The Neighborhood of Make-Believe…in the Archives?

Readers recently got to experience the joys of Indiana University’s former Audio Visual Center (IUAVC) in Hannah Osborn’s post “Chucky Lou: The Story of a Woodchuck…and Captive Wildlife in Indiana.” I’m happy to report that as we process this collection at the archives, we continue to find plentiful moments of joy in the documents and materials that represent the IUAVC’s history. Not too long ago, Director Dina Kellams was perusing the collection to pull some material for an undergraduate class when she stumbled across a folder with the handwritten label: “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood.” To celebrate a joyful new year and A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, which starred Tom Hanks as Fred Rogers and premiered November 22, let’s take a look at the relationship between the AVC and this beloved touchstone of educational television.

At first glance it might not be obvious why this folder exists in the IUAVC collection. It is comprised of news releases issued by National Educational Television (NET) from 1967-1969. The releases detail specific Mister Rogers’ programs as they were aired, including initial broadcast dates, program lengths, medium information, indications if the program was in color or black and white, and synopses. These synopses are admittedly pretty adorable and endearing in and of themselves:

                “Program #41: What to do if you’re frightened? Misterogers explains that people can express their feelings in all sorts of ways. X the Owl spends the day making a rainbow from cardboard and doing scientific experiments. Henrietta Pussycat is upset by the thunder and lightning. Lady Aberlin suggests it is because the noise is unexpected. A game of “peek-a-boo” helps Henrietta; so does the explanation that lightning helps light up dark places. Misterogers turns the lights off and on to show that everything in the room is the same, even when it’s dark.”

Program Information NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019212 JUdson 6-0055 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: All Stations Elinor Solomon (Information Services: Bunny Heller) MISTEROGERS' NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAMS #39 THROUGH #45 February 27, 1968 The following is program information on programs #39 through #45 in the Misterogers' Neighborhood series. Additional information will be forth¬coming on subsequent programs in the series. PROGRAM #39: Invitations and zip codes and a men's fashion show! King Friday invites everyone to a royal reception for Sara Saturday tomorrow. He wants people to write their replies. Handyman Negri gathers his confidence and decides he will try. to play his guitar for the King at the reception. But what should he wear for such a special performance? Mrs. Frogg's fashion show of men's clothing from cave-men days up to today offers exciting and unusual costumes. PROGRAM #40: King Friday commanded a special reception for Sara Saturday and today's the day! A congo drummer, a baton twirler, and a guitar player who looks exactly like Handyman Negri all help to enter¬tain. They even have S-shaped cookies! PROGRAM #41: What to do if you're frightened? Misterogers explains tha-t people can express their feelings in all sorts of ways. X the Owl spends the day making a rainbow from cardboard and doing scientific experiments. Henrietta Pussycat is upset by the thunder and lightning* Lady Aberlin suggests it is because the noise is unexpected. A game of "peek-a-boo" helps Henrietta; so does the explanation that lightning helps light up dark places. Misterogers turns tne lights off and ou to show that everything in the room is the same, even when it's dark. PROGRAM.#42: Today is a day for trading! Misterogers makes paper airplanes; once he traded them for buckeyes. In the Neighborhood of Make-Believe, X the Owl is delighted with the scarf Lady Aberlin knitted for him. He offers her a walnut to take to Grandpere's new "Tour D'echange" (Trading Tower) in exchange for a piece of chocolate.. The King's visitor, Bernard Goldberg, symphony flutist, plays from Bach's Suite No. 2. Misterogers suggests that anyone can have a trading tower. PROGRAM #43: What can you do when you really miss someone? Playing out your feelings can help. King Friday's visitor from the Metropolitan Opera Company, John Reardon, sings an aria about a bird-catcher from the opera, "The Magic Flute" by Mozart. The King then commands John -- more
Information for Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood programs 39-43. February 27, 1968.
Program Information NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION 10 Columbus Circle New York, NrW York 10019 212-JUdson 6-0055 TO:All Stations FROM: Bunny Heller SUBJECT: MISTEROGERS' NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAMS #94 through 100 MAILING DATE: June 10, 1968 INITIAL BROADCAST DATES: LENGTH: MEDIUM: COLOR OR BLACK & WHITE: June 27, 28, July 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1968 Thirty minutes Videotape Black & white Program #94: Flowers to wear, flowers to hold, flowers for King Friday's guestl Lady Aberlin pretends she's a flower. Mr. Lee, the neighborhood florist, visits Misterogers. Program #95: A day for pasting. Misterogers and Handy¬man Negri make collages by pasting different things on paper. King Friday watches a wallpaper hanger paste wallpaper on the wall of the new room at the Castle. Program #96: Moms and Dads help each other because they care about each other. Lady Aberlin and Daniel blow bubbles from liquid detergent and wonder if King Friday and Sara Saturday will get married. Misterogers tries waxing his floor. Program #97: TBA Program #98: Every stone is different, just as every person is different. That’s why everyone is special. Neighbor Farnum and his daughter Cindy show Misterogers how to cut and polish stones. Mr. Anybody returns and decides to be a stone-man today. Program #99: Today is an "S'* day, for Scotland. Mr. Any¬body is a Scotsman today, and he even has a Scotty dog named Mac. There are performances in the S-Room of the Castle of a Scottish sword dance and the highland fling to the music of the Barker Bagpipers. Program #100: It doesn't hurt a bit to get weighed and measured and checked at the Doctor's office. Misterogers and Mr. McFeely weigh each other. Lady Elaine Fairchilde is afraid to have a check-up and acts silly about it until she finds out it doesn't hurt.
Information for Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood programs 94-100. June 10, 1968.

