfully relying on intuition and feeling. So the question I am asking is, how deeply does 'your' intuition run.

Bias is a reflection of the personality, the proposition I am making, is that 'mind' is not always fettered by personality and actually derives its origins outside of personality, in a domain where ONLY objectivity can exist. Self reflection does not spring fully fledged into being when a child is born, it grows slowly, layer upon layer as the child becomes an adult. The unconscious components of this process are as important as the material components - which are derived through sense perception. Bias is acquired as we develop, and just as it can be acquired, so can it be shed.

Natural history film-making deals with a subject which is not conscious of itself, i.e, Nature. Nature lacks self reflection, so surely the best approach to it is not an intellectual one. You have a responsibility to feel and be challenged and yes, to show bias, but the process of making the film should affect you and 'your mind' as much as it should affect your audience.

Rod C

P.S 'uninflected cuts' - woke up too early for my mind to catch up.

[Sean McHenry]

Rodney,
While I understand what you are saying, in my opinion, unless you approach a god-like state of mind, you cannot shed the accumulation of experiences which have shaped and molded your own perceptions, and bais of the world.

Other than perhaps Ghandi, I think if a person throws a punch at my face, I am apt to respond either in a like manner or at least move out of the way, as in "Kung Fu" perhaps. But the idea that I give any reaction at all based upon an action. Instinct or learning, whichever it could be considered, is going to be guiding an automatic response that I suppose with time could be de-programmed. On the other hand, it would be dangerous to intentionally wipe out prior experience simply to be neutral in all things. Personally, I want that instinct to duck.

In the context of these notations, if we see a small frightened woodland creature about to be devoured by a hawk, we feel sympathy and that sympathy, no matter how carefull we might be on the surface is going to carry over into the shot we choose to use. Is it high angle from the perspective of the hunter, is it close and low for the perspective (and perhaps the shock value?) of the prey? These things can't and probably shouldn't be wiped out of our state of being simply to be neutral.

Someone said the opposite of love is not hate, it's apathy. I wouldn't want to give up love for apathy. To remove all human emotion from a thing de-humanizes that thing.

Andy Warhol's mechanical reproductions of soup cans, etc. are about as neutral as I want to see art. He loved mechanical reproduction and so, silk screening and so on. He thought, from what I've read, that if it was good art, it was worth repeating. Hence the machanical reproduction aspect.

So we are not at all on opposite sides or anything but it is amazing how this has developed into such a philosophical issue. I love it.

[Keith Loh]

Of course one can feel sympathy also for the hawk who may be needing that one meal to feed her young or else they might starve.

[Meryem Ersoz]

wow, i skipped town for a week in the jungle, and look, the thread is unleashed! this thread is really developing in so many interesting directions, it's hard to synthesize it. you guys really are the best.

there's so many things i want to respond to, but happily for lucky me, i have so many jungle images which i need to process that i haven't the time.

but a thought on the tim treadwell issue, regarding whether his was an ego-driven endeavor or not:

the guy spent (count 'em) THIRTEEN seasons living with the bear. assuredly, he was trying to learn a few things about himself through these encounters with the wild--who among us, no matter how callow, naive, or misguided is not?

i'm sorry, but that's more than ego. that's committed! certainly ego is in play here. treadwell was overly interested in celebrity, etc., etc. but he had found this project as a way, i believe, of combating ego, of unlocking the hold that his mental illness had on him.

what if treadwell had quit one season early, harvested this amazing, often transcendant footage, been afforded the luxury of editing himself *out* of the video (where herzog edited him *in*, in order to superimpose his own meaning/agenda on the other filmmakers' work), and avoided his tragic fate? we would be having an entirely different conversation about him.

keep in mind that herzog gives us access to the very stuff of the proverbial editing room floor. i find this an extraordinarily interesting layering of points-of-view. here is herzog, who was condemned for his treatment of indigenous people in the making of his film "fitzcarraldo" (he enlisted a tribe to carry a steamship over a large rainforest hill and was apparently a less-than-sympathetic taskmaster about it, as i understand the controversy....) exploring his own mirror in timothy treadwell. the psychology of a famous filmmaker accused of exploitation of human subjects massaging his way through the work of an un-famous (or infamous, perhaps) no-name filmmaker who is accused of exploitation of animal subjects, makes for a very rich psychological layering. is the line herzog walks between his sympathy toward's tim's work as a filmmaker and his condemnation of tim's methods possibly herzog's veiled apologia for his own past abuses? or a meditation on such controversies?

