James Swan Documentary Proposal: “Uneasy Neighbors”
by Tom RemingtonSeptember 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
Can You Teach A Fish To Walk?
by Tom RemingtonSeptember 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
Is Idaho Governor Turning Blind Eye To Illegal Wolf Killings?
by Tom RemingtonSeptember 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
Hurricane Earl Used To Steal Second Amendment Right
by Tom RemingtonSeptember 2, 2010
When will these negligent, idiot, elected officials get it in their thick skulls that they don’t have the authority to suspend the Constitutional rights of Americans due to a perceived state of emergency? North Carolina’s Governor, acting as any good Marxist dictator would do, declared a state of emergency due to hurricane Earl and as such bars lawful citizens the right to self protection.
Tom Remington
Related Articles
Wolves Altering Elk Behavior Isn’t Saving Aspen Trees…..But Wait!
by Tom RemingtonSeptember 2, 2010
Well, here we go again! One more study that seems to show that previous theories on wolf and elk behavior just isn’t turning out the way some thought it would. But there is danger lurking behind the results of a recent study that seems to indicate that what some believed about wolves altering the behavior of elk would result in the regeneration of quaking aspen that elk so readily feed on, isn’t panning out.
The theory, and one that is ballyhooed among the environmentalists and have convinced the media and others to be the truth, is that wolves are important to a well-balanced ecosystem. It is believed that there were too many elk in Yellowstone Park and that if wolves were introduced it would turn the landscape into Shangri-la.
The theory goes like this. Elk eat aspen shoots. Too many elk eat too many aspen shoots. Too many aspen shoots eaten, results in not enough regeneration of new aspen – not enough by somebody’s standards – and this results in a poor, unhealthy and unbalanced ecosystem. But not only was this theory based on notions that there were too many elk, the key anchor of this hypothesis was that the mere presence of wolves would so alter the behavior of elk that they just wouldn’t dare come into “high risk” areas to eat aspen. As a result, aspen would regenerate.
Wolves, evidently, aren’t the miracle cure!
According to an article filed by the U.S. Geological Survey, the new report, which will be published in the next issue of Ecology, shows that this theory isn’t working very well.
“This study not only confirms that elk are responsible for the decline of aspen in Yellowstone beginning in the 1890s, but also that none of the aspen groves studied after wolf restoration appear to be regenerating, even in areas risky to elk,”
Before everyone who is interested in reducing the number of wolves, or getting rid of them altogether, gets too excited about this, consider the danger hidden in the claims of this new study.
“A landscape-level aspen recovery is likely only to occur if wolves, in combination with other predators and climate factors, further reduce the elk population,”
Did we now just leap from the frying pan and into the fire? Environmentalists have made millions of dollars by convincing Americans that wolves are a necessary element in any “healthy” ecosystem. They accomplished this by inventing theories about how wolves will alter behavior. The results of this new study should play right into their hands because their ultimate goal is to end hunting. If they can now convince the masses that reducing elk numbers low enough to save our aspen, they will effectively have accomplished their goal.
This new study claims that as elk numbers expanded through natural and restorative efforts, the aspen regeneration shrank. Elk are to blame for loss of aspen and this study showed that the only way they could effectively regenerate new aspen was to fence the elk out.
So where’s the “balance” here? If elk roamed these parts in historical times, were there any aspen growing then? Is the only means of restoring aspen through the reduction of elk? Has it been considered that from the times when elk once inhabited this area, conditions may have changed which have effected the ability of the aspen to regenerate naturally?
Dr. Charles Kay, who has studied and written quite extensively on aspen and aspen regeneration, indicates that this may be the case. (“Are Aspen Doomed?” Journal of Forestry, 95(8), August 1997) He suggests that the aspen present today in the West may not be the same species that is native or has “evolved” in something a bit different and as a result struggles at regeneration.
Science will continue to work on finding the answers here. Hopefully, those answers will teach us more about how to more successfully be good stewards of our resources. Unfortunately, in the meantime, environmentalists will pounce on every and any opportunity to protect their wolves and promote their agendas and this is just another convenient round of ammunition they will use to lock and load.
Mark my words!
Tom Remington
Related Articles
Al Gore An Accomplice In Discovery Building Headquarters Hostage Taking
by Tom RemingtonSeptember 1, 2010
Make no doubt about it, the nut job, James J. Lee, who stormed the Discovery headquarters in Silver Springs, Maryland, is seriously sick between the ears. How will the left-structured media describe and deal with this guy? Time will tell.
