I suggest that these Terra episodes be approached carefully and with a very critical eye. Case in point: For Part One, "The Bison Haze: A Yellowstone Controversy," I clicked on the "More Info" tab and got "Producer's Notes" with one link (GYA bison brucellosis information) that took me directly to the Montana government DEPT. OF LIVESTOCK page by the same name!!!--and all the usual fraudulent assertions and lies about brucellosis and bison, including the ususal bs: "Approximately fifty percent of the bison in Yellowstone National Park have the disease called brucellosis, which threatens Montana's livestock industry and human health." BTW, Terra is associated with Montana State U.

Further, it seems to me they don't even know what they're talking about--look at the description for part one... "...with the bison and government caught in the middle." HUH? The GOVERNMENT caught in the middle? Would that be the same government entities that are enforcing the fraudulent Interagency Bison Management Plan to benefit the livestock industry? The same "government caught in the middle" that is, in fact, doing all the slaughtering? What's going on here???

Two years ago I watched a Terra episode on Yellowstone bison--on PBS, of all places (yeah, you'd expect more...)--and it was filled with lies, half-truths, and lies of omission. We taped it and were able to stop the credits as they whizzed by--"Funded by USDA APHIS." Yes, that's the Animal & Plant Health Inspection Svc. responsible for sooooo many wildlife deaths and one of the member agencies in the taxpayer rip-off we know as the Interagency Bison Management Plan. PBS didn't even offer a disclaimer regarding the lack of objectivity.

So, even though the Terra PR text claims "...this series tries to understand all sides of this issue" (as regurgitated here on New West), I'd recommend "Viewer Beware." In fairness, I will admit to not having watched these episodes--the audio elves have abandoned my computer. But a producer's one and only link to the MT Dept. of Livestock doesn't bode well. Please, someone tell me it's not as bad as it looks.

Pronghorn; I watched it and all I can say is it was a bunch of footage and not much else. Nothing connected. It was like a bunch of out-takes or editing room floor leftovers.
And if you say that it links directly to the DOL web site, it makes me wonder if the DOL is trying to slip in the back door.
One question I do have though is since when did the StockGrowers Association get the authority to decide if Bison should be Wildlife or Cattle?
Who died and left them Boss?
If they are to be treated like Cattle, AND they belong to the American people, I want the Agencies to leave MY Bisoncattle the hell alone. And they need to figure out which ones are mine and which ones belong to someone that wants them destroyed. Because I don't want MY Bison touched.

Another thing is if the Bison population WAS really 50% infected then WHY didn't they test all the Bison and slaughter ONLY the infected ones. After all they reduced the size of the herd by more than half with the slaughtering, hunting etc. The more they try to use Brucellosis as an issue the More they are showing how foolish they really are.

Hi Pronghorn and Ann,

I'm the Series producer of Terra and I'd like to address your comments. First off, Pronghorn - you should watch the show prior to making comments about bias, half-truths, etc; this show was produced and financed independently with no agency/government or outside funding whatsover. The filmmakers sought to portray the controversy around the haze in an impartial 'observational style.' This style may be unfamiliar to many viewers because it doesn't 'make judgements for you' in a conventional, matter-of-fact expository way - instead, it seeks to represent events directly as they really happened (and continue to happen). It is ultimately up to the viewer to interpret these events as they see fit. I urge you both to take a second look and decide for yourselves what the film 'says.'
Finally, our production team would appreciate it if you could suggest some additional appropriate web links - we are more than happy to add them to the more info section of our website in order to broaden the knowledge base about the subject. Ultimately, we view our films as starting points for conversation and we strive to represent multiple viewpoints so please chime in whatever your feelings and ideas about the show.

Eric, if the film and its auxiliary materials are meant to be truly expository and objective, then it is the director's/production team's obligation--their job as journalists--to make the effort and do the work, not mine. A simple google of "bison buffalo advocates" reveals numerous links to Buffalo Field Campaign, the only grassroots bison advocacy nonprofit in existence.

