In his criticism of our new feature film,
Killing Coyote, Russ Mason is only defending his
life’s work, which is understandable. Mason states that “film shot
by NBC was used by Hawes-Davis to portray “….tightly bound
coyotes being injected with the latest birth control potion,” after
being “… dragged from its pen.” ” The first part of this
statement is incorrect. We used no footage from NBC. All of the
footage in Killing Coyote of the Logan facility
was shot by myself and Dru Carr in September 1999. The second part
of the statement is correct. It is clearly and honestly shown in
the film that the animal was, as Herring states, “tightly bound and
dragged from its pen.” However, the animal in question, according
to the veterinarian who was examining it at the time, was not the
victim of animal rights “terrorists’ as Mason would like readers to
believe. Rather, it was the loser in a fight between it and another
coyote defending its territory in the same 8’x4” kennel. Whether
the “potion” injected in the coyote was sedative or birth control
is irrelevant.
Our intent was to show how these
animals are handled when they are examined. The researchers were
not injecting coyotes with birth control that day, so we shot what
they were doing. Regardless, Hal Herring’s views on how the animal
was handled in the film are his own. No one in the film says
anything about how the coyote was treated. Killing
Coyote, like all High Plains Films, has no narrator to
bias viewers’ opinions of what they see and hear. Nevertheless, the
handling of the coyote in the kennel was disturbing to Herring as
it has been to many viewers of the film. Mason’s objection to
Herring’s visceral response to this particular scene misses the
larger point of the film. Herring states in his review that the
film focuses on the “slowly evolving relationship of humanity to
the rest of Creation.” In this case that relationship involves the
activities of Wildlife Services as well as coyote hunters, ranchers
and others.
Whether or not the current research
at the Logan facility is focused on non-lethal methods is
irrelevant. Wildlife Services widely uses many lethal methods of
predator control, including M-44 cyanide traps, leghold traps,
“call and shoot,” and aerial gunning, among others. Certainly, they
continue to work on perfecting these methods. While Mason’s current
job description may be to work on the development of nonlethal
methods of predator control, he works for a federal agency whose
methods of control are predominately lethal. During our interview
with him, Mason offered us a much deeper understanding of the
history and philosophy of his agency. While he quotes himself from
the film, “We fail a lot, but that doesn’t mean we’re going to
stop” and claims this statement was taken out of context, he did
not hesitate to volunteer general information on the activities of
Wildlife Services.
In nine years as a
documentary filmmaker, I have interviewed representatives of dozens
of government agencies. In that time I have never encountered an
agency as obsessed with its public image as is Wildlife Services.
Mason criticizes Herring for claiming that we were the first
journalists to film the Logan facility. He is obviously correct.
The agency’s public relations staff sends everybody there and
steers them clear of the more common lethal-control methods. When I
read Hal Herring’s review, I realized immediately that he had
misunderstood how I described our visit to the facility in a phone
interview. What I said to Herring is that, as far as I knew, we
were among the first to film inside the coyote kennels. Mason was
extremely reluctant to allow us in the kennels, because, as he told
me, “journalists usually misrepresent what they see.” This is
really the issue here. Mason doesn’t like what he sees in the film.
Perhaps he doesn’t like looking in the mirror.
Doug Hawes-Davis
Missoula, Montana
Doug Hawes-Davis is an independent filmmaker.
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Doug Hawes-Davis replies.
Read More
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