i don't know, but the two things not being included in this discussion are herzog's own history of controversy around the exploitation of human subjects and also, a much-needed reminder that the sorts of things he is able to include--the type of footage which would have been edited out of a finished product--are included in this particular work. in other words, in some ways, tim's voice, which is so present in the shooting of his own video, is, in another way, completely silenced at the editorial level.

i think these are important points to keep in mind. we are given a very privileged view of a videographer's work, ironically, at the expense of his creative control over his own material.

if the "being caribou" team had been gored by the caribou, instead of managing to live harmoniously within their ranks, would they be heroes and award winners, or would they be treated as treadwell?

if we had knowledge that the "winged migration" folks had a collision with one of their ultralight vehicles and one of their bird flocks--and i'm not trying to start any rumors here, i have no evidence that this is the case. but if a bad encounter with technology and animals *had* occurred in this experiment, and, more to the point, made it into public awareness, we would be having a different conversation about that film as well.

we don't see the possibility of what "bad" incidents may have occurred because the artists maintained creative control throughout. treadwell's story is the opposite of these. the focus on his work is on the footage which would likely never had been seen publicly had he not died and by default submitted to someone else's artistic vision of who he was.

okay, so that was rather more lengthy than i have time for....

but i am very heartened to see how this thread exploded and in so many interesting directions in my absence. i should leave town more often.

in fact, i really SHOULD leave town more often! i consumed some fabulous images in the jungle, slurp slurp.....

[Sean McHenry]

Keith is also perfectly right. Your sympathy will lie with your upbringing and how you see the world. Exactly. The point about it being you will FEEL something.

Even as mundane a situation as setting out to capture the perfect sunset. OK, you are going to find a great location and camp out for who knows how long until you get the right amount of mist or fog, the right color for the sunset, the perfect cloud formations and people or other animals or lack of said and you are going to shoot that image.

How many bad weather days did you have to sit there? How many slightly less than perfect days? Point here being you have set out to show a perfect sunset and you will use that sunset to represent that place and time when in fact it may well be that you had 15 days of snow and visibility was less than 1/4 mile for a month. Is it then fair to show only the "pretty stuff" as a documantary? Not really. Is it documenting that place if you use only that one slice of time you stalked? How many days of bad weather would you have to show to give "balance" to the piece, or do you bother with a discalimer like a travel brochure?

All bias and stuff we see all the time but don't think twice about. Ansel Adams isn't recognized as a great photographer of nature for any bad weather pics he took. You only see the perfectly clear shots with beautiful snow capped peaks. Is that documenting?

More questions than answers my friends, but hey, that's Philosophy.

Sean McHenry

[Brendan Marnell]

Originally Posted by Sean McHenry

Someone said the opposite of love is not hate, it's apathy. I wouldn't want to give up love for apathy.

You have prompted an interesting question, Sean. What would you or any of us give up love for?

[Jacques Mersereau]

[QUOTE=Meryem Ersoz]
<<<<the guy spent (count 'em) THIRTEEN seasons living with the bear. assuredly, he was trying to learn a few things about himself through these encounters with the wild--who among us, no matter how callow, naive, or misguided is not?>>>>
__________
I think the emotions listed above as romantic fantasy. The same
kind of fantasy that got Treadwell killed and probably at least one
of the bears destroyed.

Let's get back to the facts.
The cold hard fact is this man (Treadwell) entered into a situation where
was dealing with an endangered species. (I guess) He went in
without any professional guidance, knowledge, or PERMISSION.
That is inexcusable imo. The length of time he spent, those 13 years,
only cements in my mind that the damage he caused this population
of bears by acclimatizing them to humans is EVEN WORSE than I
though previously. The real story here would be for one of us to
return to the scene and document the destruction Mr. Treadwell and
Herzog caused the grizzlies he so 'loved'.