MSNBC is reporting information found on Lee’s website, which has consequently been taken offline but some were able to cache it before authorities brought it down. Lee appears to be a left-wing, environmental extremist who hates humans and places animals at a higher level than humans. (Of course that describes any environmentalist.)
“I want Discovery Communications to broadcast on their channels to the world their new program lineup and I want proof they are doing so. I want the new shows started by asking the public for inventive solution ideas to save the planet and the remaining wildlife on it,” the alleged manifesto reads, adding:”Nothing is more important than saving … the Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels. The humans? The planet does not need humans.”
MSNBC falls a bit short as they didn’t includes Lee’s rants about “filthy”, “polluting” children and how we humans need to figure out how to live without them.
Interestingly enough, Lee claims he had an epiphany when he viewed Al Gore’s award winning movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”. So again, how will the media handle this? Remember that anytime the media even suspects an event like this could have been caused by a right-wing nut job (even when they make it up), they blame people like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin
If the media follows it’s modus operandi, if we are to assume they are operating from theories and not political bias and their own hatred, then Al Gore, those who awarded him the Nobel Prize, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and a host of others, should be labeled as accomplices. Should we immediately begin demanding an end to movies? Freedom of speech? The Nobel Prize?
Don’t hold your breath!
Tom Remington
Related Articles
Wolf Issues Become “Unprecedented” And Media Focuses On Hunts
by Tom RemingtonSeptember 1, 2010
Idaho Governor Butch Otter sent a letter to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar asking for help in finding a solution to a serious wolf problem that was magnified when Judge Donald Molloy placed wolves back under the protection of the Federal Government in August of 2010.
While the letter contained expressions of frustrations at the Courts, a request for a new Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to manage the predator problems, and assorted other dead end proposals and complaints, the media has instead chosen to focus on Gov. Otter’s request of the Secretary to have a wolf hunting season regardless of whether wolves are federally protected or not.
The Idaho Reporter’s headline reads, “Fish and Game says Otter will ask the feds to allow a wolf hunt“.
The Idaho Stateman opted for this headline. “ID, MT seek OK for hunting of endangered wolves“. And the Helena Independent Record has a very similar headline, “Montana, Idaho seek OK for endangered wolf hunt“. There are other similar headlines in other newspapers all pretty much repeating the same thing.
I find it interesting that of all the issues that surround the highly charged debate on wolves, the media has chosen to focus on Gov. Otter’s request to have the illegal Idaho Wolf Management Plan, that the USFWS approved before delisting, changed so the state can allow a wolf hunting season.
Why not focus on the sense of urgency in Otter’s letter when he described the situation in Idaho as “becoming more explosive” and wants a resolution complete within 30 days? They could have mentioned that Gov. Otter said “wolves are causing excessive livestock depredations”, or that the same wolves, “are causing excessive mortality on Idaho ungulate populations”.
The media could have just as easily turned their attention to Gov. Otter’s comment that the wolf issue was, “contributing to unprecedented social conflict”. And let’s not forget that Otter pointed out that because of the wolf issue and every aspect of the negativity that has come with it, hunters are now turning to a position of viewing wolves as nothing but a “despised nuisance”.
Are not these issues or at least a compounding of some or all of these issues, far more important than whether or not Idaho can have a wolf hunt? Is it because the media wants to bring hunters into the spotlight in order to portray them as the bad guys?
Otter tells Secretary Salazar that the new MOA needs to have assurances that people can protect their property and that Idaho hunters, fishermen and trappers are no longer going to tolerate having their license fees pay for management of a predator species that is destroying all the time and money put in over the years to restore elk, moose and deer herds. The Governor continues telling Salazar that IDFG will no longer use it’s resources to investigate wolf incidents. This can be done and paid for by the Federal Government.
Are these also not more important issues to discuss and draw the attention of the Idaho citizens to instead of whether or not Gov. Otter can secure the authority to put on another wolf hunt?
Of all the issues that need to be debated and dealt with, a wolf hunt is the last thing hunters are interested in. They want the wolf numbers reduced so that ungulate numbers will return to management goals. Bear in mind that a wolf hunt is NOT an effective management tool for wolves. Wolf hunting is simply an added side effect to entire management process.
