Being involved in nature documentary filmmaking seems to catch people's attention, so I often get asked the how's and why's of what I do. Well, regarding the "how," I suppose it's part deliberate strategy and part serendipity.
For the "why", after years in the television commercial and motion picture field, with a little detour into corporate media communications (yes, I even wore a tie), I decided that I wanted to do something with my skills that was more socially relevant and would better speak to my personal passions. So here I am.
I recently was interviewed by a local public radio station on a show that focused on life after your college degree. Here's an excerpt where I talk about the importance of nature documentaries:
And to be honest, it can be a lot of work but a lot of fun. Life is great but when I'm not shooting, life is just a little less great than I'd like it to be.
Find your passion. And hopefully, in some way big or small, it will benefit us all.
I was reviewing the latest Marine Science Review from Seaweb on Contaminants and Pollution #318. It listed over 20 articles covering research studies on the impact of pollutants on marine ecosystems. From everything including pharmaceuticals to pesticides to manufacturing process ingredients, a chemical witches' brew is able to find its way into the seas through direct discharge into waterways, seepage through soil and groundwater, and from the sky.
The impact is felt worldwide, from deformed sturgeon in China due to triphenyltin, an agricultural fungicide; to contaminants found in seagull eggs as far north as Alaska; to the effect of pharmaceuticals and other pollutants on parasites and other single-celled organisms that form the foundation of a marine ecosystem.
Laying blame or divining efficient solutions is not so easy. Though banned for many years, there are still significant traces of the pesticide DDT being found in the egg shells of Arctic seabirds. There is plenty of research going on that is producing alarming, definitive data. The question is: What is being done to stop it?
In San Francisco, California, one positive move has occurred: under a settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity, last week the Environmental Protection Agency proposed to formally size up the harmful effects of 74 poisonous pesticides on nearly a dozen imperiled species in the San Francisco Bay Area. The settlement concludes a 2007 Center suit over the EPA's violation of the Endangered Species Act in registering the pesticides and allowing their use without considering the detrimental effects they may have on federally protected species -- decidedly not pests. The settlement could be a habitat-saving grace for 11 Bay Area animals, from the delta smelt to the San Joaquin kit fox. And until EPA's analysis of the pesticides' effects is completed, the agency promised, it will restrict the use of all 74 pesticides in and abutting endangered species habitat.
"The toxic stew of pesticides in the Bay-Delta has played a major role in the collapse of native fish populations, and pesticides are a leading cause of the loss of native amphibians," said Center Conservation Advocate Jeff Miller. "This agreement is a positive step for protection of some of the Bay Area's most endangered wildlife from pesticides."
Also, check out this very thorough report from the United Nations Environmental Programme, Marine Litter: A Global Challenge. Not only does it provide a detailed examination of marine litter in all of the major oceans, from plastic to, well, you name it, but it also provides strategies and solutions for each region. It's a great reference tool, not just a quick skim read. Check it out; it's a free PDF download.
Seaweb.org recently released some interesting ocean conservation news - a bit of a mixed bag really.
The U.S. has been making some marked improvement in regulating the level of bycatch by commercial fishing operations. Bycatch is a critical issue in ocean conservation as it represents millions of tons of wasted sealife, from the loss of marine mammals, sharks, and turtles in longline nets to the "scorched earth" effect exhibited in shrimp harvesting techniques. Through the application of four different regulatory laws or agencies (the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the Endangered Species Act), the level of bycatch is being federally monitored and managed through the use of government observers.
One major issue though is the problem of having four different pieces of regulatory legislation, each with its own focus or emphasis on a particular situation or species. Involving this many cooks makes it difficult to get a more unifying and holistic approach to the entire issue. A recent report issued by Duke University's Marine Laboratory cited an approach by NOAA to establish a single set of regulations in 2006 for the Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries that proved to be a promising model and suggests that a review of existing regulations to develop a more cohesive strategy should be undertaken.
I had the opportunity to fly over the Northwest Passage in 2007 and see for myself the shrinking summer sea ice that had reached its lowest level in recorded history that year. As one could expect, there was a lot of alarming news coverage predicting an ice-free Northwest Passage within a few decades. Many computer models predicted the Arctic would lose its summer sea ice by 2080. But according to research by UCLA's Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Department, many of those models relied on ice data that reflected a gradual decline, but did not include the data from recent ice levels.