I made it clear that the bias I mentioned was in a previous Terra episode; that, combined with the inaccurate text (government caught in the middle) and the sole link to the Dept. of Livestock, made a very compelling case for viewer caution.

I have to agree with Pronghorn and Ann. God help us if Terra decides to do a show on Wyoming's elk feedgrounds. There's abundant data and information out there on the irrationality of feeding elk and what I call the "brucellosis fraud," but if all Terra does is go to government for its info, all that will come out of the production is lies, half-truths, and livestock industry propaganda, just as we've gotten from this bison "show."

What happened to investigative journalism?

RH

One thing is that nothing is mentioned about the Feral pigs that are infected with the Brucella abort. yet the DOL et.al would like us ALL to think the Yellowstone is the only place that Brucellosis is thriving. BS. As can be found on this site.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=405015&showpars=true&fy=2004
Also the fact that USDA says they can 'HOOF-PRINT' the Brucella and find out EXACTLY where the Brucella came from and in so doing ,'they' say they can control it. as to this site.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2006/060120.htm
Why wasn't that done with the Morgan herd in May of last year? Is it because they were SURE it wasn't Bison, and they don't want the public to be aware of the actual cause?
There is another place that has come up with a Brucella kit, that is more accurate, and FASTER for detecting Brucella Why aren't the agencies using it?

As to the 'clips' there was way to much jumping around, not allowing any follow up on things. It didn't give enough of anything for anyone to come up with ANY decision. For instance there was more time spent on girls harassing birds at a popcorn stand, and footage of driving along, than there was anything informative.

As Pronghorn said, Isn't it YOUR job as producer etc. to have the information before you put it to the public instead of having the public do the research for you?
Just a thought.

Added links:
http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bison
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/26/bison.slaughter

Pronghorn: objective and expository are two different things and never the twain shall meet. This is an observational film - it is not about easy answers.

Robert: we're not planning any films on Wyoming's elk feedlots so you can rest easy. But if you have an axe to grind and you would like to tell the story why not make your own film and submit it for airing?

Ann: your comment about 'instead of having the public do the research for you' strikes me as interesting because it sounds like you are advocating for the old one-way-street media. Why comment at all then? Web media evolves. It requires feedback to fill in the holes - your contributions strengthen the fabric of the show. Therefore, it is my job to listen not to dictate 'the truth.'

Hi,

Wow. This is interesting. I'm the editor of the aforementioned film and it's intriguing to hear what people think about it. Actually, I and at least 2 others who were involved in making that film (I can't speak for the 3rd) are definitely pro-bison. The film wasn't intended to be a journalistic piece - it's a piece of art - a film. It is not in the style that many of you are used to seeing - it's observational. It isn't meant for CNN or KBZK...

Having said that, I don't know who wrote the descriptions about the film or added the link s but I can guarantee you that if I or 2 of the other associated folks had any input we WOULD NOT link to DOL info. I will voice my opinion to have that changed.

And I do believe that the government is the entity causing the problem - the bison are the only ones stuck in the middle here. That was the point of the film. All of the shots of girls harassing birds and folks inside the museum are meant to show how the decisions that affect our wildlife are being made in D.C. - a place so far removed from nature that they probably can't tell a bison from a domestic cow. But again, this is all done in a "filmic" way - it's not a news story. If you've watched in its entirety you'll see we ended the film with a shot of the arch and its ridiculous statement "For the benefit and enjoyment of the people." That's what the film portrays: this massive, human turmoil surrounding the bison who are just trying to be bison. We're trying to get at the larger issue here - humanity's relationship to other species.

I know that not everyone will like the film and that's fine...that's the nature of art. But please understand that it is a film and not a news story...

Believe me, I'm on the bison's side of this thing - I write letters, make calls and basically try to spread the word as far as I can about this travesty...

