James Swan Documentary Proposal: “Uneasy Neighbors”
by Tom Remington | September 3, 2010
*Editor’s Note* I can personally vouch for those involved in this production proposal. I have communicated with both Dr. Valerius Geist and Will Graves on a regular, ongoing basis and are quite familiar with their work. Regular readers are very much aware of the number of times I reference their work. My knowledge and experience with Mr. Swan is limited but I can assure you that Geist and Graves speak very highly of him and would not consider such an adventure if he was not of the utmost trustworthiness.
Several months ago I shared with you a proposal for a 90-minute documentary “Uneasy Neighbors: Wolves, Coyotes and Modern Man.” I am contacting you at this time with a new, revised proposal that is attached.
While I have been doing research, writing and teaching about conservation and ecology for over 40 years, I’ve been working on this project for well over a year. Conversations with new resource people, in part triggered by my May ESPNOutdoors.com column, “The Myth of the Harmless Wolf,” have resulted in a flood of new material coming in that I have integrated into this new document, which includes an Appendix describing a comprehensive way to maximize the impact of this documentary to influence the court of public opinion, which is fundamental to getting wildlife management policy and law into practice..
We plan to begin by producing a 12-15 minute trailer that should be done by Christmas. This trailer will begin with a brief history of wolves and coyotes in North America and then focus on Dr. Valerius Geist’s seven-stage habituation model, supported by the research on wolves in Eurasia by Will Graves. The trailer will be filmed on location in British Columbia, the Northern Rockies and the Midwest using state of the art hi-def equipment. A celebrity narrator is possible.
The trailer, like the entire documentary, will be compelling, visually entertaining and grounded in science, as well as offering considerable perspective into the wide range people and their attitudes on this extremely volatile issue. I can provide more details if you would like.
We are seeking $65,000 to produce the trailer. Production costs for half-hour outdoor TV shows, which are typically shot in 1-3 days on one location, start at $35,000 and go up to $100,000. Any group that donates $15,000 or more will get a version of the trailer that will especially be edited to meet their needs.
This trailer will be of immediate value to groups to educate audiences about the Geist model and its application to wildlife management, ranching and farming, and growing potential for attacks on people. It will also introduce concepts of wolf population dynamics and behavior; interbreeding among wolves, coyotes and dogs; and various zoonotic diseases that can be carried by wolves and coyotes. The trailer will also be crucial to present to networks and/or funding sources to acquire completion funding, as well as to begin the process of educating thousands of people about the realities of co-existing with wolves and coyotes in modern times.
The complete production budget for this 90-minute documentary is $650,000. Details are in the proposal. [Click here for pdf of Proposal] This is less than half of what most mainstream wildlife documentaries cost. For example, a similar-length documentary about the life of Aldo Leopold that is currently in production has a budget of $1.4 million. PBS/BBC wildlife documentaries like the NOVA series easily run over $1 million per hour. A recent hour-long documentary about Annie Oakley that ran on PBS cost $545,000. Reality TV shows that are shot in a week or so on one location cost from $200,000 to $500,000 and up per hour.
The pro-wolf folks understand the importance of winning in the court of public opinion. Last year as a judge in the Jackson Hole Wildlife Film Festival, I had the chance to view a number of romanticized tales with staged wolves and carefully selected on-camera people that paint an unbalanced, and often unscientific version of the realities. All of these, as well as many other documentaries that we have screened during our research have expensive productions with budgets 2-3 times what we are seeking.
The version of the proposal that is attached is for donors [Click here for pdf of Proposal] Several non-profit groups are available to serve as fiduciaries. We are also open to working with investors, offering them limited partnerships. As the SEC regulates how many copies of the investors proposal can be out, if you want to go this route I would be happy to send you one on request.
If you would like references about me, several people who are leaders in conservation, law and film-making have offered to vouch for us and our work. I can provide their names if necessary.