With the growing awareness of the feedback effect of melting ice (exposing more heat-absorbing ocean to sunlight, thereby accelerating the melting process), the department's revised computer models move the clock forward by almost 20 years wherein we will be faced with an Arctic region devoid of most, if not all of its, summer sea ice - a monumental ringing of the alarm bell that global warming is now upon us. Methylmercury - that dangerous party favor that lies within much of the seafood we consume - must share its host fish with the more beneficial omega-3 fatty acids. Can a risk/benefit analysisdetermine which seafood would be more or less safe depending on species and frequency of consumption? This was the question that was studied recently and reported in Environmental Health Perspectives. The results of the study were not definitive but suggested that such a matrix could be developed. The report noted that farmed salmon, herring, and trout had a significant higher benefit vs. risk based on levels of methylmercury and omega-3 fatty acids. The opposite was true for swordfish and shark. Flounder and canned light tuna had a small benefit, while canned white tuna and halibut had a small risk.
While the elimination of allmethylmercury should be our ongoing focus, such a risk/benefit analysis matrix would be helpful in dealing with current seafood stocks, since methylymercury is retained in the tissues and would be present in many species for some time in the future.
A few months ago I posted my views on a growing controversy over shark ecotourism operations at the Hawaiian Island of Oahu. Due to a poorly planned roll-out of a new shark diving operation, there has developed a considerable backlash that has not abated and has generated calls from Hawaiian legislators to completely outlaw the practice.
There have been many news articles, and responses from pro-shark groups. Here are a few:
In building a case against shark ecotourism, the opponents have waged a campaign worthy of the most sly and ruthless political strategist. Appealing to fear (sharks will put people on their menu), conservation (shark diving will disrupt marine ecosystems), and cultural heritage (Hawaiian folklore regards sharks as gods), the anti-shark diving faction has fired one salvo after another, even though each argument can be analyzed, argued, and in many cases, rebutted with hard research data.
This is a classic case of the need for crisis management communications, but unfortunately it appears that the Oahu shark diving operators have taken a low-key, let's-wait-for-things-to-cool-down approach that is not working in their favor. But these are small business operations and the level of sophistication required to address their opponents effectively apparently is just not there.
The ramifications of what could ultimately transpire in Hawaii - a shark diving ban - could ripple throughout the shark ecotourism industry, impacting other sites that benefit from tourism dollars, growing conservation awareness regarding sharks, and even shark protection from poaching through volunteer vigilance by the shark ecotourism boats.
While shark diving in many areas of the world is experiencing a transformation from a thrill-seeking activity to a more conservation and research-oriented ecotourism experience, the industry is still paying the price in public perception for its early years as an adrenaline rush experience only for the brave or fool-hardy adventurer.
I still believe responsible shark ecotourism has its place right alongside other ecotourism activities. Each site, worldwide, must be carefully examined as to its impact on the community (tourism dollars, risk to non-participants); its effect on the ecosystem (working with sharks that are already established in the area, as opposed to altering any existing biodispersion pattern); its safety protocols (for sharks and divers alike); and its relationship with research, conservation, and educational organizations that can benefit and support the effort.
And there must be an aggressive effort to combat the misconceptions and fallacious arguments often used by the opponents. This is where the shark ecotourism industry shows a glaring weakness. I once suggested the need for an international organization for shark ecotourism operators, as I saw a parallel situation in the 1950s with the birth and rise of the NHRA in the U.S. to control hot rodders and turn a perceived reckless activity into a responsible and safe one. Responsible, forward-thinking auto enthusiasts embraced the organization and those who chose not to participate became outsiders who faced extinction, ostracized by the community.
An organized shark ecotourism association that could aggressively position itself with the facts, show responsible leadership, and address opposition groups with a unified voice - that could very well be what's needed at this point. But, alas, I was told by some in the know, that the "industry" is made up of small businessmen and women who, perhaps understandably, are more focused on self-interests and would not be interested in dealing with the big picture.
And so, like anchovies surrounded by hungry blue sharks, they are being picked off one by one. And an opportunity for responsible enlightenment regarding shark conservation is being lost.
Well, here in the U.S., the Independence Day holiday weekend is coming to a close. Canada had their Canada Day on the first of this month and many nations around the world celebrate important moments in their history wherein oppression was shed in favor of social or political harmony. Unfortunately, across the globe, there are still people living without the freedoms they deserve and hopefully they will someday reap those benefits.
But there is one group that is still oppressed on a daily basis, the results of which can and are having an impact on the entire planet, and that is the oppression of nature.
Mankind has yet to fully embrace the notion that we are a part of nature, not separate from it. Whether it's our own hubris in being the most "advanced" species on the planet (a debatable notion, for sure) or whether it's the result of religious dogma, man still persists in seeing things as "us and them," or shall I say "us and it." We have perverted the concept of dominion - meaning to protect - to become the worst form of domination, to control and take for our own self-interests. In doing so, we fail to appreciate the impact we have on nature and how nature can impact upon us.
