Animals need 'right to privacy'

[philw]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/education/10093327.stm

Should documentary makers respect animals' need for privacy
Animals' right to privacy needs to be taken more seriously by wildlife documentary makers, suggests research.

The ethics of the media and privacy should be extended beyond humans to the animal world, suggests Brett Mills at the University of East Anglia.

He says it might be acceptable to film "public events" such as animals hunting - but questions more intrusive recording.

Dr Mills says animals should not be seen as "fair game" for filmmakers.

An academic in the university's film and television department, Dr Mills says "we see it as unethical and wrong to secretly film people - we say it's not allowed".

Ethical questions
But when it comes to animals being recorded in documentaries, such questions are never raised, he says.

"What does it say about our assumptions about animals?" asks Dr Mills.

The research, Television Wildlife: Documentaries and Animals' Right to Privacy, wants to start a debate about whether animals should receive more respect from filmmakers.

Should cameras be shoved down burrows? Should animals be stalked by hidden cameras?

"It might at first seem odd to claim that animals might have a right to privacy," said Dr Mills.

But he says that animal behaviour shows that they can make a distinction between public and private behaviour.

There are times when they withdraw from "public" areas, he says, and appear to want privacy.

Wildlife or private lives?
For humans, he says, it is assumed that documentary makers would need consent to go into people's private lives, but no such boundary exists for wildlife filmmakers.

"When confronted with such 'secretive' behaviour the response of the wildlife documentary is to read it as a challenge to be overcome with the technologies of television.

"The question constantly posed by wildlife documentaries is how animals should be filmed: they never ask whether animals should be filmed at all."

The research, published in Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, wants to raise a debate over whether there should be ethical considerations about the filming of animals.

Teaching students about making television documentaries often involves ethical discussions about what is permissible to be recorded, he says - and also examining how people might give up their privacy to become part of a documantary.

But while wildlife documentaries are seen as a "good thing", he wants to ask why there is such little discussion of the rights of their unknowing star performers.

I think these guys must be smoking the same gear as what some are on capital hill

[Fatman]

When my pets and wild animals start closing the bathroom door before going or cleaning themselves, I'll respect their right to privacy. And not a minute sooner! 

[CJS3]

I really believe some people have WAY too much free time and money on their hands.

[bulldog75]

When they stop being on the menu then they will get some privacy.

[fightingquaker13]

Methinks there are two options here. One, is the guy is bat sh!t crazy. The other is that he's a genuis. In academia, you live or die by pubs and cites. Assuming he makes a coherent case for this (animal behavior data, altering behavior of wild populations (like feeding for photography which is condemned), a little dosey-doe into PETA territory, a pirouette back into the reality of a reprters "due diligence" and you have GOLD!!! It will get published, just so it can be debated. Likewise it will be assigned a million times by profs trying to keep 19 year olds awake dring the "ethics" section of their documentary filmaking class. "Class is this guy batsh!t crazy or does he have a point. Discuss amongst yourselves, tell me why, using points from the sane authors". Pure gold my friends. Of course, everyone will think you're crazy.
FQ13

[Sponsor]

[Solus]

Just require the film makers to leave a Non-Consent form in the area for 1 week.

At the end of the week, if the majority of the wild life in the area have signed the form, you don't film.  Simple

[twyacht]

My grill/oven are very, very private,. the "critter" has it all to himself, well, except for some fresh herbs & spices,...

Domesticated animal shows, Animal Planet, etc,....uh,...pleeeeeeeeeeeeeassseeeeeee

[fightingquaker13]

Hey, don't totally dis Animal Planet. I for one, enjoy "River Monsters". Its a crazed Brit going into the backwaters, fishing for the largest and most bizarre freshwater fish out there, without getting preachy about it. Its a cool show. Although the one on the Amazon with the "penis fish" and its corpse eating cousins  (pounds of the little bastards routinley removed from "floaters" in the Manaus morgue ) did drop the Peacock Bass trip right off the list of dream trips. Yikes!
FQ13

[crusader rabbit]

Back when I was in high school in So. Kalifornistan (1963-66) some whack job woman came out with the pronouncement that dogs were totally embarrassed by humans watching them when they made doody and also when they "autographed" fire hydrants, trees, etc.  She said they would all be so much happier wearing pants to cover their junk, and they could be easily trained to open a flap or take their pants down when required.  My questions then were what my questions now would be:  Wouldn't a lot more people watch a dog take his pants off to p!ss on a tree?   If dogs are so embarrassed by publicly p!ssing on a tree, wouldn't they be totally mortified by all the flashing cameras and video cams trying to capture them opening a flap, or dropping trou before they do the deed? 

But, I think FQ is right about this animal privacy thing being academically important.  Somebody's getting a grant or justifying a grant, or looking for a grant.  And that's most of what academia seems to do these days--they certainly don't contribute much of actual importance.  I cite recent funded studies on young men drinking more alcohol when living in a frat house;  young people generally being more sexually active when not living at home;  male college students preferring to live in a co-ed dorm.  To each of these, I say:  you needed a funded study to know this?  Haz's 16-year-old kid knew this when he was 10.  And he wasn't even funded.  But then, he is brighter than the majority of esoteric academics doing these studies.

[DaverZ]

If I remember correctly it was somewhere between 25-30 years ago some animal rights activists were preaching nonesense about putting clothes on cattle because their udders were exposed and telling us not to fish because the hooks hurt the fish.A lot of these folks are crazier than a s**t house rat.How about those folks harrassing whale fishermen? And they wonder why some animals in the wild eat their young!!