The image above is of a hand-coloured lithograph from Audubon’s Viviparous Quadrupeds of North America, 1845-1848.
I have pretty strong preferences when it comes to tv wildlife presenters. Ones I like and respect include Chris Packham, Liz Bonnin, Hamza Yassin, David Lindo and Steve Backshall. I despise the fraudulent Bear Grylls and my aversion to Attenborough knows no bounds.
I had seen Gordon Buchanan a few times and he barely registered, no strong feelings either way. He is relatively well-known in his field. High on BBC iplayer’s suggestons as to what I might like to watch was his three-part documentary The Polar Bear Family and Me, which came out in 2013. That’s a while ago but since he unashamedly and unapologetically used it to promote his autobiography in January 2025, I think it’s still fair game.
He wrote a puff piece for The Daily Mail in January 2025 headlined: “My heart-thumping terror on the day I came face to face with a huge polar bear that tried to EAT ME ALIVE”.
A perspex and metal box is constructed (and rigorously tested) for Buchanan to sit in very close to a breathing hole where a Polar Bear might hope to catch a seal. A bear approaches the hole but is inevitably distracted by Buchanan and wanders over to investigate. Scenting potential prey, she tries to open the box as one might tinned food but is frustrated and gives up after a while. What a terrible waste of precious energy and what an interference with her natural behaviour – she is not shown spending any time at the breathing hole. It also increases the likelihood of her thinking of humans as prey. At no time is Buchanan in the slightest danger and I find it hard to believe there would not have been a marksman nearby in any case. It’s a ridiculous, gimmicky, misguided stunt which could be construed as cruel.
Was I over-reactng I wondered, being oversensitive? Well, I was not alone in my views. The Governor of Svalbard issued the programme makers with a fine of 50,000 Norwegian krone (around £5,700 at the time), ruling that the production team had intentionally lured the bear to create dramatic footage which, they argued, was a breach of environmental law since if the bear had managed to break in, they would have been forced to kill her. Buchanan often refers to her during the incident, by the way, as “it”.
Since then regulations have been tightened to prevent a repetition of such incursions relating to the use of drones and the proximity of humans to Polar Bears, in perspex boxes or not. Luring them in any way, such as this, is now completely illegal.
There was simply no need for it – in any case the entire thing was filmed in close-up from outside the box, presumably using long-range zoom lenses.
I quickly tire anyway of the fake deadlines and grandiose music which so many wildlife documentaries seem to feel the need for.
Later, the mother bear is tranquilised to be measured, tested and collared which is debatable enough, but the cubs are meanwhile leashed, sedated and ear-tagged at which point Buchanan starts baby talking to them. It’s grotesque. Buchanan, surely now as close as he could possibly wish, feels the tranquilised mother bear. What astonishing revelations does our hero bestow upon us which we could not possibly have known in any other way?
Polar Bears, our hero confides have:
dense hair
big paws
textured pads on their paws
strong claws
Who knew?
Here are some of the comments below the Daily Mail piece:
Cretinous BBC at their finest. Polar bears are highly intelligent and train their young to hunt for many years. Film from a far but do not interact so they associate humans as a food source. Think the shark population at Sharm al Sheikh who are no where near as intelligent.
Stupid, dangerous gimmick. He could have shot with a powerful camera and gotten incredible images. Didn’t need to place himself in a Perspex box and then say the bear approaching him wasn’t part of the plan.
This article is a lie, the production crew actually encouraged the bear to interact with Gordon and the team were fined by the Norwegian wildlife authorities for encouraging a bear to attack humans and endangering the Svalbard population in this ridiculous stunt. So it was actually a foolhardy schoolboy prank that caused a lot of harm.
... worst of all the wildlife presenters. every programme he makes, he puts himself at the centre of it, not the animals … *
… encouraging the poor bear to use up vital calories needlessly, just so he could film and write about it. we all know his companions would have scared the bear off if his life had been in danger. shameful episode …
I remember seeing this on TV. That bear was starving and had 2 cubs to feed so making her attack the pod he was in was simply wasting the little energy she had left. I thought it was a disgusting exploitation of wildlife for 15 minutes of fame.
… they had been tracking her and her cubs for a long time and they knew she was desperate. What exactly did they expect her to do? Was she going to look at a possible meal for her and her babies and ignore it?
Gordon likes to ‘Disneyfy’ the animals in the wild. He appears to treat them as though they are all in his teddy bear collection. He often ponders what it is the animal, “wants” from him. He goes onto state that he and the animal become “friends”. Utter nonsense.
You had no right being in that polar bears space, survival is tough enough for them without you making it harder.