Now this did not happen overnight. Man has taken this approach in the past for centuries but it is in the relatively recent present that we are now understanding the consequences by either actually seeing the drastic results or at least having a better knowledge of the intricacies of nature's web. We are now able to scientifically forecast a dire future if we do not take a different strategy sooner rather than later.
We are part of the little picture, the microcosms that might include the loss of a single plant or animal species, all the way up to the big picture, macrocosms that support our climate, the air we breathe, and the water we drink. We stand perhaps on the cusp of a global realization, that by denying our place within nature, we will certainly face issues that will dwarf all of our own self-interests - political, social, economic, or otherwise.
Nature evolves; it does so to perpetuate itself, to survive. Nature will make adjustments to the climate, the land and seas, the flora and fauna, in response to internal or external factors. And it does so very objectively; there are no favorites. So when we put nature in peril, we are actually putting ourselves in peril.
Now a fatalist might say, "Well, there's nothing we can do. If nature wants to take us out, it will. So you might as well enjoy the ride while you can." But perhaps it's my own human arrogance that says, "No, our fate is what we make." Mankind is the oppressor but it can be the steward, helping itself by helping nature; being a part of nature rather than against it.
Or for you sports fans, here's a metaphor: like it or not, we are part of the ultimate team . . . and the coach is watching. I'd like to survive the next round of cuts. How about you?
Here's a mixed bag of news items - some good, some bad; some new, some nagging old issues that haven't been resolved.
An effort by the prior U.S. administration to remove the U.S. Forest Service's requirement to consider wildlife habitat when planning clear-cutting, mining, or road building proposals in addition to the banning of environmental impact reports when planning long-term development - all was struck down by a federal judge. This judgment will help protect up to 193-million acres of national forestland from Alaska to Florida.
Australia and New Zealand have announced a joint Antarctic whale research expedition that will gather data in a non-lethal manner. The significance of this announcement, just prior to the upcoming meeting of the International Whaling Commission, is that it challenges Japan's loophole whereby they having been taking whales "for scientific research." Although Japan has stated that the killed whales are not used for commercial purposes, many organizations have purported that is not the case.
Papua New Guinea (PNG) is one of the South Pacific's gems in terms of both its vibrant coral reefs and its lush tropical forests. Those forests have been used so far as an economic boon to the island in the newly hatched world or carbon trading. Though not yet recognized by the UN, the Reduction of Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) has been working with some industrialized nations in speculating on REDD credits. However, there are some legal issues over the ownership of large tracts of rain forest that threaten the program, with the potential for clear cut logging looming.
Shark fishing and finning on a large industrial scale has been the concern of many pro-shark organizations. But we must be mindful of even the small operations - island villagers that are tempted by the high price for shark fins - as these can also have a devastating impact on shark populations since the reproductive rates of these animals is typically very low. On the island of Darien, Panama, a group of tourists came upon a beach strewn with the rotting carcasses of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of juvenile sharks, stripped of their fins. No one could specifically lay blame to any one group of fisherman or village at this point, but it was clear it was not the typical approach used by a large commercial operation. What was doubly disturbing was the fact that, as juveniles, these sharks undoubtedly had not had a chance to breed and at least add to their population, no matter how slightly. Panama has several laws prohibiting or regulating shark fishing, but enforcement in remote fishing villages is another matter.
I reside in California, so I was pleased to hear that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has cleared the way for California to enforce automobile emission standards that are stricter than the national standards. California has been a leader, pushing for this waiver for some time and there are several other states, as many as 15 potentially, that could follow suit. Automobile manufacturers are under tremendous pressure to respond to both the current economic conditions and the demands of a growing environmental consensus - they can either willingly adjust to a new reality or be pulled kicking and screaming.
At last month's BLUE Ocean Film Festival, I had the opportunity to videotape an interview with Dr. Sylvia Earle on behalf of planSEA.com, an organization dedicated to teaching ocean conservation to the next generation: the children.
Dr. Earle is one of the leading figures of ocean exploration and conservation and we touched on a great many subjects in our interview. Here is a segment that addressed the need for education and also an important perspective regarding the taking of seafood.
I found her viewpoint in comparing seafood to "bushmeat" very enlightening. I've always said we rely on raising cattle and poultry as a way to feed the masses and Sylvia backs that up with the idea that we long ago realized that simply taking wild terrestrial animals (bushmeat) would not work, that it could not be sustained.