The recent court decision in Montana to re-list wolves in Idaho and Montana, and the petition to the US Fish and Wildlife Service calling for expanding and introducing wolf populations all across the US have widespread support because of previous productions that have sold this message to mainstream America. The widespread support for such actions is ample evidence of public opinion in general, and the need for this documentary to redirect people’s attitudes and understanding of wolves and coyotes.
Thank you for considering supporting this project.
Sincerely,
James Swan, Ph.D.
Co-Executive Producer, “Wild Justice,” Nat. Geo. Channel
& CEO, Snow Goose Productions
P.O. Box 2460
Mill Valley, CA 94942
415-383-5064 tel/fax
www.jamesswan.com
Related Articles
Slapdown of an Obongo supporter…
by GunRights4US | September 3, 2010
... just cracked me up this morning.I give you the world's greatest umbrella expert! (Don't stop at the picture - read on)
Can You Teach A Fish To Walk?
by Tom Remington | September 3, 2010
Humor, they say, is healing. Humor can also carry hidden messages and metaphors, should we allow our brains to function beyond the shallow and often inane substance of an entertaining tale. The following story has some age, is entertaining, laughable but mostly it quite nicely qualifies as a tall tale and a damned lie. However, if as I say, you allow (that is if you have control of) your brain to function beyond the normal abeyance most find adequate, you just might discover hidden meaning. I mean not to upset your day.
Clarence Merrywether was paddling his canoe on a small but deep pond, mostly inaccessible to human traffic; only to those most compelled to get there. The morning was cool, quiet and the water calm with a glowing mist just above the water. The angle of the morning sun gave the mist an eerie depth giving pause as to what might be beyond. Clarence knew the pond well.
There was not another soul to be found. It was as though Clarence was the only one left on the planet. That soon changed.
Clarence stroked his paddle on his right side, never breaking the water, barely causing a ripple. He wished not to disturb the silence he so enjoyed. From somewhere within the depths of the water, a brook trout, of no more than 6 inches, jumped up and landed in Clarence’s boat.
Surprised, as you can image anyone would be, Clarence carefully got his hand around the feisty fish and gently returned him to the water. Before Clarence could resume his stroking posture, the same fish once again bounded from the pond and landed in the boat.
This time Clarence thought carefully and decided that fish must not be happy living in the pond. So, he placed the trout and some water in a bailing bucket Clarence kept in his boat and took the fish home.
Clarence became quite attached to that fish, so much so that he really didn’t want to leave the fish. As a matter of fact, he so much adored this little fish he decided to name him Tommy; Tommy Trout.
Clarence wasn’t content to just let the fish swim around in the tank he devised for him, so each day he would take Tommy out of the water hoping that he would get used to being out of the water. That way he could enjoy his company better and in a more human way.
Months passed and during that time Clarence taught Tommy how to live beyond the confines of a water-filled tank. It was quite amazing as Tommy learned to breathe, walk on his tiny little tail fins, he came to Clarence when he was called and was most fond of Clarence scratching him behind the head and occasionally to stroke his slender belly. He also learned to eat human food, his favorite being fried grouper.
It got to the point that Clarence and Tommy were together all the time. If Clarence went to town, Tommy would ride in the basket on the front of Clarence’s bicycle. Clarence and Tommy became icons of the small town nearby. People would gather round anytime the two would make an appearance, fascinated by the entire spectacle.
One day Clarence decided to go for a bicycle ride and so he readied everything and prepared the front basket for Tommy. The two peddled down the old dirt road that led toward the Miller Farm. Clarence knew a short cut that took them through the woods and over Alder Stream. There was a narrow, wooden bridge to cross and when Clarence and Tommy got to the bridge, one of the planks was missing from the deck of the bridge.
Thinking not much about it, Clarence sped up his peddling, knowing full well it would not deter him from his mission. But when his front tire hit the space between the planks, the resulting bounce of the bike flung Tommy from the basket and he landed in the brook and drowned.