I would bet Tim darn well knew he was breaking the law but
went ahead anyway with HIS mission by probably dreaming
up some self designed excuse (his love?) as a means to justify his
ends. THAT is EGO.
__________
<<<EDIT>>>

<<<<what if treadwell had quit one season early, harvested this amazing, often transcendent footage, been afforded the luxury of editing himself *out* of the video (where herzog edited him *in*, in order to superimpose his own meaning/agenda on the other filmmakers' work), and avoided his tragic fate? we would be having an entirely different conversation about him.>>>>
__________

So, as long as we the audience are (in your scenario) ignorant of
Treadwell's criminal acts, we would (should?) therefore speak
of him as some kind of hero? I would hope not and really don't see
the point of this argument.

We might speak well of O.J. Simpson if . . . we didn't know?
Yes, we might but I don't
see that point as having any kind of real value, sorry.

[Meryem Ersoz]

so what's the difference between acclimating bears to humans versus birds to humans or, to put it another way, acclimating birds to the very technology which is *most* threatening to their existence (the airplane)? bears munch us, we munch birds? therefore, it is okay to be a bird, because it's non-threatening to us (though it is clearly invasive on what is natural and wild to them...), but it is not okay to be the bear, on nearly identical grounds?

jacques, i think your response side-steps many of the points i was attempting to make, which was not intended as a defense of treadwell per se, but rather as an opportunity to consider some other angles on what is going on in current wildlife production practices--as well as what is going on behind those practices-- and how we, as audiences, receive what is being done.

[Jacques Mersereau]

<<<so what's the difference between acclimating bears to humans versus birds to humans or, to put it another way, acclimating birds to the very technology which is *most* threatening to their existence (the airplane)? bears munch us, we munch birds? therefore, it is okay to be a bird, because it's non-threatening to us (though it is clearly invasive on what is natural and wild to them...), but it is not okay to be the bear, on nearly identical grounds?>>>>
____________

Whoa, hold on. I *never* said anything about Winged Migration. In fact,
upon a colleague's recommendation, I went to our local theater and
saw Winged Migration. In one of the very first scenes you see a flock
of Sandhill Cranes come into land, except they do not just land, but
THEY COME TO THE CAMERA! That NEVER happens . . . hmmmmm.
"Something just ain't right here," I told myself.

I knew right then that something was different and (to me) disturbing
about this film.
After another five more minutes of footage
I figured out that the birds in this movie had
to be raised via 'parental imprinting'. I didn't know how they did that,
but I KNEW they had.

I was sickened when one of "the filmmakers' bird family" was SHOT
down by a hunter to make a point (That lots are killed . . . oh well, sniff).
That made me realize that these *people* did not really care all that much
about *their* birds.

Although the Winged Migration footage is beautiful, to me it was totally
contrived/fabricated and had the stink of greasy money-loving hands all
over it. That stench made me queasy.

The film WM is at least as much about making
money as it was about bringing home the beauty of nature and the birds'
migration story. This is evidenced by the HORRIBLE narration, weak music
and choppy editing. Let's not even venture into the great story that was
left virtually untold IMO. Again, it would be a great tale to do a follow up
and find out what happened to all the bird flocks that were raised.
___________

<<<<jacques, i think your response side-steps many of the points i was attempting to make, which was not intended as a defense of treadwell per se, but rather as an opportunity to consider some other angles on what is going on in current wildlife production practices--as well as what is going on behind those practices-- and how we, as audiences, receive what is being done.>>>>
_______

Yes, I see that point. That is why those who are in the know need to
honor their natural subjects and their documentarian duty. That includes educating not only the public about nature, but our brother and sister nature documentary filmmakers to the best way to practice the art.

We accompany LICENSED Mich. Dept. of Nat. Resources EXPERTS on
*their yearly nest visits* with permission to tape.
All other times we use long 35mm glass on Canon XL1 to
keep further away than other
park visitors who happen to be walking trails around the lake that
was central to our story.
Nothing is perfect in this life, but one of our main themes is to have as
little impact on the subject(s) as is possible.