But that is exactly what we do with the ocean's bounty - and it is a very limited bounty, limited in the sense that it was never meant to feed the human population. That is why I have always been a supporter of aquaculture or aquafarming, recognizing that there are significant challenges that need to be addressed regarding the practice but convinced that the ultimate future of seafood harvesting will need to come from these controlled methods.
I have had the pleasure of meeting with Dr. Earle and her staff on several occasions and let me tell you, she is one busy person. As explorer-in-residence with the National Geographic Society, she works 24/7 with major ocean conservation organizations and with the prominent decision-makers to help shape the future of our oceans.
It must be frustrating at times because the bureaucratic wheels can seem to turn so slowly. But I take heart in something I read recently in TIME magazine regarding political decision-making and the control of power. In an article about FDR, David Kennedy wrote,
"As the historian Henry Adams wrote, the greatest fear 'was power; not merely power in the hands of a president or a prince, of one assembly or several, of many citizens or a few, but power in the abstract, wherever it existed and under whatever form it was known.' That's why the framers of the Constitution constructed a political order based on 'checks and balances.' That arrangement has conspicuous virtues, but it also designs a measure of paralysis into the American political system. It impedes swift adjustment to changing economic and social realities. It sustains a chronic deadlock in which trauma and shock become necessary preconditions for effective political action. To a degree not found in other political cultures, it forges a perverse partnership between danger and opportunity."
Okay, in essence, it is saying that our political bureaucracy is structured to prevent the concentration of power and avoid knee-jerk reactions. And that's a good thing. Maddening, but a good thing. Particularly if we wait for environmental "trauma and shock" to elicit a political response, we know that it won't be an isolated event but a harbinger of many more, catastrophic events.
That's why we must persevere with both generating broader public awareness and motivating our leaders to act. Enough "events" have already occurred, there is enough evidence, enough data needed to act; we don't need to wait for the roof to cave in on us.
My apologies for my not keeping up with new postings. I have been immersed in some video & editing assignments. So let's see what's been going on lately . . .
Some good news:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has placed the wolves of Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin back on the endangered species list. Once protected, these wolves of the Great Lakes were demoted from endangered to threatened by the Bush Administration and then all protection was removed in 2007. Following legal action by several NGOs, protection was reinstated but then it was removed by the new administration just this past April. New legal action again by NGOs has now once again reinstated the wolves endangered status.
It could continue to seesaw back and forth as the anti-wolf lobby, headed by cattle ranching interests, fights back. But the potential loss of these wolves has consequences, as seen in the past when open hunting of wolves caused a spike in the deer population and throughout a wide range of small animals and rodents. Cattle ranchers, in protecting their herds, now had a whole new set of problems to deal with as deer grazed on the lands and small animals ran amok in numbers. Nature demands that we keep our top predators to insure a balanced ecosystem.
Hawaiian Monk Seals have long been considered one of the most endangered of all marine mammals. Their existence in the Hawaiian Island chain, particularly in the northern islands, has been tenuous at best.
But the National Marine Fisheries Services has recently agreed to extend protection for the seals across the entire chain with federally protected habitat, thereby hopefully improving the seals chances for survival. This particularly important in the northern islands where the seals have had the greatest difficulty due to starvation, disease, and entanglement with fishing nets and gear.
Populations of tuna have been decimated worldwide as market demand for this seafood continues to grow. Realizing their future industry is at stake, several of the world's leading tuna processors have formed the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF). Included in the foundation are Bumble Bee, Starkist, and Chicken of the Sea.
The foundation's goals are to commit to processing only tuna that:
Comes from well-managed, non-depleted stocks
Can be verified as to being legally caught
Has not been caught using methods that generate unacceptable levels of bycatch
Has not been transshipped (offloaded) at sea
All of these news items are good news but will require vigilance on the part of NGOs and government watchdog agencies or organizations to insure that they are properly carried out.
Still, it's nice to start the week on an optimistic note.
What you see in the picture above are not wild cats in a cage, but the severed heads or pelts of cheetahs, ocelots and other rare and endangered cats - all confiscated and in storage in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services' main storage facility in Colorado. It is a sobering place, a bold reminder of man's greed and perverted sense of dominion over animals - perverted because as we threatened our natural resources, we threaten ourselves.
The worldwide trade in exotic and endangered animals is as important an issue as global warming or pollution/commercial development as to its worldwide impact on species. In 1973, the U.S. Endangered Species Act was passed and two years later the international Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) was ratified but while these laws and governing bodies have done much to regulate, enforce, and protect endangered species, the slaughter continues.