Tom Remington
Related Articles
Smell Obnoxiously Covers Globe – Abomination
by Al Remington | September 3, 2010
DRAGON Sculture
So-called “knowledgeble” have decided we were coming anyways. Their source:
Is Idaho Governor Turning Blind Eye To Illegal Wolf Killings?
by Tom Remington | September 2, 2010
Yesterday I commented on a letter Idaho Governor Butch Otter sent to Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. That letter addressed many of the problems Idaho is facing as the direct result of uncontrolled wolves. Unless Secretary Salazar is living in a complete vacuum and/or is void of any skills at perception, he should have understood the tone of Otter’s letter and the sense of urgency in it.
Some time ago, and repeatedly since that first time, I have spoken about how the war on public opinion would eventually shift in an anti-wolf direction if the wolf loving cretins didn’t stop changing the rules of the game while exposing their avaricious desires for more wolves in more places. In truth this can be more precisely explained as the environmentalists’ appetite for the money they get the longer they can keep the wolf issue tied up in court and in the public eye – that is until someone comes along and pokes you in the eye.
That time appears to be well upon the people of Idaho and perhaps even the Governor of the Gem State. Not only do we have some hunters and those fighting for wolf reductions, discussing whether it is ethical to shoot wolves that are seen in the woods, Governor Otter informed Secretary Salazar that Idaho will no longer be the heavy in investigating complaints about ESA violations and wolves. Here’s his statement to the Secretary.
Further, consistent with the Commission’s recommendation, Idaho will no longer be the lead investigator regarding ESA violations as they pertain to wolves. Idaho will refer such matters to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
I take that to mean that if you think someone is illegally killing a wolf, don’t call Idaho authorities. Evidently the Governor and his Board of Commissioners have reached a point they are starting to see the gray wolf as a “despised nuisance”, as Governor Otter so described in his letter. To that end we now have to question what, if any, effort IDFG or any other state law enforcement agency will expend to stop a poacher?
Whether we like it or not, it is unlawful to kill a protected species but this is what it has come down to. It actually pains me to no end that I now have to say, “I told you so!”
Tom Remington
Related Articles
What are the odds?
by GunRights4US | September 2, 2010
What are the statistical odds that another oil drilling rig has exploded and caught fire in the Gulf of Mexico?Our wonderful government wouldn't have a hand in this somehow would they?
Obama Bans More than 100,000 American-Made Rifles
by Greg Farber | September 2, 2010
Opinion by The Volokh Conspiracy
By David Kopel
According to The Korea Times, the Obama administration has blocked efforts by the South Korean government to sell over a hundred thousand surplus M1 Garand and Carbine rifles into the United States market. These self-loading were rifles introduced in 1926 and 1941.
As rifles, they are especially well-suited to community defense in an emergency, as in the cases of community defense following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Along with AR-15 type rifles, the M1 rifles are the quintessential firearms of responsible citizenship, precisely the type of firearms which civic responsibility organizations such as the Appleseed Project teach people how to use.
According to a South Korean official, “The U.S. insisted that imports of the aging rifles could cause problems such as firearm accidents. It was also worried the weapons could be smuggled to terrorists, gangs or other people with bad intentions.”
Regarding the second objection, any firearm lawfully imported into the United States would eventually be sold by a Federal Firearm Licensee who, pursuant to the background check system imposed by Congress (and endorsed by the NRA) would have to contact federal or state law enforcement to verify that the gun buyer is not prohibited from possessing firearms.
Accordingly, the risk that the South Korean surplus guns might fall into the hands of gangsters or other bad people is exactly the same as with the sale of any other retail firearm in the United States. Notably, neither the M1 Garand nor the M1 carbine are concealable, and the M1 Garand is long, heavy, and bulky. Accordingly, the criminal utility of such guns is relatively low.