Sara;
First THANK YOU for being on the side of the 'under-dog' BUT......
I think then you need to explain to Eric what the intent of your film was. as he stated ;
"The filmmakers sought to portray the controversy around the haze in an impartial 'observational style.' This style may be unfamiliar to many viewers because it doesn't 'make judgements for you' in a conventional, matter-of-fact expository way - instead, it seeks to represent events directly as they really happened (and continue to happen). It is ultimately up to the viewer to interpret these events as they see fit."

I am right smack dab in the middle of this deal on the WEST side and from what I saw in this 'piece of art' There is absolutely nothing that shows anything but a bunch of cut and paste pieces of film. I'm sorry if I offend, but that is my opinion. If you really do want to show both sides, then SHOW BOTH SIDES. I have a friend that is doing just that, not for film but for an article. She is getting information from BOTH sides of the issue, and hoping to get them to meet somewhere in the middle. It isn't finished yet so it will be awhile before the public can see it.
What this 'piece of art' did was absolutely nothing for or against or even stating anything about it. Everything is just thrown in to a kettle and poured out. With this type of stuff getting put to the public, it does nothing but confuse the issues.
If you really do want to do something get in the field and talk to those directly involved on BOTH sides. See for yourself what goes on, THEN go to the 'neck-tied' people and talk with them you will then have information first hand to be able to, confront, question and 'corner' those making the decisions.
Such as hazing Bison where there is no and will never be any cattle. Running these animals through fences, when I've seen Bison prefer to JUMP the fence than go through it. Most of the time they prefer to go around or through an open gate. As they do in my yard every year. They go around not through the fences. We are able to keep them out with nothing more than a straw string across the gate. The neighbor only has one pole across his gates, and they don't even try to enter his yard, and he's got hay right out in the open.
A little more time spent with these animals, and WITH those involved could get a more truthful 'piece of art' out there, with less confusion.

Ann,

Thank you for your comments. And no offense taken! That's filmmaking - you get a lot of different opinions!

But I want you to know that I'm the editor of the film, not the producer so I can't speak for anyone else. But from my point of view, the producer of the film wanted a film that let the viewer decide for themselves. We tried to make it more of an emotional film than a "just the facts m'aam" film.
It's really interesting because I've showed that film to people from out of state and EVERY time, they side with the bison and pro-bison people. Every time. They feel that it's a very pro-bison message. I'm sure some people (obviously as witnessed by everyone's comments) see it as not so pro-bison. So it's interesting to see what different viewers come away with. Myself, I see it as being very pro-bison...how can you watch that horrible capture sequence and not be disgusted? And not be even more disgusted when you see the politicians spouting off in DC?

I have spent time in the field with the BFC. The associate producers have as well - many, many hours, in fact. And many, many hours with the bison. We are fully aware of how horrible this situation is. I feel like this piece is very truthful. We showed what's really happening out there: the Stockgrowers Assoc. IS voting on this issue of bison as wildlife whether we like it or not; people at meetings TRULY believe that bison are eating their grass and are a danger to the public; the BFC is REALLY out there espousing a desire to see free-roaming bison; government officials are REALLY spouting misinformation; DOL agents are REALLY capturing our wildlife; the governor and our congressmen are ACTUALLY on capital hill saying that if brucellosis was eliminated it wouldn't solve the problem. I don't feel like the film stated any mis-truths...we're not agreeing with the statements people are making in certain clips - after watching the whole film hopefully viewers come away with a sense of the enormity of the situation and an overall sense of injustice towards the bison. It might not be as cut-and-dried as some folks would like...
And again, that's just my opinion as someone who worked on the film - I'm not the producer (a little disclaimer, there!)

But I really do appreciate your comments...as a filmmaker it's always good to get into a conversation about the piece. Though the producer was trying to show all sides, as I said before, different viewers come away with different reactions...something that I'm personally happy with, of course is that many are very sympathetic to the bison after viewing...