These descriptions give us a picture of the major themes, characters, and lessons we came to know and love in the Neighborhood of Make-Believe. The associated information, such as broadcast dates and other administrative data, give us some historical understanding of the show’s trajectory in the late 1960s. But why are these releases in a folder used by the AVC? A document nestled about halfway through the folder, titled “INDIVIDUAL PROGRAM DATA” from June 1, 1967, gives us some clues. The document includes a general description of Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, biographies of Fred Rogers and other featured talent, and descriptions for the first 100 Mister Rogers’ programs. The document is created by “ETS Program Service, Bloomington, Indiana.” I wasn’t sure what ETS stood for (I ventured to guess “educational television service”), so I did a quick Google search for “ETS Program Service Bloomington Indiana 1967.” This isn’t always the case, but sometimes a well-phrased Google search can be an archivist’s friend. I immediately found the answer in a digitized copy of The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. A section of the act included facts about educational television stations—or ETS. It detailed:

                “The ETS Program Service was established in 1965 at Bloomington, Indiana. It is operated by Indiana University Foundation under contract to Educational Television Stations, NAEB. This service provides an exchange of a variety of programs selected from the best productions originating at local stations. There is a small per-program use charge to offset distribution costs. This nation-wide program distribution facility was made possible through grants for the National Home Library Foundation and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.”

ETS Program Service Bloomington, Indiana INDIVIDUAL PROGRAM DATA June 1, 1967 MISTEROGERS > NEIGHBORHOOD Number of Programs: 100 (5/week) Length: half-hour Produced by: WQED, PittsburghType: VT General Description: The imaginative Neighborhood of Make-Believe and a playroom filled with songs, stories and happenings, encourages Fred Rogers’ viewing guests to enjoy and wonder, to trust and learn about the feelings and things which they can experience together. Designed for children from 6 to 9* the series also includes these members of the Neighborhood: TROLLEY, the little streetcar who expresses himself with his tinkling bell; DANIEL STRIPED TIGER, who lives in a clock; CORNFLAKE S. PECIALLY, manager of the ROCKIT (ROCKING CHAIR) FACTORY; HENRIETTA PUSSYCAT, governess of NINE NICE MICE: MR. X THE OWL: and KING FRIDAY XIII, who celebrates his birthday "when the day of the week is Friday and the day of the month is thirteen". Featured Personalities: Fred Rogers, ordained a minister of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States in 1963, presently teaches children's work at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and is a consultant in creative media for children at the Arsenal Child Study Center, a division of Western Psychiatric Institute of the University of Pittsburgh. Fred Rogers worked in production at NBC early in television's history. From 1953 through 1961 he produced and performed on CHILDREN'S CORNER over WQED. In 1955 the series won the Sylvania Award for the best local children's show in the country. For six years he worked for CBC TV doing specials and a daily 15-minute program. At the present time he is doing a series of "specials" for CBC, continuing a sponsored show in Pittsburgh, and the MISTEROGERS' NEIGHBORHOOD series. Other series talent includes: Don Brocket; members of the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra; Vija Vetra; Frank Napier, naturalist; Francis Alder, WQED's science teacher; the poet- lady, Emilie Jacobson; and other Pittsburghers disguised as interesting imagination drawing characters. MISTEROGERS’ NEIGHBORHOOD is a 1966-67 production of WQED, Pittsburgh. Directed by David Chen.
Individual Program Data for Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood. Issued by the ETS Program Service, Bloomington. June 1, 1967.