The second Obama administration objection is accidents. But in fact, increasing gun density in the United States has been associated with steeply declining rates of gun accidents. In 1948 there were .36 guns per person. (That is, about one gun for every three Americans.) By 2004, there was nearly one gun for every American. In 1948, there were 1.6 fatal gun accidents per 100,000 persons. By 2004, the rate had fallen by 86%, so that there were .22 fatal accidents per 100,000 persons. (For underlying data, see Appendix B of my amicus brief in Heller.)
Legally, it is indisputable that the guns are importable. Being over 50 years old, the rifles are automatically “Curios and Relics” according to federal law. 27 CFR section 478.11. Accordingly, they are by statutory definition importable. 18 USC section 925 (e)(1). Notwithstanding the law, the Obama administration has the ability to pressure the South Korean government to block the sale of the guns.
President Obama was elected on the promise that he supported individual Second Amendment rights. His administration’s thwarting of the import of these American-made rifles is not consistent with that promise.
Firearms and the Constitution Versus Treaties
by Greg Farber | September 2, 2010
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under that Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” – Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution
By Leslie Swann
Recently I attended a gun show, where I handed out information material and answered questions on the Tenth Amendment Center. Several people were concerned about the U.S. making a treaty that would gut the U.S. Constitution and potentially take away firearms from law abiding citizens here in the U.S. They argued that the paragraph above from the Constitution places treaty law above the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
Our Founders very clearly stated the conditions under which the U.S. Constitution could be amended, or changed, in Article 5. It is quite illogical to conceive that our Founders would write such a brilliant document to be the foundation of our union, only to create a giant backdoor for foreign governments to come in and destroy the liberty we had worked so hard to achieve. In fact, our Founders themselves said otherwise.
“The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is that it shall not change the Constitution…” – Alexander Hamilton
“I do not conceive that power is given to the President or the Senate to dismember the empire, or alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority to have this power.” – James Madison
“I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treaty-making power to be boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson
So, when I began re-reading this section of the Constitution I realized that they didn’t leave a backdoor, but in fact were expressly forbidding this type of maneuver in Article VI. The answer to the riddle that confuses many people isn’t to be found in an indecipherable tome on constitutional law, but instead in simple English grammar and a little attention to detail.
In reading through the entire Constitution, you will notice that whenever the Constitution refers to itself the verbiage “this Constitution” is used. The only exceptions to this are the President’s Oath of Office, where the phrase “the Constitution of the United States” is used, and here in the latter part of Article VI. In every other place where you find the word Constitution written in the Constitution itself, it is preceded by the word “this” making it clear that the Constitution is referring to itself. In the President’s Oath of Office the phrase “Constitution of the United States” makes it perfectly clear that the phrase is referring to this Constitution as well.
The Founders were very clear and precise with their use of language in the Constitution, so why do we have “the Constitution” in this case (“any Thing in THE Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”), and “this Constitution” in all other cases where the word is written. The simple answer is that in this case, they were not referring to the United States Constitution at all.
The humble preposition is the key to solving the intent of the Founders in this statement. A prepositional phrase – such as of, to, or in – is a word that can modify and indicate relationships. Prepositional phrases can also modify more than one object. In this case, the prepositional phrase “of any State” refers to both the words “Constitution” and “Laws” that precede the phrase. This means that the final phrase of this clause could rightly be read to mean “any Thing in the Constitution of any State or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” The Founders weren’t saying that treaties were to be supreme over the U.S. Constitution, but that they could and would take precedence over the state constitutions and laws.
It is clear with a little analysis of the details of the language and grammar used to construct this clause that our Founders were placing treaty law in its rightful place – beneath the supreme law of the land in the form of our U.S. Constitution, but above the laws and constitutions of the states. There is no loophole that can allow international interests to trump the U.S. Constitution, but the treaty must be made in pursuance of our Constitution, just as all laws that Congress makes must be in pursuance of the Constitution.