And why? Well, the dilemma with many endangered species is that, to the poacher, the value increases as the more endangered it becomes and in impoverished areas where much of the illegal poaching takes place, the temptation to put food on their table is too great.
Terry Grosz, former regional director of enforcement for the Fish and Wildlife Service explains, "Given the poverty and corruption that exist in other parts of the world, there will always be pressure to resort to the illegal wildlife trade. People have to eat. When people are hungry, this is what they do."
But what supports the market for these products? There is a market based on greed and status. Do we really need a tiger head or a set of white shark jaws above our mantle? Or a stuffed gorilla hand to use as an ashtray? Or how about a caiman, standing on hind legs and holding a silver tray like some reptilian butler? Man's superiority? Only in his capacity for evil.
Another pervasive motivation that drives the market is the cultural history in ancient homeopathic medicine. Rhino horns, tiger penis (freeze-dried for your convenience), black bear gallbladder bile, and many more - all for everything from libido to hangovers and more, and at times more challenging to address than the status souvenir buyer.
But it must be addressed. Scientists have been making estimates of as much 15% to over 30% of the planet's animal and plant species could be bound for extinction by 2050. Naturalist E.O. Wilson says we may be heading to a new epoch - the current Age of Mammals, or Cenozoic Period, would be followed by the Eremozoic Period, a Greek prefix denoting loneliness.
Support organizations that are working towards curtailing the illegal killing and trading of exotic and endangered animals: CITES, WildAid, Center for Biological Diversity, and there's many more. They need your help . . . and so do the plants and animals of Earth.
"Wildlife dies without a sound," says Grosz. "We're the only guys who can give them a voice." Join them.
============================================ SharkDivers.com -- Press Release Distribution 6/24/2009============================================
--- [ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ] ---
CONTACT:Patric Douglas, Shark Divers 1-888-328-7449 staff@sharkdivers.com www.sharkdivers.com *Shark Divers Announces New Great White Shark Location for Film and Television*
San Diego, Calif. -- Shark Divers CEO Patric Douglas will unveil the world’s newest white shark aggregation site exclusively for film and television productions on July 4th , 2009. “This new white shark site is a game changer,” says Douglas. “I have not seen anything as pristine, accessible, and ready made for television productions since the discovery of Mexico’s Isla Guadalupe in 2001”
A limited number of production companies will be introduced to the site in 2010 (January through April), in order to maintain the location's pristine, untamed nature, as well as for the benefit of the white sharks. Typically, divers are encountering up to 10 animals a day in 100 foot visibility. The site enjoys deep conservation and research storylines."You only discover new sites like this once every 10 years," says Douglas. "Expect to be blown away.”
“As a production company looking for the next great shark show concept, you need a professional, shark-centric company to assist with the development of your ideas," says Douglas. “This is what we do: pro-shark productions with an emphasis on shark research." For the past 8 years Shark Divers' parent company, Shark Diver, has been innovating and supporting Mexican lead shark research at Isla Guadalupe, Mexico with U.C Davis and CICIMAR.
As a film, television and tourism spin-off of the commercial shark diving company, Shark Diver, Shark Divers provides access to unique shark sites worldwide in a cost-effective environment with an eye towards shark production values that go light years beyond "the man on the sand with the bait crate." Shark Divers' experienced crews not only know sharks, but also have extensive experience in film, television, current research and current trends in shark productions. Shark Divers' crews are a unique group of shark researchers and underwater-film experts who can show your production company shark sites and storylines that capture the public’s imagination. For more information, visit the Shark Divers website at www.sharkdivers.com or contact Patric Douglas at staff@sharkdivers.com .
Shark Divers | “Changing the way the public sees white sharks…forever”
The RTSea Blog was started in 2008 and now includes over 950 entries available for media or academic background research use, including observations on a wide range of topical issues and events involving the oceans, sharks, and nature in general. After a brief break in 2012-13, there will now be more posts forthcoming.
Use keywords in the Search tool below or at the bottom of this web page to locate articles of interest.
Cinematographer/media consultant & producerRichard TheissandRTSea Mediaadministers this blog with the intent that information will be disseminated across the Internet and, in so doing, will illuminate others as to the serious challenges that lay before us in preserving and protecting our natural resources.
Search This Archive
Richard Theiss - DP/Media Consultant & Producer
Available for HD video assignments, media consulting, and speaking engagements. For contact information, click on the image above.
Being involved in nature documentary filmmaking seems to catch people's attention, so I often get asked the how's and why's of what I do. Well, regarding the "how," I suppose it's part deliberate strategy and part serendipity.