I’m amazed no one challenges the fact attenborough’s team took a huge diesel ice breaking ship out there, then complains about how the ice is breaking up causing erratic ice floes and displacement of the seal population. Then without irony, complains it’s global warming due to humans.
*There certainly seems to be quite some ego in play here. Buchanan has made over 30 documentaries between 2011 and 2025, here are the titles of around a third of them.
The Bear Family & Me
The Polar Bear Family & Me
Snow Wolf Family & Me
Gorilla Family & Me
Elephant Family & Me
Tribes, Predators & Me
The Reindeer Family & Me
Grizzly Bear Cubs and Me
Snow Cats and Me
The Cheetah Family and Me
Gordon Buchanan: Wild Horses and Me
It is not hard to spot a theme. It is, by the way, a coincidence that I am writing this so soon after I had emphasised the importance of not disturbing wildlife to take a photo.
Flea treatments for domestic animals
A post in a neighbourhood group is an excellent reminder of the impact of these on wildlife. Research at the University of Sussex revealed the presence of the highly toxic fipronil in 99% of samples from twenty rivers. Fipronil has been banned on farms since 2017. We do use flea treatment for our cat but I will be looking into non-toxic alternatives and perhaps no preventative treatment at all. It is surely dogs that spread fipronil and imidacloprid most widely, not least when they are permitted to enter ponds, streams and rivers. Worse still, I have regularly seen this on nature reserves, such as Greenham Common and Snelsmore. A good partial solution would be to ban dogs from such places altogether (and not just off lead). It’s a lucrative business for the manufacturers but staff at Trindledown where I once volunteered mostly refused to use them at all, if only on the grounds that they weren’t very good for their animals either. If that was the case though, they were forbidden to bring their animals on site.
Peregrine Falcons
Sad to see from Bird Guides that demand is on the rise:
Middle East demand for falcons drives illegal trade in British Peregrines – BirdGuides
As an aside there’s a little bit of drama in the garden as I write – a Grey Squirrel is positioned warily and motionless on branches above or by the peanut feeder whilst Blue and Great Tits, Jackdaws, a Robin, a Great Spotted Woodpecker and a Chaffinch look on and wait their turn. I am not sure why the squirrel is nervous – possibly it’s the Jackdaws. He or she is having to wait their turn right now. Perhaps he or she is young – other squirrels here have not been so deterred. Now the squirrel is on the ground, hoovering up the seeds that the Jackdaws have shaken loose. I am sure this not the same animal as the regular visitor last year, the behaviour is entirely different.
George Monbiot
I have long been a fan of him and his writing, especially Feral, published in 2014. I am have now begun How Did We Get Into This Mess?: Politics, Equality, Nature, Verso, 2016, a collection of his articles for The Guardian. So far they are just as relevant now, or more so, as when they were written. His voice is almost always eloquent, profoundly knowledgeable and wise, a countervailing spokesperson against the horrors of neoliberalism. The first section, “There Is Such a Thing As Society” (it was Margaret Thatcher who made the morally repugnant assertion that there wasn’t) deals with such matters as what he describes as the age of loneliness, an “epidemic” which indubitably costs lives. He satirises the overuse of the word “personal” (personally speaking, personal friends) and he has a point, although sometimes I think the word is used as an amelioration (it’s not to my personal taste, but …)
He is angered by the engineering from birth of the lives of those who become the elite and the pressures on all of us to work, earn and consume at the price of happiness. Modern freedoms only apply to corporations and the super rich: “Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chain stores.”
The final essay in this part of the book is entitled “Dead Zone” in which Monbiot argues that since the enclosures, there have been social reformers and democratic movements tearing down barriers and reclaiming public spaces. But now our city centres are being privatised or semi-privatised.
… social exclusion follows inequality as night follows day, and now, with little public debate, our city centres are again being privatised or semi-privatised. They are being turned by the companies that run them into soulless, cheerless, pasteurised piazzas, in which plastic policemen harry anyone loitering without intent to shop. Street life in these places is reduced to a trance-world of consumerism, of conformity and atomisation, in which nothing unpredictable or disconcerting happens, a world made safe for selling mountains of pointless junk to tranquilised shoppers. Spontaneous gatherings of any other kind – unruly, exuberant, open-ended, oppositional – are banned. Young, homeless and eccentric people are, in the eyes of those upholding this dead-eyed, sanitised version of public order, guilty until proven innocent.
This reminded me of nothing so much as my dismay when I reached the Oracle shopping centre in Reading towards the end of my journey along the Kennet & Avon Canal (which runs through it) last summer, which I subsequently described as a semi-autonomous police state. For all but this part of the hugely enjoyable thirteen part trip, I could scarcely believe that I was having so much fun legally, for free and with no sense of being trammelled in any way. It seems worth repeating in full.