While some well-meaning (and not-so-well-meaning) politicians may claim that they can legislate via treaty, this clearly was not the intent of our Founders. Will this knowledge stop those who would seek to take our freedoms from shredding the Constitution by attempting to pass such treaties? Probably not. But we can rest firm in the knowledge that our Founders did not give the Federal government the power to usurp the Constitution by treaty, and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not treaty law. More importantly, we can use this knowledge as intellectual firepower to stop the enemies of liberty and the Second Amendment from doing so. —Leslie Swann.
Dear CongressAsshole
by Greg Farber | September 2, 2010
Dear Congressman,
I’ve been keeping tabs on you Congressman, your last speech even made me smile, how touching. But not on the side of the face you think. You want to get this in your head young fellow, You’re not in there to make the House and or Senate laugh at us but to make it laugh with us. We’ve retained you for something more than your after-outdoors experience fiscal speech’s. $500,000 a year is higher than we have gone for your “Congressional” services for some time, and we want returns on our money. You know what we expect. We want more tax exemptions, and we want more control over public lands ! You’ve been fiddling around for a long time and drawing pretty pictures, but now we want to hear from you in the headlines. We want you to chuck the funny business and work up a little public sympathy for the corporation. We want you to make the people feel that we’re done for and we will have to get out of business unless we are given a bailout here and now. The country needs us more than we need the country. That’s your line ! As we of the board of directors laid it all out for you months ago.
Now then Congressman, come to life and wake up that House and or Senate ! We’ve made enough alliances for you, all you need to do is start pulling a few strings that we’ve placed in your hands, and the thing will go through. Besides if you father a really big Bill like that, and it passes, you’ll garner more public sympathy and gain more votes. Don’t make any mistake. Keep in our saddle and we’ll ride you a long way, we’ll keep you in that position you enjoy. But only if you play our game. A few other corporate board members met this week and they are not satisfied with you. This is a friendly tip. Get back into harness and help us pull our load and we’ll not forget when we get to the top of the hill. You’ve been paid what you’re worth in advance, but if the Bill goes through there’ll be a bonus. Anyway. We don’t know just what, perhaps another $500,000 more. At least Put that in your pipe and smoke it, and I think you’ll enjoy the flavor.
Now Congressman, this is straight from the shoulder. Personally, I believe in you ! I’m with you and behind you every minute that you play our game with us. But when you chuck us and start going for yourself or devil forbid for those ” people ” out yonder, we’re going to plow the ground from under your feet as sure as God made little red apples..
Yours truly
The Society of Jesus and the Jesuit Order – The Knights of Malta – The Shriner Free Masons – The Popery Witches ruling this political world – The United Nations, And any other cretin land, power, money grubbing asshole anyone can think of..
The Corporation.
THE ROOTS OF THE GLOBAL GREEN CLIMATE WORSHIP AGENDA
by Greg Farber | September 2, 2010
The populace of the Globe are being brought together as one under the false reincarnated Mother Gaia religion. This is guised in a more modern times veil in order to fool the populaces. The whole idea of this is to destroy national sovereignty, cultures and tongues whilst allowing for a one World system to be put in its place. A false system needs to be put in place to replace the old system of war. This is all so Roman elite families of the Holy Roman Empire can continue to control the World even without the old war systems always used in the past. The populaces are to be dumbed down and entertained to sleep whilst the plot thickens and continues until the Luciferian ‘Great Work’ is completed. A depopulation agenda during all this continues as sixty plus percent of the Global populace is to be removed from the planet as wished for by the ‘Global 2000′ report from the Club of Rome. What we are left with is a life of no jobs or hope during the Post Industrial Zero Growth Society as in the past when the British East India Company destroyed civilisations of the past.
WISDOM BECOMES KNOWLEDGE WHEN IT BECOMES YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society
~Aristotle 178BC
There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
~ Søren Kierkegaard