PS - I just checked the site and the Terra folks changed the wording to read "bison are caught in the middle" (not government) and they added a link to the BFC site. That was my main concern - I'm not going to defend the film further- I just wanted to clear up any ideas that we were associated with the government agencies and let everyone know that we were making a film, not a news-piece!

Oops - I made a mistake - here's a clarification:

"Though the producer was trying to show all sides, as I said before, different viewers come away with different reactions...something that I'm personally happy with, of course is that many are very sympathetic to the bison after viewing..."

I meant to say that the producer was trying to show what was actually happening - the reality of what's going on in all camps regarding this issue - not "showing all sides" as in explaining the intricacies of and being sympathetic to the agencies involved...

I just tried to post and it didn't show up. I sure wish NEW WEST could get their sites figured out. This happens way too much

Eric I was just agreeing with something Pronghorn said as to the
'instead of having the public do the research for you' .
AND I'm for, If you're going to film something and put it out there why just do it part way? That doesn't make much sense now does it? You need to have sources to back up your project or your project is nothing more than fiction. I'm NOT saying that is what you have done.
As to your link to Wikipedia. That is NOT something anyone should believe. For the mere fact anyone can go in there and change their information to read anything they want.
Wikipedia is NOT what you may think it is. NOT a good source.

Sara;
Like I tried to post earlier that got lost somewhere. I think we are on the same page, just maybe not in the same paragraph.
In my opinion too much of the 'piece-of-art' was spent showing stuff that was not pertinant (sp)(i.e. girls harassing birds at the popcorn machine skylines, concrete, etc.) to the purpose (I thought) of the project. I felt that the wasted time could have been better used in more follow-ups or actual meeting 'talk'.
But then again, I'm only a 'hill-billy' 'red-neck' Native American Montanan, and what do I know.
The footage of the Bison treatment was very G-rated. But I can see where it would upset a 'green-horn'. The most upsetting part of that particular clip was the smile on the Agents Face. Had I been there, I'm afraid I would have wiped that smile OFF his face. (I do have a good bail-bondsman on speed dial though)

Hi Ann,

To each his (or her!) own - I know the film's not everybody's taste...

I agree about that agent though - funny, other viewers have pointed out that same shot. It's a look of sheer glee. Disturbing and disgusting...

Sara;
At least we both want the same thing. This senseless treatment of the AMERICAN ICON needs to stop. It doesn't matter how, just that it does.

I have been a professional artist for many years, and i would like to toss this idea into the discussion here, as it can be debated whether one has seen the film, or not: If an artist is creating a piece with any kind of message, or to be thought-provoking, the art-film, painting, essay, loses it potential for discussion if the content must be explained. The viewer experience falls flat if a written description must accompany the work. An exception would be a work created for a specific group. However, if the intent is to bring an issue 'to light', a less abstract, more to the point approach would be much more effective in introducing an issue successfully to a broad audience.

d.Bailey Hill
Thank you! That is exactly what I guess I was trying to say.
I'm not condemming the 'piece-of-art' I just came away confused as to what was trying to be portrayed. But like I said, I'm just a 'hill-billy' 'red-neck'.

d.Bailey Hill and Ann,

Thank you for your input. And I couldn't agree more fully. I feel that plenty of people do watch the film and come away understanding or "getting it" without the need for an accompanying explanation. I think many people here went into watching the film with a preconceived notion of what it "should" be, if they even watched it at all. I think some may have just read whatever NewWest/Terra wrote about it rather than watching it themselves. Just because the film tackles a "hot" issue doesn't mean it has to look a certain way or take a more traditional approach...

The main reason I responded in writing at all was to assure NewWest readers that we have no association with any governmental organization nor are we "reporters" in the traditional sense of the word.