ETS members such as IU’s ETS Program Service were responsible for preparing regional and national conferences on education and media, communicating educational television issues to national government and private agencies, compiling reports that documented educational television progress, and disseminating information to other educational television stations. This last point helps clarify the purpose of this June 1967 document: The ETS Program Service in Bloomington likely distributed this informational sheet to area television stations and other entities (such as schools and libraries) who would be interested in showing Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood.

It is pretty cool to see IU’s educational television services represented in the congressional act that established the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and set the path for establishing the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR). The Public Broadcasting Act also had a strong connection to Fred Rogers himself. Rogers was a key supporter of the act and, two years later in 1969, testified before the Senate to defend the CPB and public broadcasting as a whole. The footage of the testimony has become iconic, in part because it played a central role in the 2018 documentary Won’t You Be My Neighbor? Rogers’ testimony is celebrated as a meaningful moment in American public rhetoric, and featured goose bump-inducing quotes such as:

“This is what I give. I give an expression of care every day to each child, to help him realize that he is unique. I end the program by saying, “You’ve made this day a special day, by just your being you. There’s no person in the whole world like you, and I like you, just the way you are.” And I feel that if we in public television can only make it clear that feelings are mentionable and manageable, we will have done a great service for mental health.”

You can view the video of his testimony and read a transcript of it here!

Now that we know why the ETS Program Service would have a folder on Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, we can better understand the multifarious functions of the IUAVC. IUAVC was originally called the Film Archives’ Educational Film Collection and was launched in the 1940’s through IU’s Extension Division. The center amassed tens of thousands of 16mm films, which it would rent out to schools, libraries, and educational groups for low fees. IUAVC became a leader in the field of instructional technology and media in the mid-twentieth century. It worked in tandem with the National Instructional Television Library (NIT), which was located and operated by the IU Foundation (NIT became an independent entity in 1968 and renamed itself the Agency for Instructional Technology—AIT—in 1984. Learn more about AIT at the IU Libraries Moving Image Archive!). The IUAVC was also the exclusive distributor of films produced by National Educational Television (NET), the predecessor to PBS. Going back to Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, the first nationally broadcast season of the show was aired on NET in 1967. This means the IUAVC played a central role in the rise of Mister Rogers’ popularity in the late 1960s.

As we continue to process this exciting and important collection we’ll be sure to share more gems with you. In the meantime, you can get in touch with our friends at the IU Libraries Moving Image Archive to access IUAVC films and videos! And remember: You always make each day a special day. You know how: By just your being you!

Chucky Lou: The Story of a Woodchuck….and Captive Wildlife in Indiana

Inventorying educational program titles from Indiana University’s former Audio Visual Center’s holdings has revealed a number of humorous, odd, and niche-interest titles. But while combing through programs like “A Nickel for the Movies,” “Guess Who’s Pregnant?” and “Using a Spectrophotometer,” I found the bizarre little 16mm film “Chucky Lou.”

“Chucky Lou: The Story of a Woodchuck” is a short, black and white film running just over ten minutes long which was marketed towards kindergarten and elementary aged children. The 1948 film, one of the best-selling programs produced by the IUAVC, follows the story of a plump little woodchuck from her natural habitat to her relocation and “taming” at a pet house in McCormick’s Creek State Park, just 15 miles northwest of Bloomington.