“Beyond that is the privately owned Oracle shopping centre with its Draconian set of prohibitions:
So dogs must be on static leads, no fishing, no bikes, skateboards or roller skates, but plenty of CCTV. Strangest of all is the ban on photography (which I may, by posting the above, have broken and be subject to a £100 fine). I found the full set of restrictions here:
“Our visitor guide Whether you’re shopping with us, having a bite to eat or enjoying our leisure facilities, we want you to always feel welcome at The Oracle. To make sure everyone enjoys their time with us, we have a few simple ground rules: o Please keep an eye on any children or adults in your care.
We will not allow intimidating, aggressive or derogatory behaviour of any kind towards other visitors, our staff or our retailers.
We welcome all fashion choices but, if you’re wearing something with a hood, please make sure it is down when inside the centre
No one likes a ‘litter bug’. Please dispose of your rubbish responsibly using the bins provided.
Please don’t run in the centre – even if you’re in a hurry to snap up a bargain.
We do not allow leafleting, canvassing or the conducting of third party interviews or surveys anywhere in the centre or associated areas, unless written permission has been granted from the centre management team.
It’s against our rules to sell goods anywhere in the centre or associated areas, unless our centre team have given you permission.
Electrical items should not be plugged into centre owned power sockets unless permission has been granted from the centre management team.
You can only busk in the centre if you have permission from the centre management team.
For the comfort of all visitors, staff and retailers, we do not allow the use of portable speakers, loudhailers, and other such devices unless permission has been granted from the centre management team.
For your safety and the safety of others, please don’t climb, stand or sit on balustrades, walls, barriers, fencing or railing in and around the centre and associated areas. You should also remain out of staff only areas including plant cages, gantries and other external structures of the centre.
Whatever team you support, we don’t allow ball games of any kind in the centre– kicking, throwing or otherwise.
Bikes, roller-blades, scooters, micro-scooters, skateboards and Heelys (or similar) are not allowed in the centre.
Electric powered scooters, bikes, skateboards or similar motorised items other than approved Shopmobility equipment are not allowed in the centre.
For your safety and the safety of others, please do not climb on, or surf on, the lifts and escalators.
Selfies are welcomed, but remember that The Oracle is private property, professional photography and filming is only allowed if permission has been granted in advance by the centre team. Filming, photography or sketching of the building’s infrastructure, or any members of staff, is not permitted under any circumstances. We retain the right to refuse photography, filming and sketching at any time.
Tops and footwear must be worn at all times, unless you’re in a changing room.
Motorcyclist crash helmets must be removed when visiting the centre.
We welcome all well-behaved dogs in the centre, however the following additional rules should be followed:
Please keep your dog on a non-extendable, static lead at all times.
Do not leave your dog unattended.
Please do not take your dog on escalators, instead please use the lifts and stairs.
Please clean up after your dog.
Please keep your dog under control at all times.
Please respect the dog policies of our individual retailers.
Look out for the dog-friendly sticker in the windows of our retailers that allow dogs within their stores.
Smoking, including electronic cigarettes, is strictly forbidden in the centre, unless in our designated smoking areas.
For your safety and the safety of others, please do not loiter or sleep within our car parks
Alcohol must only be consumed within licensed leisure and food establishments and we encourage visitors to drink responsibly.
Criminal damage or vandalism against centre property, or retailers, is illegal and we will inform the police.
Anyone who doesn’t pay attention to these rules will be asked to leave the centre.
We also reserve the right to deny entry to anyone whose actions we feel are unsuitable and may have a negative impact on other customers, our colleagues and retailers.
Thank you to all our shoppers who make our destinations a lively and great place to visit. We appreciate your support.“
Some of these are of course perfectly reasonable but the property includes not just the shops and cafés but a wide open-air path beside the canal, so many come from the heart of a paranoid killjoy, although Reading is rather a notorious crime hot-spot. But “Filming, photography or sketching of the building’s infrastructure, or any members of staff, is not permitted under any circumstances.” What are they scared of? What will a photograph of infrastructure reveal that they don’t want me to know? You can come and spend your money but not enjoy yourself, relax or feel unwatched. Good of them to welcome “all fashion choices” – with exceptions. Who writes this crap, who dreams it up?”
The final part of this section is a discussion of the war on drugs (“Help Addicts but Lock Up the Casual Users of Cocaine”) and although I have read it several times I am still unclear as to exactly what he is arguing for. As the victim of a threat of extreme violence in my local pub from a heavy cocaine user who seems unable to cope with the normal pressures of life as a consequence, or indeed to cope without it, and looking around at the ubiquity of hard drugs, I am minded to agree that the situation is completely out of hand. Legalisation and state control and taxation are surely the answers.
Leave a Reply