Oh, and d.Bailey Hill,

I too have been a professional artist for many years and while you shouldn't have to have a written description accompanying your work, I feel that it IS your responsibility as an artist to take part in any discussion that arises about or because of your piece.

Sara;
All I can say is I've been in the middle of the Bison issue since the FW&P;just came out and shot Bison and left them to die out in front of my house. That was before they turned the Bison over to the DOL. I'm not a professional anything other than a 'pain-in-the-a$$' and I don't get paid for that so I guess that doesn't make me a professional one of those either.
I do know what happens out here. I see it every year, and it amazes me that it's taken this long for JQPublic to start paying attention.
I'm for ANY type of information that can get out to the public of the atrocities of this situation, BUT I don't condone falsehoods, to get that attention.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this 'piece-of-art' is a falsehood at all. I'm just saying I don't appreciate anyone that slants the issues from either side to make either side look good or bad. The important thing that needs to be put out there is that these Bison are being targeted for no good reason, and 'slants' don't need to be used to do that.
This has nothing to do with TERRA, but for an example PETA is an outfit that it wouldn't matter what they say, I would shut the door in their face, or run them off my property at the end of a shotgun. They are the kind of Organization that does no good for the cause. They need to clean up their own backyard before they go telling other people to.
So I guess I'm trying to say that I am cautious, and suspicious of so-called 'do-gooders'
I apologize if I came across that way. But after years of experience I can't help it.

Ann, Bailey Hill;
This is a different genre of documentary journalism that you must be unfamiliar to. We get it, you don't like the way it was filmed etc. etc. The idea of the film is is to show actual real life clips, in real time motion, so that the viewer can get an "authentic" sense of the processes involved in the bison issue. It is not intended to scroll appalling statistics across the screen or feature music from Richard Thompson. It is simple but it shows us a glimpse of what some some of the real life events look like (not all of us can travel to D.C. and listen in).

Christopher.
Yes it is unfamiliar to me. I'm used to the kind of documentary that gives more INFORMATION instead of a bunch of jumping around with no connections or followups. I didn't like PULP FICTION either. So maybe it's my age.
I'm not able to go to D.C. Either nor any of the meetings that take place. But its not because I don't want to or don't care.
I depend on INFORMATIVE , FACTUAL reporting, when it's not that, they loose my support.
and again I'm NOT saying TERRA is not factual, just that the piece in question was not informative.
That is my opinion.

Ann,
Okay, we get it. We all understand you opinion completely!

Ann,
I am glad i could add some words to your thoughts. I enjoy bouncing around ideas to folks.

Sara,
Just to clarify, I did not comment on this film. I purposely have not watched the film-but carefully read all the posts-and in doing so (not viewing), i hoped that the idea i posed would get whom ever saw this to take a second look at the film. I wanted to be completely unbiased.
My comment was meant only to broaden the discussion, and maybe shed a different light on the subject by presenting a thought/idea about the presentation of ideas and possibly give a different 'angle' in which to approach the film and any artwork.

Christopher,
I am familiar with the style. Five art students including myself filmed a video for our retiring high school principal who was quite the 'gem'. We didn't want him to forget what it was like to walk through the halls or forget us. (which by the way, he said would be impossible!) Basically it was an action packed little film, portraying an entire day at our school.

Anyway, this evening when my audio will be fixed, I will watch your film, and post again later this evening. I hope to discuss more with you all. Later!

Christopher
GOOD!!!!!!

Wow, I'm not quite sure what to think of this yet. The bison hazing and capture video is very powerful, but there was way too much down time on completely unrelated material. I've toured the Stephens Creek capture facility and it is sickening. What a waste.

BFC has been the leader in documenting this travesty. More people need to see what they know happens nearly every day in bison country from November through May.

Eric,

Who funded this latest film? Please provide a complete listing. Was the Corporation for Public Broadcasting involved?

The film was funded by the producers themselves - Micheal Van Laanen was the executive producer. The CPB was not involved whatsover nor any other public funding.