Black and white photograph of a groundhog sitting in a pan
Chucky Lou with Pan

With cheerful, jangly music accompanying, the film opens on the six-month-old woodchuck in her natural habitat – a meadow- and provides educational background on her diet of grass and clover, and her dwelling in a burrow underground . Chucky Lou is found by a woman on her stroll near the meadow. Deeming the woodchuck sick because she is lying on her back in the sun, the woman catches Chucky Lou and picks her up with her bare hands “carefully” because, as the narrator stresses, Chucky Lou is “wild and had sharp claws and teeth.” The woman’s husband then takes Chucky Lou to the animal caretaker at McCormick’s Creek to be placed in the Park’s Pet House. It is stated in the film that the caretaker was actively seeking a woodchuck for his park, presumably to round out the animals present and attract visitors. This is perhaps due to the emphasis on public engagement in the parks at this time. In the 1930s, McCormick’s Creek had became the first park in the state to conduct school programs. The 1940s saw the creation and adoption of a guide manual for naturalists across all of Indiana’s parks, and the implementation of nature guides at the parks. In 1950, just two years after the production of “Chucky Lou,” McCormick’s Creek would hold the first naturalist training institute.

From a modern perspective, the film appears to be a manual for how NOT to handle wildlife, emphasizing the woodchuck’s transition from wild to tame and celebrating moments where she is dressed up in doll clothes and fed peanut brittle in exchange for tricks to lackluster responses from her child audience. The teacher’s manual which accompanied the film even frames Chucky Lou as “an unusual pet” and encourages teachers to use the film to spark discussion among students about topics like “tricks they have seen animals perform” and “how to train pets.”

 

This is a Teacher's Guide transcripts including the following text: The young woodchuck becomes ill and is found by a lady walking along a country road near the meadow. Since the lady does not know how to care for a woodchuck her husband takes it to a pet house in a nearby park. At the park, Chucky Lou is given to a caretaker who furnishes her with a cage of her own in the pet house. The caretaker feeds her lettuce and animal biscuits. Her water pan is set in a concrete block, so she will not spill the water. She sleeps in a Lox up in a tree branch. Shots are shown of her nearest neighbors, the red foxes and raccoons. Chucky Lou becomes very tame and learns several tricks. She will sit on a little red chair if she is fed peanut brittle. She will allow the caretaker and sometimes the children to dress her in doll clothes. In the fall of the year, Chucky Lou becomes very fat as a preparation for hibernation during the winter. As cold weather approaches, she begins to gather grass and leaves in her mouth and take them to her nest, where she makes a bed. She has learned to push open the gate of the pet house so that she can get to her nest. In the closing sequence Chucky Lou curls up and falls asleep. Her caretaker tucks her in for her winter nap. UTILIZATION SUGGESTIONS I.To provide teaching-learning opportunities involving the use of language arts. a. Oral communication and sharing i. Discussion - Sharing of experiences on such topics as: 1. Tricks they have seen animals perform 2. Their own pets 3. How to train pets 4. Care of pets 5. Why some animals make good pets 6. Unusual pets 7. Drawing inferences ii. Encourage through use of such questions as: 1. Why are woodchucks sometimes called ground hogs? 2. Is it safe to handle all woodchucks?
Teacher’s Guide for “Chucky Lou,” circa 1948

The teacher’s manuals also reveal the actual circumstances behind her capture, stating:

“The story is true, with the exception of the sequence about the young woodchuck’s being sick when she was found in the woods. Actually the woodchuck had been orphaned by hunters”

It is curious that this change was made, with the outcome of potentially spreading misinformation to young viewers about the appropriate identification of and response to sick animals.

It is easy to pick apart the flaws in the treatment of Chucky Lou, and I was dismayed that “Chucky Lou’s” documented wide-spread popularity no doubt led to the spread of unethical practices to a lot of children. The application of modern knowledge and standards to actions seventy years in the past, however, is ultimately not productive. While the film may not age well from the perspective of wildlife conservation, “Chucky Lou’s” popularity nevertheless speaks to the human fascination with our animal neighbors, a fascination which, if used responsibly, can have amazing outcomes. This film perhaps can be re-framed as a means to explore ethical practices in wildlife interactions. These explorations can serve to highlight places in Indiana which work to provide safe, ethical care for wild animals and responsible public education, led by trained professionals such as naturalists whose profession began with McCormick’s Creek.