It has readily been said by scientists and others who are very familiar with wolves that you don’t manage wolves. With wolves you are only left with spending endless time and resources developing ways to reduce, spelled kill, wolves.
I even believe that too much focus is being put on a wolf hunt by the Governor, IDFG and of course the media, some for different reasons. If Idaho were to be successful in getting a wolf hunt while under ESA protection, it will have no real impact on the wolf problems. It will act more as a pacifier to some and a burr in the bonnet of others, mainly the wolf lovers.
The bottom line is that should any of Gov. Otter’s proposals come to fruition, real control of the predator wolf will not be realized until fish and game managers discover what they are really dealing with.
In a recent letter sent to Idaho Rep. Lenore Barrett from Tony Mayer, founder of Save Our Elk, he described the solutions Gov. Otter is proposing in his letter as the “slow bleed” solution.
As far as the substance of the governors letter, It is doubtful that any such negotiations will benefit Idaho over the long run, and entering into such a requested MOA will serve as nothing more then the continuance of “tying Idaho’s hands” to this perpetual, ill-advised, ill-conceived Federally controlled wolf boondoggle, This approach guarantees the continued “slow bleed” of our wildlife ungulate and ultimately guarantees their ultimate demise.
I think it’s time for the environmentalist-controlled media to reconsider their headlines. Time to put their focus on the real issues, the meat and potatoes of the wolf issue and stop their direct and subtle demonizing of the hunters.
Tom Remington
Related Articles
“Living On The Edge”: How Whitetail Deer Survive Winters In Maine
by Tom RemingtonAugust 31, 2010
If you’ve not had a chance to read the three-part article in the new edition of Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife summer edition magazine, called “Living on the Edge”, I strongly encourage readers to do so. Follow this link and page up to page 22 where the article begins.
Evidently this article first appeared in a newsletter published by SWOAM – Small Woodlot Owners Association of Maine. The first part explains how deer use the makeup of a winter deer yard to protect themselves from the harsh elements of winter. Part II explores deeper what constitutes a winter deer yard and Part III looks at how to manage a winter deer yard.
This is all excellent information but could be just a bit misleading to those not fully aware of what goes on in and around a winter deer yard. My intention here is not to find fault with the article. Bear in mind the piece first appeared in a newsletter for woodlot owners. Their focus is on perhaps how to recognize a deer yard, understand its importance and how to manage accordingly.
What I would love to see is a similar piece that can honestly and thoroughly explain all the other dynamics that occur in and around Maine’s deer yards that deer have to dodge in order to survive a winter. It’s not all just deep snows, blowing winds and brutally cold temperatures.
I would be more than eager to read such an effort.
Tom Remington
Related Articles
Lead Ammo, The EPA And Don’t Get Conned By Scammers Wanting Your Money
by Tom RemingtonAugust 31, 2010
Many of you will be aware that the Center for Biological Diversity submitted a petition to the Environmental Protection Agency asking the EPA to ban the use of lead for ammunition as a toxic material.
The good news is that when Congress gave the EPA the authority to regulate toxic materials in the environment, Congress specifically excepted lead ammunition from that EPA regulatory authority.
So, the EPA has reviewed the petition from the CBD and has rejected the request to regulate lead ammo, stating that it lacks authority to do so.
So, this round is over, for now. Much ado about nothing, this time.
Despite that this fight is now history, a less than scrupulous entity is trying to raise scare money off this episode, claiming that ammunition will be banned if you don’t send them money to engage a fight over lead. This entity also sent out a fundraising pitch a couple of months ago claiming that they desperately needed funds to support the Firearms Freedom Act effort. I don’t know if anyone sent them any money, but they sure never offered to assist us with the FFA fight. I suspect this entity doesn’t really exist, and the effort is just raising money for the guy who writes the fundraising letters.
If you have money to donate to the “cause,” I highly recommend that you donate to an entity that has a track record of actually doing something, such as MSSA, SAF, GOA or the NRA.
Best wishes,
Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com
Related Articles
Bandwidth Issues
by Tom RemingtonAugust 31, 2010
I apologize to readers who tried to come here and check for information and updates. Sometime very late last night, this site exceeded bandwidth and that is my fault for not checking. I believe we have resolved the issue and should be good to go now.
Exceeding bandwidth is not a good thing because it essentially puts you out of business. The upside is that the site is very busy. I just need to pay closer attention. Thank you readers from keeping me busy!
Tom Remington
