Prompts winter weather advisories as cold air moves in Friday night

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all. 

Turn Up Your Support

Once upon a time, documentary film maker 

 rented a bunch of wolves from a game farm to aid the making of an IMAX film called 

That decision, Palmer told NPR back in August, was better for the species than the intrusive process of habituating wild wolves would have been; the use of non-wild wolves was disclosed in the movie's credits.
Still, "it was kind of surreptitious and clandestine," he admitted, and a lack of transparency regarding his viewing audience that 

.
Now Palmer — now the distinguished film producer in residence and director of American University School of Communication's 

 — is putting the finishing touches on his book 

to be published next year. In it, he exposes the extent of ethical violations committed in the industry devoted to making wildlife films and TV programs, ranging from documentaries to reality shows. Often these transgressions are far more serious than an under-disclosed renting of wolves.
When I interviewed Palmer by email last week, he offered an example centered, again, on wolves. It struck a chord with me because two years ago, I wrote 

, which characterized wolves in ways considered by some scientists to be irresponsible — even in a work of fiction. Now, though, we're not talking about creative writing but about real-life, filmed actions that harm wolves directly, while also perpetrating myths about their behavior.
The program in question is 

now in its third season on the Discovery Channel. Palmer described the show this way:



Wolves have enough problems in this country, based on misunderstandings about 

, even without this misleading and dangerous perspective. Overall, it may be predator species that suffer the most in this regard. Another offending show, 

on Animal Planet, follows teams of rattlesnake hunters in Texas. About this program, Palmer had this to say:



Ethics may be breached even when animals are not directly harmed: The 2009 film 

is a case in point. It's billed as a documentary and, naturally enough, people assume they are watching footage from the wild. Instead, Palmer says:


: Rescue turtles were used instead of wild turtles in some scenes, while 3D digital techniques were deployed in others, as were animated sharks.
And here we loop back to where we started with Palmer's use of the rented wolves in his own film. Palmer distinguishes between use of animation in documentaries (which may be an ethical act) and 

use of such animation (not an ethical act):



On this point, even the venerated program 

on BBC/Discovery Channel screwed up. In one segment, polar bear clubs were filmed in a Dutch zoo, even while viewers were led to think the bears' behavior was unfolding in the Arctic. The BBC website did include a 

, but it wasn't exactly easy to find. Only when the media picked up on the story did a prominent disclaimer get added to the program for its U.S. airing. Palmer says:



We who enjoy wildlife-oriented entertainment can insist on full disclosure of filming conditions and, even more importantly, on fair treatment of the animals. We can turn off shows that harm animals and support those based on science and principles of animal welfare. I'm a fan of PBS's 

, for instance, which offers a marvelous online archive of its hour-long programs.


 was released in paperback in April. You can keep up with what she is thinking on Twitter: 

Environmental News

Barbara J. King

Author

Film producer Chris Palmer offers intimate observations about the industry devoted to making wildlife films and TV programs, ranging from documentaries to reality shows.

Behind the scenes: Ethics of wolf wars and turtle travels

Go Deeper.

Like this?