Black and white photograph of a child seated with a groundhog dressed in an apron and hat.

Today, organizations such as the local non-profit Wildcare Inc. provide care to sick, orphaned, or injured wildlife with the foremost goal of rehabilitating the animals back to the wild whenever possible. Guidelines for the appropriate handling of injured or sick animals today are vastly different – providing precautionary measures for both the safety of the intervening human and the animal in question. While Wildcare Inc. stresses that, in the vast majority of cases, animals should in fact be left alone, it provides detailed instructions for the identification and assessment of the condition of animals on their site. In the event an animal is determined to require rescue it is important to remember three guidelines until the animal can be picked up:

  • Never handle an animal with your bare hands
  • Keep the animal in a warm, quiet, confined space
  • Do not feed or water the animal – leave that to the professionals!

While wildlife like Chucky Lou could have been rehabilitated, some animals cannot be candidates for a return to the wild. Some who have been bred in captivity or have been rescued from private ownership may have been maltreated or may lack basic survival instincts and may be taken in by rescue sanctuaries like the Exotic Feline Rescue Center in Center Point  or the Black Pine Animal Sanctuary in Albion. Other rescued wildlife from nature may have sustained permanent injuries which makes it impossible for them to survive if returned. Frequently these animals become what is known as “ambassadors” for interpretive and educational programming done by organizations which house them. Wildcare utilizes this practice of employing animal ambassadors for public education as does Eagle Creek Park in Indianapolis in their programming.

Color photograph of Will Schaust with a bald eagle perched on his arm.
Will Schaust, Ornithology Center Manager, Eagle Creek Park, Indiana

I asked Will Schaust, an old friend, former naturalist at McCormick’s Creek State Park, and the Ornithology Center Manager at Eagle Creek, to answer a few questions about the role of wildlife in education and ethical practices surrounding captive wildlife.

How long have you worked as a naturalist/what is your background/work experience?
I have spent the last 10 years working at different parks throughout Indiana. First, I was a camp counselor for an environmental education camp at Holliday Park, then spent 4 years as a seasonal at McCormick’s Creek SP, and finally ended up at Eagle Creek as Manager of the Ornithology Center. Each of these jobs had direct involvement with working alongside education animals including reptiles, amphibians, and birds of prey.

As someone who works on interpretive programs involving wild animals today, what were your first impressions of “Chucky Lou”?
There’s quite a bit to unpack here for sure. We’ve definitely come a long way in the methods that we care for education animals but also in how we deal with wild animals. It’s incredibly interesting to me that a woman was so compelled to pick up a “sick” animal without knowing much about it. Granted, the golden age of environmentalism didn’t come until the late 60’s/early 70’s so before that the ecologic practices of mankind were well intended but often fell short of their desired goal. We didn’t really consider our environmental footprint until the Santa Barbara Oil Spill of 1969. Additionally, the idea of keeping all of those animals that close together without any visual barriers seems like a poor choice. And peanut brittle should never be given to wild animals.

As someone who has worked at McCormick’s Creek as a naturalist, do you have any information on the pet house where Chucky Lou was housed? I have tried to find any information on it and have been unsuccessful.
From the look of it, that could be the camp store near the Canyon Inn, but it could also be the CCC Rec Hall (I believe that used to be an old nature museum. Wyatt Williams at MCCSP would have more details). Beyond that I don’t have much info.

Do approaches to the use of wild animals in interpretive programs differ today? If so, how?
Without question. Most of the state parks have a rule that during the recreation season (typically May-October) you can keep a wild caught reptile or amphibian on display for 90 days then you must return it back to the wild, for mammals and birds there are stricter regulations. I also think the addition of permits and tighter regulations also lends well to better care and use of education animals. Professional organizations and government agencies are continually coming up with better policies to ensure a higher quality of life for these animals while they are in our care. I will add, nature centers/ambassador animals are among the last group of folks to get on board with these approaches. For years zoos have had a standard evaluation for their exhibit animals but only within the last 3 or so years have applied this to their ambassador animals.

What factors do you think have contributed to the way we view the ethics of wildlife in interpretive programming?
I think the overall quality of life is considered more these days. More specifically, avian trainers are moving strictly to a choice based, positive reinforcement training model in the hopes that we can reduce the overall stress of our education birds as opposed to forcing the animal to participate in programming. There’s a fine line between treating these animals as pets and making them comfortable and stress free during their stay.

Is there a uniform set of regulations or standards that are employed today when housing wild animals for educational purposes?
It depends on the organization. For folks with avian ambassadors like us, we refer to IAATE (International Association of Avian Trainers and Educators) but there’s also the AZA (Association of Zoos and Aquariums). Ultimately, government agencies like U.S. Fish & Wildlife will set the standards for housing and permitting.

What are the goals of the Eagle Creek Ornithology Center when it comes to the management and utilization of captive wildlife?
Eagle Creek Ornithology Center Raptor Program Mission Statement: By providing exemplary care, husbandry, training, and enrichment for our Raptor Ambassadors, we hope to foster a sense of wonder, enthusiasm, and stewardship for the natural world, and to inspire action towards conserving the species that visitors encounter at the Ornithology Center and during our programs.

At the end of the day, our goal is to provide as much of a stress-free environment for our birds as we can. We are working each and every day to ensure that our birds are participating in training and programming because they choose to. We are using operant conditioning and positive reinforcement to build up our trust account with each bird so that when we need to do something stressful (medical treatments, trimming beaks and talons, changing their equipment) they will be quick to recover from that. We understand that a live animal is the best prop you can have in a program, but we also want to convey a message of conservation, responsibility, and provocation our audiences towards helping these species in whatever way they can.

The film seems to reinforce the idea of Chucky Lou as a “pet”. What do you think about the ownership of wild animals as pets?
WILD ANIMALS MAKE TERRIBLE PETS. Thanks to movies about a certain wizard boy people love the idea of having owls as pets. Truth is, owls are not great pets at all. They’re awake when you’re sleeping and vice-versa, you constantly have to clean up after them, and very few vets will treat wild animals if something goes wrong. Aside from that, trying to find resources about the care of that animal like diet, healthy weight range, and behaviors might be really hard to come by. There’s no guarantee that they would get along with other domestic pets. Above all else, it’s also ILLEGAL to have these species without the proper paperwork and permitting.

I know that the DNR lost control of the regulation of privately-owned captive wildlife in 2015, with jurisdiction instead falling to more vague federal guidelines. Do you think this has led to an upswing in the ownership of wild animals as “unusual pets”?
You hope not, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case. I personally haven’t seen too many examples of this, but I think that if the opportunity presented itself someone would take that chance.

Lastly, what is your opinion of animal sanctuaries such as Black Pine Animal Sanctuary or the Exotic Feline Rescue Center which serve as potential refuges for animals which have been rescued from private ownership?
I think that they are a Band-Aid on a much bigger issue. The folks are these centers are doing the best job they can to provide these animals a place where they feel safe, well fed, and cared for and this is not to discredit their work. If people let wildlife remain wild then I think many of these issues wouldn’t be as prevalent. It may start out innocent enough, feeding the ducks at a park is a great example. But if you try and interfere with the natural order of things, expect that there will be consequences. We as a population need to understand that we do not need to be a part of every natural function out there. I know the idea of keeping an unusual pet might sound appealing, but without the proper training it usually ends up doing more harm than good. Look at the python epidemic in the Everglades, it began with exotic pet trade operations nearby and once those snakes got too big they were released into the Everglades and now they are completely changing the ecosystem and decimating fauna populations.

Green and white flyer with the following text: Teacher's Guide - Chucky Lou: The Story of a Woodchuck for Kindergarten and Elementary Grades"

Interested in getting involved in the care of wildlife in Indiana? Volunteer opportunities are available at both Eagle Creek Park , Wildcare Inc., and McCormick’s Creek State Park (link).

For those looking to make a dedicated commitment to our natural resources, the state offers the Indiana Master Naturalist program , an in-demand initiative to educate and accredit volunteers for natural resource management.

Indiana University Libraries Moving Image Archive is currently working to remaster the University’s copy of “Chucky Lou: The Story of a Woodchuck.” For further information on the archival materials accompanying “Chucky Lou” and other educational programs in the former IU Audio Visual Center’s collection, contact one of our archivists.